Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditFor those concerned about human rights, it's easy to see why undocumented immigrants in the United States need legal protection. But it's still a challenge to make the case for immigrants' rights to working and middle-class Americans, apprehensive that illegal immigrants are taking their jobs and driving down wages.
Polls suggest that voters from low- and middle-income households are more likely to express anti-immigrant attitudes. The outrageously harsh Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act, passed by the House in December, shows how ready legislators are to exploit these fears.
A new report by the Drum Major Institute for Public Policy attempts to turn the conversation on its head with a well-documented report arguing that protecting immigrants' rights in the workplace benefits all middle-class and aspiring middle-class Americans.
Drawing on a broad range of empirical studies and economic analyses, the report makes the case that it is not undocumented immigrants' presence in the US labor market that harms American workers, but rather it is the immigrants' disempowerment in the workplace, stemming from employers' ability to threaten deportation, that is a danger to US workers. "When immigrants lack rights in the workplace," the report contends, "labor standards are driven down, and all working people have less opportunity to enter or remain part of the middle class. So a pro-middle class immigration policy must guarantee immigrants full labor rights and make sure that employers cannot use deportation as a coercive tool in the labor market" to drive down the wages of all workers.
The assumption that policy should strengthen the rights of immigrants in the workplace forms one half of the Drum Major Institute's middle-class litmus test for evaluating immigration policy. The other half of the test holds that "because the American middle class relies on the economic contributions of immigrants…immigration policy should bolster-not undermine-the critical contribution that immigrants make to our economy as workers, entrepreneurs, taxpayers, and consumers." That means mass deportations and attempts to cut off future immigration are out.
Ultimately, the test is applied to three of the most prominent immigration bills currently before Congress, from the Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act to the more reasonable Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act sponsored by Senators John McCain and Ted Kennedy. While McCain/Kennedy is the best of the pack, and the New American Opportunity Campaign is doing good work in support of it, all of these bills fall short in promoting a truly enlightened policy on immigration. It will be up to activists and engaged citizens to demand an immigration policy that reflects the interests of the majority of Americans. Click here to check out and circulate its full report today.
Share this article
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
Only Katrina would be in favor of giving someone who isn't even a citizen their own rights. Rights Rights Rights-The VandenHeuval Rights Manufacturing Co. Keep cranking 'em out Kat. Why she's created more "rights" than the original Constitution!
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 01/18/2006 @ 12:30pm
Here is more of KVH's global socialism at it's height of absurdity.
According to KVH, people who break the law by entering this country illegally should be empowered with all the rights and protections of US citizens and legal aliens.
But she thinks the Bush Admin is corrupt for their interpretation of laws while promoting massive lawbreaking by millions of people.
KVH, you are a hypocrite!
Posted by love liberty at 01/18/2006 @ 12:44pm
LOVE LIBERTY and friends, no amount of fencing, border patrols, and amateur Minutemen is ever going to stop illegal immigration. So stop using it make yourselves sound principled. What are you going to actually DO about it? Do you have any ideas about how to make the situation work for American citizens, instead of against us, which is the point of Katrina's post that you entirely missed?
I suggest you start by observing that people who are motivated to cross a border into a foreign land in order to build a better life are just the kind of people who built this nation. Let that sink in and then see if you can come with something useful.
Posted by MyParadigm at 01/18/2006 @ 1:01pm
You know, Loveliberty, I daresay we pissed this old boy off!
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 01/18/2006 @ 1:05pm
I agree with the opinions of CT and LL.
However, is there a link to these immigration acts to determine for ourselves just how "outrageously harsh" or "reasonable" they are?
Posted by usc1 at 01/18/2006 @ 1:05pm
Immigrat ion Act [judiciary.house.gov]
Posted by MyParadigm at 01/18/2006 @ 1:16pm
For the left-wing summary, go to:
Human Rights Watch [hrw.org]
I leave it to others to provide the red state rebuttal.
Posted by MyParadigm at 01/18/2006 @ 1:26pm
Posted by MYPARADIGM 01/18/2006 @ 1:01pm |
Most Immigrants , whether legal or not, appear to be upstanding people who have a work ethic that is unrivaled. The USA, however,has to devise some sensible method to ensure we know exactly who is coming in this country. It is vital to our national security. Whether or not this legislation plays upon these fears is rightfully debateable, but the need to control our borders is so urgent that it may be prudent to err on the side of caution.
Posted by dscott at 01/18/2006 @ 1:41pm
I suggest you start by observing that people who are motivated to cross a border into a foreign land in order to build a better life are just the kind of people who built this nation. Let that sink in and then see if you can come with something useful.
Posted by MYPARADIGM 01/18/2006 @ 1:01pm
Myparadigm,
Rather than address the central issue, you postulate that 1) we cannot stop illegal immigration, so why bother, 2)since they just want jobs and legal immigration built this country we should honor their breaking the law.
The fact is that we do not elevate lawbreaking into equal status with those who obey the law. If we were to use the logic of KVH and yourself, we should just eliminate all immigration laws and make it open borders...oh that's right; that's what KVH and all the globalists want.
We do need more personnel on the borders, we need to fully implement the drone program that has started, and we need to continue the fence program that will cover the California border and expand the program into AZ, NM, and Texas. We need to encourage even great cooperation with the Canadien Govt on border enforcement.
What we should not do is treat illegal aliens as equal rights persons for labor laws, immigration, schooling, medical care, etc.
I would contend that rather than missing KVH's point, I understand it completely and disagree vehemently with her contention.
Giving illegal aliens equal rights does not benefit middle class Americans. Instead it drains tax dollars and prevents lower income Americans, including African Americans from access to jobs that the market demand would otherwise lure through higher pay (due to demand).
One example of the tax drain is in Los Angeles County where 80% of newborn deliveries at county medical facilities are to illegal aliens (according to LA County reports).
Of even more concern is that approximately 50% of all wage earnings by Mexican citizens working in the US are sent back to Mexico rather than adding to the US economy. Money sent back to Mexico was 3.7 billion in 1995 and 2004 totalled 16.6 billion thanks to Fox's program promoting Mexicans to grow the Mexican economy via this illegal method.
There is an excellent paper produced at UC Berkely (of all places) providing an indepth analysis of this issue.
http://www.polisci.berkeley.edu/grad/GradConference/papers/2005/deGraauw .pdf
Posted by love liberty at 01/18/2006 @ 1:53pm
Someone....a former Vice President I think...just a few days ago said...
"Vigilant adherence to the rule of law is essential to our democracy"
I wonder if he or Ms vanden Heuval would apply that to our immigration laws and those that break them?
Posted by Mask at 01/18/2006 @ 2:07pm
BTW to all the liberal bloggers defending illegal aliens:
I thought you were all such sticklers for the rule of law? Why does someone who breaks the law to enter the US deserving of rights and privileges?
Posted by love liberty at 01/18/2006 @ 2:08pm
What's up with your completely hateful attitude towards people here out of status?
Posted by ZERO 01/18/2006 @ 2:07pm
Zero,
Wow, I haven't seen the word plutocracy used in years. I thought Marx and Lenin were dead?
I don't hate these people. What I want is for people to obey the law. You should not be rewarded for breaking the law. Even worse, we cannot let a foreign government control our even a portion of our economy by promoting illegal activity as Fox is doing in Mexico. His purpose is to drain US dollars back into Mexico and according to the data in my previous post (from the Bank of Mexico), he is succeeding quite nicely.
If there is such the demand as you cite, then we should expand the yearly immigration levels. But I contend that many Americans that you and other liberals constantly argue are not receiving the jobs and income they deserve would be better served by less immigration which would drive up job demand, which also drives up wages and benefits. That is the historical model in this country and even with outsourcing, will not go away.
Posted by love liberty at 01/18/2006 @ 2:15pm
Zero,
This is not about someone who overstays their visa and forgets to renew it. This is about the approximately 3 million illegal border crossers each year who are draining the American economy and denying US citizens and legal immigrants access to jobs.
Posted by love liberty at 01/18/2006 @ 2:17pm
Posted by ZERO 01/18/2006 @ 2:10pm
So, ZERO, that line cook just "tripped" over the Rio Grande and "fell" into Texas....then "kinda forgot" that he was here illegally?
Tell ya what, let's give that guy the benefit of the doubt?....and we'll give Bush it too?
No?
Posted by Mask at 01/18/2006 @ 2:17pm
Zero,
Based upoon your comments so far, why don't you just declare openly that you are for open borders and quit hiding behind fallacious reasoning?
Posted by love liberty at 01/18/2006 @ 2:18pm
LOVE LIBERTY
THIS...is why immigration policy will probably be a failure forever.
The Business Right wants it left open for cheap labor. The Left wants the border thrown open, as part of their world-wide welfare plan (paid for by the US of course). And Democrats want those here to become union members, to line the coffers of the DNC.
Only thing opposing these three are: The racists (Dem AND Repub) who hate Latinos....those honestly concerned with legal immigration...and some social liberal Dems who worry about a few million "pro-life, socially conservative" Catholics getting their voting rights.....and the latter two will get lumped in with the first, for even RAISING the issue. (Stand by for that!)
Posted by Mask at 01/18/2006 @ 2:23pm
Zero,
Again, I am not referencing my arguments about someone who overstays their visa. That is an unrelated subject and your continued attempts to link me with it is pure garbage and beneath your usual capabilities.
It is infantile to suggest that I have a pathological hatred of someone because I insist they enter the country according to our laws. If you enter the country illegally you do not enjoy the same rights and privileges of US citizens and legal immigrants. Such persons only deserve due process to deport you (unless requested and approved as a legitimate refugee) and that it be conducted according to our laws, and respecting people as human beings. Your view represents a complete lack of respect for both the laws of the US and those who are engaged in asking their government to enforce those laws.
Posted by love liberty at 01/18/2006 @ 2:52pm
And if you are complaining about currency going into Mexico, please tell me how it is you have so supported domestic economic policies emerging from the Republican caucus and spearheaded by the White House that have placed huge amounts of currency, certainly amounts that dwarf any currency removed to little Mexico, into the control of for example the Second Largest Holder of US Debt in the World, the national (government) bank of the People's Republic of China.
Posted by ZERO 01/18/2006 @ 2:35pm
Zero,
Were you equally aggravated during the 70's, 80's, and 90's, when Japan, Great Britain, and Belgium were the biggest investors in buying up US bonds, dollars, and property?
Posted by love liberty at 01/18/2006 @ 2:54pm
So Zero,
What kind of exploited worker are you? If so, why do you put up with it?
When does the revolution begin, by the way?
Posted by love liberty at 01/18/2006 @ 2:56pm
Posted by ZERO 01/18/2006 @ 2:25pm
Oh, come on, ZERO....atleast explain how that poor line cook, who "forgot" his visa was up (or "forgot" that he didn't HAVE one)....had his "accident" where he was minding his own business, as a law-abidiing citizen of some OTHER country and ended up in ours without any process or documentation?
Posted by Mask at 01/18/2006 @ 3:03pm
Zero,
I don't remember from previous conversations, but are you a dedicated socialist? Your dialogue today is typical of that from the Democratic Socialist Party:
DSA's political perspective is called Where We Stand. It says, in part,
We are socialists because we reject an international economic order sustained by private profit, alienated labor, race and gender discrimination, environmental destruction, and brutality and violence in defense of the status quo.
We are socialists because we share a vision of a humane international social order based both on democratic planning and market mechanisms to achieve equitable distribution of resources, meaningful work, a healthy environment, sustainable growth, gender and racial equality, and non-oppressive relationships.
And this little ditty seems to echo your opinion about today's businesses.
The Capitalist Marketplace As democratic socialists we are committed to ensuring that any market is the servant of the public good and not its master. Liberty, equality, and solidarity will require not only democratic control over economic life, but also a progressively financed, decentralized, and quality public sector. Free markets or private charity cannot provide adequate public goods and services.
Transnational corporate domination does not result merely from the operation of a pure market,but from conscious government actions, from tax policy to deregulation, that structure the economy in the interest of corporate power. The capitalist market economy not only suppresses global living standards, but also means chronic underfunding of socially necessary public goods,from research and development to preventive health care and job training.
The market and its ideology is rife with internal contradictions. While capitalists abhor public planning as inefficient and counter productive, transnational corporations make decisions with tremendous social consequences, including automation, plant shutdowns and relocations, mergers and acquisitions, new investment and disinvestment--all without democratic input. They also engage in unrelenting efforts to control the market, even through illegal means such as price fixing,antitrust violations, and other collusion.
Sure sounds a lot like you Zero!
Posted by love liberty at 01/18/2006 @ 3:05pm
BTW, anyone else re-read Ms vanden Heuval's article and not find ONE mention of ANY policy she'd recommend to "tighten" or even close the border....just what she wants to give away.
Posted by Mask at 01/18/2006 @ 3:05pm
What must lurk behind these knee-jerk responses from the righties posting here is the notion that illegal aliens are lining up for welfare checks, free medicine, etc. If they're sending money home, where did it come from - robbing banks? Let's agree that for the most part they're here for the jobs, so... they provide their services for money, they spend some of the money here in the US and repatriate the rest. How is our economy harmed? Is unemployment higher than it would otherwise be? I'd guess that the main impact is that we're paying less for agricultural products, meals in restaurants, landscaping, roofing, etc. because of immigrant workers, legal and otherwise.
If you're so charged up about the lawbreaking, then why haven't you seemed as concerned about apparent crimes that have a much broader impact? Why does your love for the rule of law seem to have such a narrow focus? Talk about hypocrisy!
Posted by Fishbite at 01/18/2006 @ 3:13pm
ZERO, excellent insight into just one instance of how our ruling party completely avoids addressing an issue because the problem gets them more votes than the solution would.
MASK, ever work in a restaurant? Real undocumented workers outside of your fantasy world are acutely aware of their status. And almost pathologically unwilling to jeopardize it by taking advantage of the the "system".
Posted by MyParadigm at 01/18/2006 @ 3:13pm
Does anyone see anything inconsistent in our generous gift of democracy to Iraqis and our demonizing of illegal immigrants at home?
Posted by Fishbite at 01/18/2006 @ 3:15pm
.
Katrina vanden Heuvel is the epitome of dishonesty and hypocrisy. Her call to people "concerned about human rights" is impudent. She sides with an insurgency that fights human rights. She urges non-resistance to Resisters who who machine gun voters and consider religious toleration and free speech wicked. She has about as much right to speak for human rights as she has to speak for the poor whose also undermines when she does not ignore them. Like all too many lefties she is a phony, a poseur. She is intolerant of the religious, she is blind to the suffering of blacks (in Darfur), she is indifferent to human beings who want the right speak and vote and believe. Her politics bring real pain, injustice and death to the defenseless, the persecuted, the poor.
Now she holds forth on how the breakers of immigration laws need to be secured and shielded. She confuses the issue of lawful immigrants indisputably entitled to every legal protection, with intruders into the US who have as much right to have their trespass protected as has a bank-robber cleaning out a bank vault.
Of course, working class Americans are more hostile to illegal immigrants who take their jobs, than are limousine radicals for whom illegal immigrants are a cause. Who needs a poll to know that? Bubble heads like KHV ever "turn the conversation on its head". It is part of a habit of instinctively supporting Saddam against Bush, of criminals against the police, of insurgent against the US military, of terrorists against the war on terror.
And then the Left wonders why the country is moving right.
.
Posted by nacl at 01/18/2006 @ 3:15pm
.
You are blind to the inconsistency of supporting an anti democratic insurgency in Iraq that machine guns lawful voters and denies citizens their basic rights, while at the same time insisting on the protection of a right to break into the United States and violate her laws.
.
Posted by nacl at 01/18/2006 @ 3:28pm
uh, i'm still waiting: what makes non-citizens who are here out of status deserve less in terms of rights than convicted mass murderers and the like?
Zero,
That argument is a canard. Someone who is here illegally is extended all the rights including due process in accordance with the constitution. What you confuse with their constitutional rights under the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th amendments, is the awarding them of the privileges accorded to citizens and legal resident aliens.
When you come up with a legal argument for someone to break the law and be accorded the privileges of citizens and legal resident aliens, you will have an argument that merits respect.
Posted by love liberty at 01/18/2006 @ 3:30pm
We do need more personnel on the borders, we need to fully implement the drone program that has started, and we need to continue the fence program that will cover the California border and expand the program into AZ, NM, and Texas. We need to encourage even great cooperation with the Canadien Govt on border enforcement.
Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 01/18/2006 @ 1:53pm
Yeah baby, let's put it all on the credit card
Somebody will pay for it
someday
Posted by Will C. at 01/18/2006 @ 3:31pm
So I guess we need to call VP Gore and inform him that..."vigilant adherence to the rule of law is essential to our democracy"...
doesn't apply to "benign crimes" like coming here illegally (while 1000s from non-neighboring countries OBEY THE LAW and do their paperwork and studies).
Tell ya what....want ANOTHER deal? How about we let YOU GUYS impeach Bush for his crimes, and he gets the appropriate punishment....and we get to punish those who violated the "benign crimes" and deal out an appropriate punishment?
It'd prove BOTH sides aren't hypocrites, eh?
Posted by Mask at 01/18/2006 @ 3:32pm
I wonder if he or Ms vanden Heuval would apply that to our immigration laws and those that break them?
Posted by MASK 01/18/2006 @ 2:07pm
I hope Katrina does because old Gee Dubya sure doesn't. Five years with the strong on national security crowd running the country and terrorists can get across our borders as easily as you or I can go on a sunday picnic.
and it sure is a nice day for a hike
Posted by Will C. at 01/18/2006 @ 3:35pm
I thought you were all such sticklers for the rule of law? Why does someone who breaks the law to enter the US deserving of rights and privileges?
Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 01/18/2006 @ 2:08pm
For the same reason that those of us already in country who break the law get rights and privileges. We're people and we're here.
But Liberty, I keep forgetting that you're an Anti-Christian. When we fuck the least of us, we fuck Jesus.
And that's OK by you
Posted by Will C. at 01/18/2006 @ 3:40pm
If there is such the demand as you cite, then we should expand the yearly immigration levels. But I contend that many Americans that you and other liberals constantly argue are not receiving the jobs and income they deserve would be better served by less immigration which would drive up job demand, which also drives up wages and benefits. That is the historical model in this country and even with outsourcing, will not go away.
Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 01/18/2006 @ 2:15pm
And once again you are intentionally confusing a desire for justice for the people in this country, regardless of their immigration status, with some blanket desire to open our borders to anyone.
Sorry chuckles, it doesn't work that way. The people who are on our side of the border deserve American justice and the people on the other side of the border need to go through an enforceable entry process.
But you oppose the first because you like hurting people and you oppose the second because it costs money and may increase the size of some unions.
So I guess nothing is going to happen.
Until we get rid of you.
Posted by Will C. at 01/18/2006 @ 3:51pm
A fascinating bunch, these libertarians. People shouldn't be able to travel over borders freely, but property and goods should. And yet it's people who add value to property and goods.
Ah, yes, one wall comes down in one part of the world, and people start arguing to throw up another. Sounds civilized to me.
Posted by bkarloff at 01/18/2006 @ 3:52pm
So I guess we need to call VP Gore and inform him that..."vigilant adherence to the rule of law is essential to our democracy"...
Posted by MASK 01/18/2006 @ 3:32pm
I'd say we call the whitehouse first. Those are the boys charged with enforcing our laws.
Do they do a shitty job or do they just do a shitty job.
Posted by Will C. at 01/18/2006 @ 3:55pm
WILL.....agreed. Bush and Co sold out on immigration just as much as the Dems did.
Like I said though, first person to "get tough" on it....gets slapped with "racist" AND loses a hunk of agri-business donations!
Posted by Mask at 01/18/2006 @ 3:57pm
It'd prove BOTH sides aren't hypocrites, eh?
Posted by MASK 01/18/2006 @ 3:32pm
Both sides?
only one side is running the country.
It's all about you baby
Posted by Will C. at 01/18/2006 @ 3:58pm
Posted by BKARLOFF 01/18/2006 @ 3:52pm
So, Boris....no borders on countries?...everybody a citizen of every country?...freely walk in and walk out, no checks, no paperwork?
Okay....well, we'll sure have fun taking advantage of that Canadian "free health care" system and letting the Canadians pay for it. And might as well let those Al Queda guys there'll be no more pesky FBI background checks or even PASSPORTS to worry about!
Fascinating bunch these "40s monster movie stars"...heart as all outdoors, but not a bit of brain in their poor ol' heads.
Posted by Mask at 01/18/2006 @ 4:01pm
Like I said though, first person to "get tough" on it....gets slapped with "racist" AND loses a hunk of agri-business donations!
Posted by MASK 01/18/2006 @ 3:57pm
Bull shit.
First person to get tough on it loses the support of all thoses rice little white boys who are using daddy's money to bankroll their business.
They love illegal imigration.
Cheap labor
No benifits.
and if the worker gets killed the family is south of the border somewhere and can't sue
yeah baby, it is a match made in hell.
Posted by Will C. at 01/18/2006 @ 4:02pm
LL argues that Mexico is, through illegal immigrants, draining the U.S. money. Do you not care, then, that H1Bs (quite legal) do the same thing, only with greater money per person?
H1Bs actually hurt our wages even more than illegal immigrants. They're a typical capitalist ploy to increase profits at the expense of employees and to hold wages and benefits down.
Posted by adr at 01/18/2006 @ 4:03pm
But you oppose the first because you like hurting people and you oppose the second because it costs money and may increase the size of some unions.
So I guess nothing is going to happen.
Until we get rid of you.
Posted by WILL C. 01/18/2006 @ 3:51pm
Will C,
Occasionally you display flashes of intelligent thought, but here as in most instances, you spew ad hominem attacks rather than discuss the issues.
Or you make equally inane statements like a previous post when you respond to my suggestions for controlling the borders by the "put it on the credit card" statement. That implied that you would rather do nothing to resolve the issue, just complain about those who suggest solutions.
Posted by love liberty at 01/18/2006 @ 4:03pm
Posted by WILL C. 01/18/2006 @ 3:58pm
Looking for "tightened borders"....when we get that "progressive" Congress and White House?
Posted by Mask at 01/18/2006 @ 4:03pm
rice little white boys
correction... rich little white boys
Posted by Will C. at 01/18/2006 @ 4:03pm
Looking for "tightened borders"....when we get that "progressive" Congress and White House?
Posted by MASK 01/18/2006 @ 4:03pm
absolutly
providing for the common defense is a core component in the liberal agenda
Posted by Will C. at 01/18/2006 @ 4:05pm
Posted by ZERO 01/18/2006 @ 4:04pm
But...he's not for "open borders".....just "non-closed ones".
Posted by Mask at 01/18/2006 @ 4:05pm
Posted by WILL C. 01/18/2006 @ 4:05pm
Then, WILL, you're in for a BIG shock....look at your buds, ZERO and BKARLOFF, the impetus for a tightened border may resonate LESS on the Right....but it's NON-EXISTANT on the Left.
Go ahead...lay out your "More Secure Border" Plan...and see how THEY respond!
Posted by Mask at 01/18/2006 @ 4:07pm
Occasionally you display flashes of intelligent thought, but here as in most instances, you spew ad hominem attacks rather than discuss the issues.
Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 01/18/2006 @ 4:03pm
sorry bubbles, you're going to have to decide if you are focused on the world or if you are focus on the christ.
From where I'm sitting it looks like the world won out on this issue.
Keep hurting people baby,
Jesus feels the pain
Posted by Will C. at 01/18/2006 @ 4:09pm
Then, WILL, you're in for a BIG shock....look at your buds, ZERO and BKARLOFF, the impetus for a tightened border may resonate LESS on the Right....but it's NON-EXISTANT on the Left.
Posted by MASK 01/18/2006 @ 4:07pm
I'm on the left.
I exist
Posted by Will C. at 01/18/2006 @ 4:10pm
Typically, people are responding with non-sequiturs. Turning someone's statement into something obviously not intended is just poor logic.
Saying that you can't stop illegal immigration doesn't necessarily mean you shouldn't try.
Suggesting that an illegal immigrant should have rights that we, as a nation, would grant to any human being doesn't mean that we're granting wholesale rights to law breakers.
Here, in Southern California, the economy runs off of Mexican immigrants, legal and illegal. Some illegals snuck across the border (at great risk to life and limb). Some overstayed their visas or subverted them. Still, they keep our economy going.
If a Mexican is willing to risk his (usually a man in this case) life to get across the border, then the rewards for success must be really large, like saving the lives of his family. That's how the money ends up in Mexico and saves those family members.
I don't see this issue as one of right vs. left. It's a tough issue. However, the report that KVH cites indicates that the solution may not be difficult to reach as previously thought.
Posted by adr at 01/18/2006 @ 4:14pm
Or you make equally inane statements like a previous post when you respond to my suggestions for controlling the borders by the "put it on the credit card" statement. That implied that you would rather do nothing to resolve the issue, just complain about those who suggest solutions.
Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 01/18/2006 @ 4:03pm
God are you ignorent. I favor quadrupling the border patrol, stringing FLIR towers linked to a central control facility along the border, having dedicated aircraft to pick up detained illegals from local police stations anywhere in America with a two day turn around and and a just and compassionate legal system that can repatriate illigals to their home country.
But that all requires a tax and spend political reality.
anybody here for higher taxes?
you're not
Posted by Will C. at 01/18/2006 @ 4:16pm
How much does the current Administration care about our borders and safety in general?
GWB appointed a 36 year old lawyer with no qualifications to head the Immigration and Customs Enforcement section of Homeland Security. Her name is Julie L. Myers and her qualification is that she is the niece of General Richard Myers.
It should be noted that the appointment had to be made in reccess since the Republican controlled Senate was never going to approve anyone so unqualified after the Michael Brown disaster.
If there is a single GWB apologist that thinks that this cronyistic administration puts borders or the safety of the American people above making a pals niece happy I'd like to see their logic.
Posted by freedomplease at 01/18/2006 @ 4:18pm
LL argues that Mexico is, through illegal immigrants, draining the U.S. money. Do you not care, then, that H1Bs (quite legal) do the same thing, only with greater money per person?
H1Bs actually hurt our wages even more than illegal immigrants. They're a typical capitalist ploy to increase profits at the expense of employees and to hold wages and benefits down.
Posted by ADR 01/18/2006 @ 4:03pm
ADR,
Actually I believe the H1Bs program has been terribly abused. I have no disagreement there. But it still pales in comparison the illegal alien problem.
As of 2005, quotas for H1Bs has been reduced (including special allocation for Australians) to 90,000 per year. Based upon the requirements for a maximum of 6 year stay, you have a floating max of about 4.5 million.
We have estimates of the number of illegals ranging from a low of 11 million to about 18 million. Approximately 3 million people, or 10% of the California population according to the Pew Research Institute are illegal aliens. Of that, roughly 80% are living in Southern California. Anyone who has not been out here cannot begin to grasp the enormity of this problem.
Posted by love liberty at 01/18/2006 @ 4:20pm
It seems to me that if you want to stop illegal immigration, it is being looked at from the wrong end. Rather than finding ways of punishing immigrants, doesn't it make more sense to make employing of such immigrants illegal (assuming it isn't already), with some hefty penalties, then actively enforcing those laws? If no-one wants to employ illegal immigrants, there isn't going to be much illegal immigration.
As it is, the shameful situation is that in some places the economy depends on the immigrants for things like crop harvesting and building (so lots of people don't want to try _too_ hard to stop it), while denying those same immigrants fair wages and working conditions. That is exploitative.
Posted by RoyW at 01/18/2006 @ 4:21pm
But Will,
At least I can spell ignorant!
And no it doesn't require a tax and spend political reality. It means ceasing to fund programs that Congress has no business funding like education, welfare, and other social spending boondoggles, and spending it on constitutionally required issues like controlling the borders.
Posted by love liberty at 01/18/2006 @ 4:23pm
Royw,
I agree on the enforcement against employers.
Posted by love liberty at 01/18/2006 @ 4:24pm
At least I can spell ignorant!
And no it doesn't require a tax and spend political reality. It means ceasing to fund programs that Congress has no business funding like education, welfare, and other social spending boondoggles, and spending it on constitutionally required issues like controlling the borders.
Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 01/18/2006 @ 4:23pm
There you go hurting people again. You boys can never inflict enough pain. But hey, more starving people means more excuses to fire up the HEMI and distribute a little cheer. See how that works. (Ha Ha)
Promoting the general welfare is another core componenet to the liberal agenda, it's also a core componenet to Christs agenda.
You anti-chritians of course are free to do what you want (God gave you the freedom of choice) but, I think I'll stick with my boy Jesus on this one.
Posted by Will C. at 01/18/2006 @ 4:30pm
.
That is introducing a new subject. Asylum seekers do not slip into the country illegally. If they do they injure their right to asylum. To have a valid claim they must present themselves at the border, at the airport or seaport, and declare themselves political refugees and request asylum. Then they are permitted temporary entry while their application is examined. If they are found not to be genuine they are deported. If they are deemed in real need of asylum they are allowed to remain until the politics in their country change. Such people are therefore legal residents and fully documented. They follow the rules.
But you Zero, don't follow the rules. You don't speak to the facts. Instead you twist and distort and lie.
.
.
Posted by nacl at 01/18/2006 @ 4:30pm
dear god save us from your most devout adherents
Posted by ZERO 01/18/2006 @ 4:28pm
Zero,
You honestly think that upholding the sovereignty of the nations borders as required by the constitution is not a priority of this nation or for that matter, any nation?
Posted by love liberty at 01/18/2006 @ 4:39pm
LL, Rio, CPT, JM, et al,
You cannot possibly carry on with your positions on this issue until you rectify the actual facts.
How much does the current Administration care about our borders and safety in general?
GWB appointed a 36 year old lawyer with no qualifications to head the Immigration and Customs Enforcement section of Homeland Security. Her name is Julie L. Myers and her qualification is that she is the niece of General Richard Myers.
It should be noted that the appointment had to be made in reccess since the Republican controlled Senate was never going to approve anyone so unqualified after the Michael Brown disaster.
If there is a single GWB apologist that thinks that this cronyistic administration puts borders or the safety of the American people above making a pals niece happy I'd like to see their logic.
Posted by freedomplease at 01/18/2006 @ 4:40pm
Those who are so offended by the existance of illegal immigrants in this country need to question what it is that's really offending them. There would be no illegal aliens here if there were not those willing to hire or exploit them in the first place. If you want illegals to leave, attack those who give them the opportunity. Truth is, illegals have never stolen any job from anyone, they were given the job because they were willing to work for almost nothing, whereas you and I would have demanded benefits, quarterly raises, 401k plans. Historically, if those employers would have hired you and I instead, they would probably have gone broke and never thrived the way they did, and neither would our great nation.
And for all those born in America who are still so offended, what did they ever do to attain these rights and priveleges in the first palce, other than being born. Where does their superiority complex come from? They are priveleged because of the struggle and sacrafice of thier ancestors who made it possible for them to be here. Is that it? But most likely, if I ask them about other things that thier forefathers and mothers might have done and believed, then their reactions always seem to be "wait, what my ancestors believed has nothing to do with me". Can we just pick and choose what we take responsibility for, as far as history is concerned. Take what benefits us, and deny what makes us look bad. Sounds like any history book you'll find in any high school. God bless America.
Posted by stupidliberal at 01/18/2006 @ 4:42pm
Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 01/18/2006 @ 4:40pm
Freedom
You can repeat that as many times as you want. It's all Bill Clintons fault.
Personal accountability stops at the door to the Republican Party
Posted by Will C. at 01/18/2006 @ 4:43pm
(and believe it or not LL many of the people you call "Mexicans" because they cross over that border are, in fact, not citizens of Mexico. there is more south of the southern US border than Mexico.)
Posted by ZERO 01/18/2006 @ 4:32pm
Zero,
Of course I know that. But according to the research the vast majority are from Mexico.
BTW, given my marriage into a Latin family, I have a great deal of familiarity with this issue. Most of my wifes relatives, and overwhelmingly most of my Hispanic friends have feelings that are similar if not stronger than mine. Those with stronger feelings believe that their opportunities are jeopardized by the illegals and get even more vocal than I do.
In fact, prior to my marriage, I leaned as a libertarian more towards open borders than I do now. But as the numbers have mushroomed dramatically and through the years of marriage linking me with the latin culture here, my views have changed.
Mexicans by far remain the largest group of undocumented migrants at 5.9 million, or about 57 percent of the March 2004 estimate. Some 2.5 million others, or 24 percent, are from other Latin American countries.
Overall, the U.S. foreign-born population, regardless of legal status, was 35.7 million last year. Those of Mexican descent again comprised the largest group - more than 11 million, or 32 percent.
Posted by love liberty at 01/18/2006 @ 4:45pm
Zero,
I'll take Jesus over me any day also.
Posted by love liberty at 01/18/2006 @ 4:46pm
Will,
The point is if these raving lunatics actually wanted fairly secure borders they would be hollering for the removal of GWB as he obviously could give a toss about secure borders judging by his love of Dick's niece who's probably "doin' a heck of a job"
Posted by freedomplease at 01/18/2006 @ 4:51pm
Freedomplease,
I have criticized Bush on the border issue on several occasions here, and constantly in my day to day life. But the Democrats in Congress have consistently opposed any meaningful expenditures for border control (and many of the Republicans are no better).
I have addressed the Myers appt on a previous occasion but I will repeat my contention; she will make little difference positive or negative on immigration. Her position is entirely bureaucratic and lacks the opportunity for dramatic effect positive or negative as did the Michael Brown situation. (BTW, more and more evidence is surfacing proving the contention of conservatives like myself that the LA and NO officials are primarily at fault for what happened in NO). What is required is a strong stance by the President and both sides of Congress.
Posted by love liberty at 01/18/2006 @ 4:52pm
LL,
She is the Head of Immigration and customs ENFORCEMENT.
You are deluding yourself if you think it is a corner office job without responsiblity.
It is THE responsibility in this instance. In fact it is so important that Republicans in the Senate quietly said "it is too important a position for someone so unqualified"
Again you are making excuses for something completely inexcusable.
ADMIT IT: YOUR PRESIDENT IS AN ABJECT FAILURE IN EVERYTHING.
Posted by freedomplease at 01/18/2006 @ 4:59pm
I'll take Jesus over me any day also.
=) I liked that.
So you support our Republican ruling class. I was take aback by the stats on the proportion of illegals is So. California - what is it then, 20% maybe? Surprise to me but not, I hope, to the authorities. So what are they doing? Because if it's ship 'em back home and, unless there's some magical way of securing the border, repeat the process until we run out of enforcement money - I can't support that.
There must be some way that allows for the reality of the situation, that our country is a magnet for opportunity seekers and they will continue to come until some kind of saturation point is reached.
There will be a border security component. But the bulk of solution will be in employment policy.
Posted by MyParadigm at 01/18/2006 @ 5:02pm
A couple of I left out of my earlier post (about punishing employers of illegal immigrants).
- I would not advocate punishing someone employing immigrants at the expense of also making sure that any laws about working conditions, minuimum wage, etc. apply to immigrants. If someone is employing illegal immigrants and paying them less than minimum wage, that's _two_ crimes.
- I'd also expect that if such a course of action was taken and prevented most immigration, that the extent of dependence on such labour would become obvious. Perhaps that would provide a good starting point for trying to find some sort of sensible policy.
Posted by RoyW at 01/18/2006 @ 5:16pm
There must be some way that allows for the reality of the situation, that our country is a magnet for opportunity seekers and they will continue to come until some kind of saturation point is reached.
Posted by MYPARADIGM 01/18/2006 @ 5:02pm
The easiest way would be to raise the minimum wage to a dollar figure that is equal to the average income.
I'd pick fruit, cut grass and clean shitters for 15 bucks an hour.
Oops, along with additional taxing and spending, can't do that either. The republicans will blow a head gasket.
think there's any room left on the credit card?
Posted by Will C. at 01/18/2006 @ 5:24pm
As an immigrant and an economist, i have two conflicting feelings. As an immigrant I have had to jump through numerous hoops to be here legally so from a selfish point of view i don't appreciate someone essentially jumping in front of the line. As an economist i realize that there is a global market for labour and like any resource, it will flow from areas where there is an oversupply (developing world) to a place where there is more demand (wo(developed world). This is a fact of life.
From reading all these posts I have noticed that there are 2 camps: 1) law-and-order types and 2) we are all human types. The former always understate the benefits that immigration (both legal and illegal) bring to a country and just focus on the costs while the latter tend to be the same people who are against outsourcing not realizing (or ignoring) the fact illegal immigration is a way of outsourcing jobs.
I hope that in 10-20 years labour restraints accross the globe will be removed and competition for jobs will become even more fierce. A person in TX will be competing not only with a person from CA but also with someone from India, China or Timbuktu for all jobs. For some reason though I have a feeling that if one was to visit this forum then, they will find more consesus i.e. most will become "law and order" types as more middle class jobs are threatened
Posted by king_of_tz at 01/18/2006 @ 5:26pm
I certainly don't want to live like someone in Timbuktu. Or Bangalore.
Posted by ZERO 01/18/2006 @ 5:29pm
You mean to say you don't like bathing in the river and crapping in a hole in the ground.
:)
Posted by Will C. at 01/18/2006 @ 5:36pm
And for all those born in America who are still so offended, what did they ever do to attain these rights and priveleges in the first palce, other than being born. Where does their superiority complex come from?---posted by Stupid Liberals
C.S. Lewis, who is generally admired among Christians, once exposed the whole notion of certain types of "pride" as being little more than excuses for the worst sort of vanity. (I think it was in The Screwtape Letters.) Are you "proud" to be an American? You might as well be proud that your eyes are brown, or that you're right-handed. It has nothing to do with your accomplishments. You did nothing to earn it, and nothing to deserve it.
Furthermore, the right wing has long since been renowned (without having previously been "nowned," I might add) for magical thinking. They've tried it on drugs; naturally they'll try it on immigration. Enforce the borders! That'll stop illegal immigration. Punish addicts by throwing them in jail! That'll stop drug use. Give lots of money in the form of tax breaks to major corporations! They'll use it to hire more workers.
The "war on drugs" analogy is instructive. We'll spend any amount required to incarcerate drug addicts, but we won't pay for treatment. I laughed my ass off when good old Barry McCaffrey said, with a straight face, "Treatment is a revolving door." Yeah, which makes treatment so different from prisons. The right wing claims to pretend that the severe scoldings that major employers receive for hiring illegal workers will be a sufficient deterrent. Again, Right. They also believe that when major corporations are given tax breaks, they spend them on hiring new workers. Again and again, Right. I suppose they are the reality-based party, as long as a firm grasp of reality does not require examining precedent.
Posted by LisaJo at 01/18/2006 @ 5:44pm
Posted by LISAJO 01/18/2006 @ 5:44pm
my favorite is that we can spend our way out of debt.
They call that growth
and in a way it is
the debt keeps getting bigger
Posted by Will C. at 01/18/2006 @ 5:52pm
More on the "pride" issue. Supporters of this administration can frequently be identified by their "Power of Pride" bumper-stickers. I'd really like to know what they're proud of. Is it their lock-step support of anything that Bush and Co. want to do, extra-constitutional or not?
If the Right hadn't already besmirched the notion of American Pride, many on the Left would have a stronger claim to the phrase "Proud to be an American" than the Yes-Men who buy those stickers. The Right would have us believe that unless you're willing to allow the Executive to gut your civil rights, you "hate America." The Right . . . well, I could go on. For one thing, they seem to believe that they will always be in power; either that, or as soon as they're out of power, they'll be able to get back the liberties they're currently so willing to throw away. Again, Right.
Wait, I just got it. Right.
Posted by LisaJo at 01/18/2006 @ 5:54pm
"Power of Pride"
Posted by LISAJO 01/18/2006 @ 5:54pm
Pride is a vice. One of the seven deadlist.
The Power of Pride is the Power of Hell.
And it follows a pale horse.
Perhaps the Anti-christian right is trying to tell us something.
Posted by Will C. at 01/18/2006 @ 6:03pm
there isn't really a big problem with canadians flooding into montana. how much are we going to spend on whatever border solution we come up with. is there any way to help mexico? is this a consideration?
there is a problem seperate from illegal aliens with the borders. homeland security. real homeland security. do we have any of that yet? how about the nuclear plants? oh sorry, george, nucular.
Posted by loveloki at 01/18/2006 @ 6:05pm
Katrina,
"For those concerned about human rights, it's easy to see why undocumented immigrants in the United States need legal protection"
This statement points out clearly the difference between conservatives and liberals.
The platform of liberlism places the HIGHEST priority on the "human rights" due to the person ILLEGALLY living in America. Katrina is worried about the treatment being given to someone who has broken American law and soaking up MY (being a tax paying, law abiding citizen) tax dollars.
Let me fill you in on something Katrina and other liberals; there are many people (which is apparent by the evidence of states with leadership such as this: http://www.azcentral.com/specials/special12/articles/0110gov-stateofthes tate10.html)
Which headlines "Napolitano vows to secure border Speech also touts teacher pay raises, tax cuts
Chip Scutari and Robbie Sherwood The Arizona Republic Jan. 10, 2006 12:00 AM
As 4,000 people rallied for immigrants rights Monday on the Capitol lawn, Democratic Gov. Janet Napolitano vowed to beef up border security and punish companies that intentionally hire undocumented workers."
I care much less as do many millions of Americans about the "civil rights" of criminals than I do my rights as a tax paying, law abiding citizen of the U.S.
Your premise in your first sentence is just wrong Katrina, America won't and don't buy it!
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 01/18/2006 @ 6:08pm
oh and LL, if you're going to become so anal retentive that you point out one misspelled word to will, you better brush up on your grammar skills. cuz they're pretty lacking.
Posted by loveloki at 01/18/2006 @ 6:10pm
The platform of liberlism places the HIGHEST priority on the "human rights" due to the person ILLEGALLY living in America
Todd
Posted by OKSPORTSGUY 01/18/2006 @ 6:08pm
The platform of liberalism places the highest priority on the Human rights on human beings.
it's a God thing
you wouldn't understand
Posted by Will C. at 01/18/2006 @ 6:15pm
Todd is back and, not surprisingly, he gets it wrong. Dear Lord, I wish he'd educate himself.
Please acquaint yourself with Constitutional precendent, Todd. Liberals aren't "making up rights" for illegal immigrants, any more than Liberals are "making up rights" for foreign prisoners held on American soil. Have you ever read anything other than Ann Coulter's "books?"
The U.S. Constitution guarantees all person living in the United States certain fundamental rights including freedom of religion, speech, assembly and privacy; protection from unreasonable searches and seizures; due process and equal protection; and access to counsel, presumption of innocence and a fair, speedy public trial.
You don't like the Constitution (you and George W.), fine. Change it. But don't lie about it.
Posted by LisaJo at 01/18/2006 @ 6:20pm
how about 6 months in jail and a 15 k fine per incident for hiring an undocumented worker. enforce it, and that'll be that.
Posted by dabar at 01/18/2006 @ 6:26pm
Seriously, sometimes I just get so mad. The Constitution explicitly reserves rights for anyone living in this country, without exceptions for "illegals." It had something to do with the whole "Light on a Hill" concept that so-called "Christians" who are really little more than self-interested advocates of . . . well, themselves . . . are more than willing to fling into the fire as soon as the Constitution contradicts their self-interest. GOD.
Posted by LisaJo at 01/18/2006 @ 6:28pm
Zero,
I can see that you are aptly named.
In the end it is in your interest as an American worker that the worker in Timbuktu is able to compete with the worker in TX because that means he has the education and healthcare comparable to the Texan's and he can afford the little trinkets that you make in your corner of the world.
Your assumption that this is a race to the bottom betrays your ignorance. The global economy is not a zero sum game (pun intended) and the only way you keep the Mexicans and other illegal immigrants in their countries is if you remove the differential in economic opportunities between here and there otherwise you will be like the little Dutch boy.
Posted by king_of_tz at 01/18/2006 @ 6:31pm
Seriously, sometimes I just get so mad.
Posted by LISAJO 01/18/2006 @ 6:28pm
Get mad, get up, fight back
This is an election year.
The Battle for America has begun
Posted by Will C. at 01/18/2006 @ 6:31pm
otherwise you will be like the little Dutch boy.
Posted by KING_OF_TZ 01/18/2006 @ 6:31pm
The little dutch bot is sitting in amsterdam smoking some fine weed.
And yes it is a zero sum game (I guess Zero is aptly named. He knew that. You didn't)
Unless you are suggesting that our planet and its resources are limitless.
Posted by Will C. at 01/18/2006 @ 6:34pm
correction... boy
Posted by Will C. at 01/18/2006 @ 6:35pm
Hey NACL- I caught up with your remark: You are blind to the inconsistency of supporting an anti democratic insurgency in Iraq that machine guns lawful voters and denies citizens their basic rights, while at the same time insisting on the protection of a right to break into the United States and violate her laws.
You persist in this wacky inability to distinguish between:
(a) support for the insurgency, and
(b) criticism of US policy
Speaking for myself, I do not support the insurgency. You must be one of those "you're either fer us or agin us" kind of dumbass. Further, I don't know who is advocating that folks have the right to enter the US illegally and then break our laws.
Come on now, ol' grain of salt. It's too easy a game to associate ridiculous untenable positions with your opponents and then attack them for it. Also, it seems like the good ol' USA is doing it's share of machine gunning lawful voters, or dropping bombs on them or whatever. I guess when we deny folks their basic rights (can't have rights when you're dead), we just call that collateral damage, shrug and move on to the next target.
Posted by Fishbite at 01/18/2006 @ 6:37pm
Tz, to you economics is a theory, a conversational game. to a person who's income has been decreasing, both minimum wage and wages in general, this is bloody serious and it may mean their life. you'll need to do better if you want to converse with the grown ups here
Posted by johannesrolf at 01/18/2006 @ 6:38pm
"Katrina is worried about the treatment being given to someone who has broken American law and soaking up MY tax dollars." -- Posted by OKSPORTSGUY 01/18/2006 @ 6:08pm
What exactly is this overwhelming obsession with tax dollars? Is it the new age religion? You sound like you worship your tax dollars. (I don't truly believe you do; you just sound like it.) How about the largest prison population (revolving door prisons) in history soaking up your tax dollars? How about $100 million CEO wages soaking up your purchasing power? How about unimaginable deficits soaking up your ability to plan for the future.
How about a stupid invasion of Iraq eating up your precious tax dollars at a rate that makes our illegal aliens look like child's play? Of course, the Iraqis killed by the tens of thousands aren't tax dollars. So, we won't talk about them!
Speaking of the future, how about a very diminished future because of the real threat of global warming, which GWB will not own up to because of (you guessed it) dollars?
I paid my taxes without such huge grumbling when the tax rates were very much higher.
Posted by adr at 01/18/2006 @ 6:39pm
It is part of a habit of instinctively supporting Saddam against Bush, of criminals against the police, of insurgent against the US military, of terrorists against the war on terror.
And then the Left wonders why the country is moving right.
Posted by NACL 01/18/2006 @ 3:15pm
WTF is that suppossed to mean? Why are all against bushco for saddam, against excessive force or civil rights violations against police, etc.
Why not simply accept, that some are against executive power grabs and bad cops.
There REALLY are shades between plack and white.
Maybe if you opened your eyes a bit wider...i dunno...something...
Eric
Posted by malcontent3 at 01/18/2006 @ 6:40pm
otherwise you will be like the little Dutch boy.--Posted by the guy with the hard name to remember
OK, I'll give you a listen. But you'll have to actually explain your statements. 'Splain away.
Posted by LisaJo at 01/18/2006 @ 6:41pm
Um, just curious. Where is Todd? Off reading a copy of the Constitution? God, I can only hope. I sincerely wish that more people like him would actually study our founding documents (Of course, that would require reading, which might be too much to hope for).
Posted by LisaJo at 01/18/2006 @ 6:44pm
Well then Will C. I guess you should put up the barricades, keep out the foreigners and protect what you have if it's a zero sum game.
The global resources are not limitless but we are far from the limits. The global economy has been averaging 3-4% growth a year for the past 10-years. Harldly a static or shrinking pie.
We can disagree on policies but let's at least agree on a baseline of facts.
Posted by king_of_tz at 01/18/2006 @ 6:46pm
Lisajo,
My point is that any immigration policy that does not address the fact that there is such a difference in economic opportunities between where they are coming from and here, will be like plugging leaks in a dyke wall using your fingers.
Posted by king_of_tz at 01/18/2006 @ 6:49pm
been averaging 3-4% growth a year for the past 10-years. Harldly a static or shrinking pie.
We can disagree on policies but let's at least agree on a baseline of facts.
Posted by KING_OF_TZ 01/18/2006 @ 6:46pm
We have a twelve trillion dollar economy and a eight trillion dollar debt that pays out slightly over six percent interest. The size of the economy is the size of all goods and services to include that interest payment on our debt.
Two thirds of twelve is eight. Two thirds of six is four. Our twelve trillion dollar economy will grow at a minimum of four percent simply because of that debt. And our buying power will shrink at the rate of growth as the value of our currancy deflates in reponse.
Zero sum game.
Lets' play
Posted by Will C. at 01/18/2006 @ 6:54pm
Yea, that's the ticket!
Posted by RIO BRAVO 01/18/2006 @ 6:50pm
Then you've got a ticket to ride
Posted by Will C. at 01/18/2006 @ 6:58pm
It means ceasing to fund programs that Congress has no business funding like education, welfare, and other social spending boondoggles, and spending it on constitutionally required issues like controlling the borders.
Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 01/18/2006 @ 4:23pm
Yea. I'm no expert, but I'm sure that what Jesus would do. Close the schools, stop feeding the poor and building infrastructure/institutions....And go get them Mexicans.
Yea. I'm sure that is it. (Of course, everything konw about Christianity, I learned from Todd and LL.)
Eric
Posted by malcontent3 at 01/18/2006 @ 6:58pm
Johannes,
Not to get personal but I would venture a guess that you are not an immigrant (i apologize if i'm wrong) so for you, immigration is a theory.
Imagine you are a Mexican and you are sitting in Mexico earning $4/day with no prospects for earning much more and a relative in Chicago tells you that they are earning $5/hour. The prospect of imprisonment is not going to keep you from coming over here. Supply and demand.
So let's argue the point that many have made i.e. compel employers to pay higher wages for these jobs. So now, the same worker has the prospect of making $10. Sure there will be more Americans willing to work at those wages but I would bet not enough to keep out most of the people.
This same phenomenon is happening in mid level jobs except here there is no need for the workers to cross borders, they just need a telephone line.
It is the globalization of the labour market.
Posted by king_of_tz at 01/18/2006 @ 7:00pm
he is an immigrant
Posted by loveloki at 01/18/2006 @ 7:07pm
Tz, actually I am an immigrant, a legal immigrant from a time when it was tough to get into the US.
Illegal immigrants often are paid even less than the minimum wage, they can't complain. your points are confusing, I'm not clear exactly what you are advocating.
that illegal immigration depresses wages in general is a fact. the jobs americans won't do are the jobs that don't pay properly that americans won't do.
the job that the illegal immigrant does would also be done by a legal immigrant. I do not favor illegal immigration but support legal immigration
if the laws against hiring illegals is enforced, there will be fewer of them, as there will be fewer jobs open to them.
but let's remember who gains by the status quo, the bosses, and they have Bush in their pocket. that's why he's floating amnesty proposals
Posted by johannesrolf at 01/18/2006 @ 7:11pm
Will C.
Firstly: read my statement, i clearly stated the world economy! Think of the countries of the world like the states of the USA.
Secondly: you are mistaken in your calc of GDP, interest is not included in the calculation of GDP.
Posted by king_of_tz at 01/18/2006 @ 7:13pm
Johannes,
What I'm advocating is increased trade with developed countries, removal of trade barriers, removal of farm subsidies etc etc
My point is that any policy in the US (whether it's amnesty, a wall, shooting them at the border) is not going to be effective in the long run because the incentives for the immigrants are heavily tilted towards coming here.
So get them to stay by making their home countries more economically attractive.
Posted by king_of_tz at 01/18/2006 @ 7:17pm
Btw I too am a legal immigrant and I too had to jump through hoops and so i understand the resentment but for me you have to address the motives of the illegals in order to craft an effective solution.
Posted by king_of_tz at 01/18/2006 @ 7:20pm
Tz, the motive is one only, work. work which is nonexistant in their country of origin, yes often Mexicco but also countries to the south of mexico. this motive is the same with legal or illegal immigrants. my own motives were filial, as I was a teenager then.
your proposals are cliches, I'm not sure what you are trying to add to the discussion
Posted by johannesrolf at 01/18/2006 @ 7:27pm
JR,
Solid points, all,
but you left out politicians...the y Gopers want cheap labor and the Democrats want more votes, as the hispanics tend to favor more hands on government, which seems to be the Dem prgrams.
Posted by john maasch at 01/18/2006 @ 7:30pm
Firstly: read my statement, i clearly stated the world economy! Think of the countries of the world like the states of the USA.
Posted by KING_OF_TZ 01/18/2006 @ 7:13pm
do you really think they do it any differently then we do?
Our standard is the gold standard.
Posted by Will C. at 01/18/2006 @ 7:32pm
Can anyone answer why Mexico, with its huge oil reserves and production remains a poverty stricken mess? With there cash flows they should be developing a serious middle class and social programs up the ying yang. Medical care should be easy for them.
My family works in san Giego hospitals and it is full of people fron Mexico from ER to Maternity...and no papers.The expense is phenominal.
Posted by john maasch at 01/18/2006 @ 7:34pm
Sorry, San Diego,..can't type
Posted by john maasch at 01/18/2006 @ 7:35pm
Secondly: you are mistaken in your calc of GDP, interest is not included in the calculation of GDP.
Posted by KING_OF_TZ 01/18/2006 @ 7:13pm
the ledger sheet contains both assets a liabilities. ACCT 101. but that's not the point. Many things aren't includes in the GDP number.
However my calculation is the only honest calculation. But if you are correct then our bread and butter economy has still been shrinking by one to two percent every year when liabilities are figured in.
But that's easy to explain
It's called outsourcing
Posted by Will C. at 01/18/2006 @ 7:37pm
Can anyone answer why Mexico, with its huge oil reserves and production remains a poverty stricken mess? With there cash flows they should be developing a serious middle class and social programs up the ying yang. Medical care should be easy for them.
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 01/18/2006 @ 7:34pm
They have what you are working to make America.
A moneyed ruling class and the poor
Take a good look
Posted by Will C. at 01/18/2006 @ 7:55pm
If you support a strong border policy you CANNOT support George W. Bush who values the cronyism of Richard Myers's niece, placing her as the defacto head of border security (even though she has no qualifications), ahead of the safety and security of our nation and borders.
And I GUARANTEE that during the State of the Union speech he will tell us something to the effect of "I'm doing everything I can to keep you safe". Given his RECESS appointment of Julie Myers I am forewarning you all of another lie that I know he will make.
Posted by freedomplease at 01/18/2006 @ 7:58pm
Wllc,
Nice sarcasum. Some how I knew you would find a way to blame America and consrvatives for Mexico and no real thoughts other than telling me what you believe is wrong with what you think I am doing here.
So, what is your solution to Mexico? Dean? Socialism? Nader?
Please enlighten those of us not enamored with the left. Show us the error of our ways with an idea that may actually hold some hope.
Posted by john maasch at 01/18/2006 @ 8:05pm
Some how I knew you would find a way to blame America and consrvatives for Mexico and no real thoughts other than telling me what you believe is wrong with what you think I am doing here.
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 01/18/2006 @ 8:05pm
regulated market economy
socialized insurance
creation of a stock index fund to invest insurance dollars in
first class education
labor taxed lower than leasure.
secure borders
strong defense
investment in our communities
strong american values
Posted by Will C. at 01/18/2006 @ 8:12pm
and I don't care why you are here
Posted by Will C. at 01/18/2006 @ 8:12pm
Maasch, what is this crap with Mexico? we have plenty problems to discuss right here in the Maasch can't see shit USA .take a stand, are you for or against illegal or legal immigration? for the Bush policy or against. that wussy sniping from the sidelines is tedious
Posted by johannesrolf at 01/18/2006 @ 8:14pm
"and I don't care why you are here"
Posted by WILL C. 01/18/2006 @ 8:12pm
Well spoken and true feelings of the compassionate liberal. Thanks.
Posted by john maasch at 01/18/2006 @ 8:14pm
Well spoken and true feelings of the compassionate liberal. Thanks.
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 01/18/2006 @ 8:14pm
you're welcome
I can't affect your presence
I don't waste many minutes pondering your existance
Posted by Will C. at 01/18/2006 @ 8:18pm
Jr,
I have spoken it here before. I am for legal immigration and for punishing those who hire illegals. I want any and all who come here to become American and obey our laws as citizens. I would make the fines for hiring illegals so high that any company would shrink from the damage potential. The fixation on Mexico crapp?
Christ, man, she is our neighbor and is a terminal patient. Povery, terrorists, crime and more are flowing north from there and the problem is being ignored by all. Our problems are involved with Mexico and Mexico will change our country more than Gore, or Bush or anyone else who ignores the situation.
Good enough answer?
Posted by john maasch at 01/18/2006 @ 8:21pm
Wll,
I have to admit I am curious about yours and what happened to you.
Posted by john maasch at 01/18/2006 @ 8:22pm
I have to admit I am curious about yours and what happened to you.
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 01/18/2006 @ 8:22pm
sounds like you have something to keep you busy when you are drinking beer on your couch
Posted by Will C. at 01/18/2006 @ 8:24pm
Ok Will
Posted by john maasch at 01/18/2006 @ 8:26pm
My dear misguided Lisajo,
"The U.S. Constitution guarantees all person living in the United States certain fundamental rights including freedom of religion, speech, assembly and privacy; protection from unreasonable searches and seizures; due process and equal protection; and access to counsel, presumption of innocence and a fair, speedy public trial."
Perhaps you need to upgrade the prescription on your reading glasses hon.
All of those things you mention are rights that are guaranteed...to THE UNITED STATESNS NOT illegal Mexican immigrants.
The Pre-amble to the constitution states:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of The United States."
We the people of THE UNITED STATES
NOT We the people of the NORTH THE UNITED STATES and THE NORTH AMERICAN CONTINENT
NOT We the people of THE UNITED STATES AND THE PARTS OF THE NORTH AMERICAN CONTINENT THAT WE TOOK THROUGH WAR WITH MEXICO
NOT We the people of THE UNITED STATES AND OUR LITTLE FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS DOWN SOUTH OF THE BORDER
NOT We the people of THE UNITED STATES AND ANYONE WHO ILLEGALLY ENTERS THE UNITED STATES BECAUSE THEY WANT THE AMERICAN DREAM
NOT We the people of THE UNITED STATES AND ANYBODY!!!!!
It states simply "We the people of the United States"
If anyone wants to come here legally as my ancestors did, please fill out the correct form, wait in line and be willing to count the cost and pay the price, as the hundreds of thousands of LEGAL Mexican immigrants that overwhelming supported proposition 200 in Arizona did.
Illegal immigrants, on the other hand, you are now free to get your hard working, baby making rear ends up off the sofa and please make your way to the nearest exit back to Mexico, thank you very much.
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 01/18/2006 @ 8:26pm
Ok Will
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 01/18/2006 @ 8:26pm
see how easy that was
Posted by Will C. at 01/18/2006 @ 8:30pm
It states simply "We the people of the United States"
Posted by OKSPORTSGUY 01/18/2006 @ 8:26pm
and it simply suggests something about justice.
without limitation
Posted by Will C. at 01/18/2006 @ 8:32pm
Late to the discussion and I only have a moment. But I was floored by Mask's simple dictum: The Business Right wants it left open for cheap labor. The Left wants the border thrown open, as part of their world-wide welfare plan (paid for by the US of course).
And I've also been a little confused by the attacks on our King of TZ.
This issue for illegal workers as Katrina indicated is how they are treated in the workplace. As the government allows businesses to operate on Grapes of Wrath standards, this makes it easier for those relying on legal workers and citizens to lower workplace standards/wages. This would eventually lead to the downing of our society that Zero warns of, and is why it is crucial for the government to protect all workers.
Dinner calls.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 01/18/2006 @ 8:32pm
OKSG - Illegal immigrants, on the other hand, you are now free to get your hard working, baby making rear ends up off the sofa and please make your way to the nearest exit back to Mexico, thank you very much
What a rascist little shit you are!
Posted by Fishbite at 01/18/2006 @ 8:39pm
Fishbite,
Maybe he is talking about Canadians, or Germans, or Italians, as I know some who have been deported..I don't think race has anything to do with his problem with illegals.It just so happens that most come from Mexico. There was a time when they came from Ireland. Would that be racist? You shouldn't assume...
Posted by john maasch at 01/18/2006 @ 8:47pm
Todd & JM,
I am sensing you are both advocating better border control.
I assume we can therefore count you both in as supporters of the impeach Bush movement given his abysmal priority of cronyism trumps border control / safety.
Posted by freedomplease at 01/18/2006 @ 8:48pm
John - Please! If he's talking about those other nationalities he wouldn't request they take the exit to Mexico. He's obviously implying that they aren't hard working (hence the need to de-couch) and that they breed like rabbits. Or maybe that characterization seems appropriate to you also?
Posted by Fishbite at 01/18/2006 @ 8:51pm
You can count me as an advocate of border control. but not to impeach Bush. I am not particularly happy with him, quite the contrary, but not for the reason you are unhappy with him.
I do think he needs anserious ass chewing regarding his spending and his border lack of policy.
Nice try, tho
Posted by john maasch at 01/18/2006 @ 8:52pm
Freedomplease,
"I assume we can therefore count you both in as supporters of the impeach Bush movement given his abysmal priority of cronyism trumps border control / safety."
Absolutely, I have very sincere criticisms of how Bush has handled a number of things including Iraq, the war on terror and the borders; however I would bet that you and I would disagree on his replacement, I advocate for someone sitting in the oval office that will be MORE aggressive on terrorism, the borders, and moral and social issues.
In other words, from my point of view Bush is too centrist and I would prefer someone much more conservative, I only voted for Bush because of the lesser of two evils conundrum.
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 01/18/2006 @ 8:56pm
Show me a border security policy that's effective and affordable, and I'll show you Santa Claus riding a unicorn and chasing Tinkerbelle. This crap about securing the border is just a way of avoiding accepting the economics and addressing the social problems that are an essential part of having an open society. We have built it. They will come. You stop them from coming, it's bye bye America as we know it.
Posted by MyParadigm at 01/18/2006 @ 9:02pm
Fish,
I don't think he is being racist. If all the Mexicsns were coming in from NY would you still sday the same thing? Most of my cousins came from Ireland,had lots of children(IE rabbits) and were probably considered not hard working. Ifd Todd said the same about them, would it be racist? Is it worse?
Also, reread his post.."Illegal immigrants, on the other hand, you are now free to get your hard working, ..."
I believe you over reacted or assumed..
Posted by john maasch at 01/18/2006 @ 9:03pm
Fishbite,
"What a rascist little shit you are!"
I'm not a racist, I'm all for, again, LEGAL immigrants from ANY country or nationality that have COUNTED THE COST AND PAID THE PRICE to go through the immigration process and live in the U.S. legally. My ancestors did it, why can't everyone?
Either do it legally, or DON'T DO IT.
And I hope you weren't under the misguided notion that I would somehow be hurt offended and feel the need to repent because some tree hugging, pansy liberal like yourself labeled me a racist where you?
I can assure you, I have been called many worse things by liberals before.
If your argument (which is flawed by the way with the false dilemma fallacy) is that if one stands up for secure boarders and one is willing to fight against illegal immigration one must ALSO be a racist then I'll gladly wear my badge of racism with pride.
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 01/18/2006 @ 9:04pm
You try and prevent, or severely curtail, immigration and you will be fighting human nature and the laws of supply and demand. Used to be you could rely on conservatives not to do that. Todd and John, are you listening?
Posted by MyParadigm at 01/18/2006 @ 9:06pm
My,
Yes I am and are you getting my point? We need management of our borders or there will be no borders and no America.
Posted by john maasch at 01/18/2006 @ 9:08pm
Hey, just think is some future President decides to call it a "War on Illegal Immigration" then he/she too can shit all over the Constitution!
Ain't that grand?
Posted by freedomplease at 01/18/2006 @ 9:10pm
JM, your proposal is what? "Management of our borders" sounds like something Hillary would say for a soundbite. How is this to be done, really?
Posted by MyParadigm at 01/18/2006 @ 9:11pm
OKSG- I don't expect you to take offense at anything I say - your blinding self-satisfaction keeps you well insulated. Immigrants, illegal or otherwise, have always been attacked by rascists. You're joining a long line of them. Not particularly honorable, bashing immigrants, but it makes a nice change from the "kill all terrorists" ranting.
Posted by Fishbite at 01/18/2006 @ 9:14pm
Todd,
Are you referring to Cheney as your saviour from Bush?
I only ask because I'm convinced he's been dead for months. Weekend at Bernie's comes to mind whenever I see a pic of that corpse!
Posted by freedomplease at 01/18/2006 @ 9:14pm
This must be some kind of record. Four pages and no one has cut and pasted anything. Someone did call Todd a swine. Other that than it's all very original.
Posted by MyParadigm at 01/18/2006 @ 9:15pm
Myparadign - Hey, it was rascist shit, not swine! Dagnabit, that still might not be original as applied to Todd.
Posted by Fishbite at 01/18/2006 @ 9:19pm
freedomplease, i love that cheney thing. i'm going to use it. myparadigm, knock on wood.
Posted by loveloki at 01/18/2006 @ 9:20pm
If your argument (which is flawed by the way with the false dilemma fallacy) is that if one stands up for secure boarders and one is willing to fight against illegal immigration one must ALSO be a racist then I'll gladly wear my badge of racism with pride.
Todd
Posted by OKSPORTSGUY 01/18/2006 @ 9:04pm
I don't believe fishbites arguement is flawed if two seconds after you acuse him of creating a false dilemma you stand up and say you will wear your racist badge with pride.
no non racist would wear a racist badge
it's that simple
Posted by Will C. at 01/18/2006 @ 9:23pm
Myparadigm,
I fully agree with you bro.
And this is an area where I deffinitely part company with the Republicans, I know they like the cheap labor because it's "pro business friendly".
And that disgusts me. Right is right and wrong is wrong, regardless of how much profit there is in it.
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 01/18/2006 @ 9:33pm
Freedomplease,
"Are you referring to Cheney as your saviour from Bush?"
No..
Definitely not Cheney, I don't think he will be with us another 4 years.
I don't see anyone from the Dem's that I like, and the only person I possibly could see myself voting for from the Repubs would be perhaps JD Hayworth (although he won't get the support from the GOP) or perhaps John McCain.
But really regardless of who you vote for from one of the mainline parties, no one in my opinion is really representing "the people" it's all about special interest groups, the left has theirs...Naral, ACLU, the unions, Tree hugger groups (i.e. the Sierra club) etc. and the Right has theirs, big tobacco, big corporations, the NRA, etc.
No one, sadly, really represents you and me.
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 01/18/2006 @ 9:39pm
if by some miracle the feds could close the border, that would still leave an estimated 12 million "residents". to deport them would require 35,000 busses.
if you want to know about illegal immigration, ask your cousin the landscaper, your sister who has a nanny, or your uncle in the construction business, and above all the farmer you used to know but who is now a big agribiz, add to this that friend of yours with the office cleaning business. they all know that they can get cheap help. So evidently does Walmart.
you can be against immigrants and be a racist, but probably not be for immigrants and be one. the issue is racial through and through.
they don't seem to be busting their chops to come here from Canada. so the economic conditions are the impetus. I have no easy answers, except to disagree with those with the easy answers
Posted by johannesrolf at 01/18/2006 @ 9:48pm
Hey Todd,
That really sucks, those lefty "special interest" groups promoting their narrow-minded agendas like: clean air, water, ecological preservation or the ACLU, slithering out of hypocrisy by defending people like Limbaugh and defending such commie causes as civil liberties. Yep, they're on the same level as big corporations, same class of villians really. Does the Sierra Club exclude right leaning Americans from drinking water that has less mercury in it? How does that work, Todd?
Posted by Oustbush at 01/18/2006 @ 9:56pm
Johanne,
" if by some miracle the feds could close the border, that would still leave an estimated 12 million "residents". to deport them would require 35,000 busses. " 41,379 trips with a Boeing 787 series 9 based on your number of 12 million illegal immigrants would be quicker, and then we could start spending all of the money that we are currently paying to illegal's in the form of medical care, education etc. on other issues. Heck I would rather see that money invested in liberal causes such as socialized health care assuming that the socialized health care was for AMERICAN citizens only.
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/787family/787-9prod.html
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 01/18/2006 @ 10:05pm
Oustbush,
"Does the Sierra Club exclude right leaning Americans from drinking water that has less mercury in it?"
No they only send me propaganda vilifying me for driving my Dodge Durango that gets 10 miles per gallon at best and say that it's because of people like me that the U.S. is so dependant on foreign oil. And they are in essence telling me that I nor others should purchase those evil SUV's.
I'm wondering if you feel the irony that I do, in that it's o.k. for liberals and liberal groups like the Sierra club to tell me what kind of car I should drive and that's not a violation of my civil rights to drive what ever damned car I want too, but it's not o.k. for conservatives and conservative groups like Focus on the Family to suggest people shouldn't have abortions because it's people that have abortions that are slaughtering thousands of innocent babies every year because this would be in infringement on the civil rights of the mother to decide what's best for her body.
Hmmmm the irony. Actually a better word comes to mind, hypocrisy.
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 01/18/2006 @ 10:13pm
OKSG - Are you really such a dimwit? We've got so-called "Pro-Lifers" not just suggesting that folks shouldn't have abortions, but actively working to establish a prohibition on abortions. Please review for me the legislation being proposed that will make it illegal for you to drive your SUV. You're not just a rascist, you're also an idiot.
I guess the Sierra Club really hit a nerve with all that vilifying. Luckily, no reps from Sierra are posting here or you'd be running away crying.
Posted by Fishbite at 01/18/2006 @ 10:28pm
Vagueries aside....notice how few on the Left have a "solution" to the problem of illegal immigration (no, not YOU, WILL....you are the rare one who actually wants to tighten the border).
Reason?....simple, they see Mexico and Central America as welfare client-states of the United States (all that 'exploitation' since United Fruit propped up those banana republics) and the fact that they CANNOT say "No" to anybody or anything.
So again, as mentioned earlier...The Business Right doesn't want the border shut down, the Soft-Hearted Left doesn't want it shut down, La Raza and the American Latino political groups CERTAINLY don't want it shut down, no American politician (Dem or Repub) wants to lose the Latino vote.
So any talk of closing the border is probably just that ...talk.
The ONLY question is going to become...does somebody who enters this country CRIMINALLY get the same benefits as a citizen or one that entered LEGALLY...and if so, what's the message to the citizen and the legal immigrant?
Posted by Mask at 01/18/2006 @ 10:29pm
I'm wondering if you feel the irony that I do, in that it's o.k. for liberals and liberal groups like the Sierra club to tell me what kind of car I should drive and that's not a violation of my civil rights to drive what ever damned car I want too, but it's not o.k. for conservatives and conservative groups like Focus on the Family to suggest people shouldn't have abortions because it's people that have abortions that are slaughtering thousands of innocent babies every year because this would be in infringement on the civil rights of the mother to decide what's best for her body.
Posted by OKSPORTSGUY 01/18/2006 @ 10:13pm
Your car isn't part of your body
That's the difference
Your car is superficial
like your argument
Posted by Will C. at 01/18/2006 @ 10:55pm
MASK,
I realize your game is to set this group up as stooges and that group up as nitwits so that you can sit in blissful superiority beyond all. But your routine is wearing thin and is completely unproductive. To say it more clearly, you're pissing me off.
The Left wants tougher border control if only as a protection for the average American worker. Salary stagnation and benefit reductions are occurring just fine without a labor source willing to work for (as expected) little better than third world wages or living conditions. The Soft-Hearted Left would in no way wave illegal immigrants in and greet them with a kiss and a lei. But once here, our soft hearts do recognize their humanity, their will to improve their lives, and what are often greater family values than what most Americans seem to possess. These things we value and wish to protect.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 01/18/2006 @ 10:57pm
Posted by TJBEHRENS1 01/18/2006 @ 10:57pm
I couldn't have said it better myself
Posted by Will C. at 01/18/2006 @ 10:59pm
I know I risk blurring the boundaries between left and right, but it's slowly becoming accepted in europe that the only sensible way to deal with illegal immigration is through a policy of zero tolerance.
A considered, legal immigration policy can be a benefit only if it isn't rendered worthless by rewarding illegal immigrants with the same rights as those who enter the country lawfully. It's also now accepted that excessive immigration is much more destabilising than trying to deal with the fiscal and social problems that arise as a result of low birth rates and an increasingly aging population.
Moreover, multiculturalism is beginning to be recognized as unworkable. See link below to left-leaning web site of Civitas, the Institute for the Study of Civil Society.
http://www.civitas.org.uk/press/prcs46.php
Posted by inveresk at 01/19/2006 @ 12:48am
No they only send me propaganda vilifying me for driving my Dodge Durango that gets 10 miles per gallon at best and say that it's because of people like me that the U.S. is so dependant on foreign oil.
Posted by OKSPORTSGUY 01/18/2006 @ 10:13pm
I like big cars too. I am not making any political statement here. Just wondering how you can be an American, use alot of oil and not be part of our dependence on oil? I like to use oil too. And I don't want to be part of or oil use/dependence problem. How do I pull that off?
Just curious.
Eric
Posted by malcontent3 at 01/19/2006 @ 12:53am
I know it's off topic, but the document "Political Correctness, The Retreat of Reason" published by Civitas, is a truly illuminating expose of just how dangerous to free thinking this doctine has become.
Posted by inveresk at 01/19/2006 @ 12:58am
.
You bet!
When one side creates a constitutions, runs free elections and operates independent newspapers, while the other murders crowds of civilians on the theory that democracy, religious toleration and free speech are wicked, then I am the "kind of dumbass" that sees a black and white situation. Then I am a "you're either fer us or agin us" kind of dumbass.
But not a genius like you, eh? You are not sure a clear stance against islamofascists is called for. You think they may have a point and supporting firm measures by the US against such creatures might be too rash, eh? You humanitarian, you moral idiot.
Take your finger out of your mouth you jerk. You haven't the bite of a fishy smelling septic tank.
.
Posted by nacl at 01/19/2006 @ 02:30am
TJ and WILL
That's great that "The Left wants a tighter border"....'cept YOU GUYS seem to be the only ones.
Ms vanden Heuval's article mention it?....any liberal activist group ever mention it?....any progressive/Dem politician?
Or is it all about the rights of the "undocumented workers" here...how they came to this country illegally and yet we're going to ignore that and make them full citizens....and then "Oh, yeah, if there's any money left over, we'll buy the Border Patrol some new Chevy Blazers"?
Posted by Mask at 01/19/2006 @ 06:50am
Eric,
"And I don't want to be part of or oil use/dependence problem. How do I pull that off?"
You don't and you can't..
Just like you can't easily explain away an abortion as a civil right of the woman and not accept and realize that you are also partially responsible for the thousands of innocent deaths of babies every year.
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 01/19/2006 @ 07:44am
I see several fellow bloggers here want to expell or exploit (I still see all those illegal Mexican gardeners standing at a San Jose CA corner and being picked up by wealthy citizens to maintain their gardens for 2 bucks) the people crossing the border illegally. So what about the US illegal Iraki border crossing ?, that militar crossing is OK for some, the other labour crossing not ?, the Iraki crossing is granted full "carte blanche" rights to the US soldiers, the mexican crossing is granted full exploitation rights to the american citizens. Something is wrong: it always grants rights to the US. So the US is a rights monopoly on behalf of the rest of the world, and the list of examples is very long. Some of you are close to terminal supremacism.
Posted by areyouok at 01/19/2006 @ 07:45am
Hey! I don't know where I stand on this issue, and I have yet to hear/read anything that puts me on solid ground. (Maybe it's not as partisan as some of us would have it.)
My left side recognizes the logic in treating all workers with dignity, whether they were born in this country, or swam here. More parity with legal workers might relieve some of the greedy exploitative vacuum that sucks up all the cheapest labor.
My right side still experiences discomfort at the notion of extending the rights, benefits, and services that my fellow taxpayers and I foot the bill for to people who don't play by the rules, for whatever reason.
Yet in searching for some direction on this thread today, I've seen so many issues conflated that my eyeballs hurt. Liberalbendoverforwetbacksfaggots. Rightwingcapitalistgreedheadmotherfuckers.
At least, unless I missed something, no one has brought up Clinton yet.
(Oops...)
Posted by drhammer at 01/19/2006 @ 08:38am
The ISSUE of illegal immigration is impossible to combat from a supply angle (which is where the right wing rhetoric is centered). If you built a fence 200 feet high and electrified it with 20,000 volts and placed a tank every 100 yards it wouldn't change much since the people smugglers would build tunnels and folks would enter legally on tourist visas and overstay the visa.
If you really wanted to dampen the supply you'd have to crush the demand and arrest the driver of the landscaping truck picking up those illegals every morning on the corner of fifth street.
There has never been a campaign against the law breaking white employers, only right wing rhetoric against the brown skinned law breakers.
The only thing that gauls me about it is that the average American (white male heartland) voter thinks that Republicans are more commited to solving the problem (by the way nobody in power actually thinks there is a problem) than Democrats. Neither party could give a toss (otherwise they would arrest white employers). Democrats actually have a better record as they don't go through all this crap about amnesties but the difference between the two is so miniscule as to not be a difference.
Conversely the average American (male and female hispanic) voter wrongly thinks that Democrats are kinder and gentler.
It's all bullshit.
Posted by freedomplease at 01/19/2006 @ 09:13am
question - why are illegal immigrants coming to our country answer - to find employment that will pay more than they can get at home.
question - if employing such people is illegal, how do they find employment here? answer - WE GRINGOS BREAK THE LAW AD NAUSEUM AND KNOWINGLY EMPLOY THEM BY THE MILLIONS, and have done so for decades, and show every intention of continuing to do so for decades to come.
more modern american hypocrisy in action. this is nothing more than one of those distraction bullshit issues used by angry people with axes to grind but precious few well thought out solutions.
correction - not bullshit for the families of immigrant workers killed on the job as a result of poor training/supervision or a view by possibly racist, perhaps just careless, employers who value the lives of immigrant workers less than their own profits or the lives of their own pets.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/19/2006 @ 09:22am
Complementing IBBLEBLIBBLE comments:
Illegal immigrants get less pay in their countries because the international economic system eliminates poor countries margins and transfers these ones to richer countries. So GRINGOS are winning twice: one time by eroding the economies of the poor countries, and another time by exploiting illegal workers comming from those countries. Some Gringos call themselves Christians ? (I suppose they believe they are treating the others correctly), it is rather a fools paradise.
Posted by areyouok at 01/19/2006 @ 09:40am
Posted by AREYOUOK 01/19/2006 @ 09:40am | ignore this person
oh gosh - now by insinuating anything but the very purest motives in terms of (north) american capitalism, OK, you have shown yourself to be a wicked, pie in the sky SOCIALFREAKININIST!!!!!! therefore your argument is irrational, anti american and irrelevent - proof that you are politically and economically insane. welcome to the looney bin, brother...
but if the demoncrats win a majority in november and enbolden the stymied moderate to conservative pubs that have managed to scratch a quiet, desperate, survival out of the current political environment, when 51% of the voting public disagrees electorally with the current doublespeak status quo, you may find yourself cured of your affliction, swimming happily in "the mainstream" and they will be the political/economic insane, relegated to the side creeks and swamps of the non "mainstream". oh yeah, then, regardless of your opinion, you will be cured of your insane "socialist" tendencies without ever changing a thing about how you think.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/19/2006 @ 10:16am
oh yeah - a large part of the continuing inequities internationally you spoke to, OK, is related to the rapacious elites of developing countries themselves, who ally themselves with our elites. this is why hugo chavez is so demonized by the neo(fascists)cons here. plus he has the nerve to get all mouthy with us, point out disturbing truths, and call us on hypocritical lies.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/19/2006 @ 10:21am
Drhammer,
"Rightwingcapitalistgreedheadmotherfuckers."
That's not quit right. There is deffinitely a camp of poeple like me that think illegal imigrants should be deported regardless of the impact on the economy of the U.S. because of the cheap labor.
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 01/19/2006 @ 10:21am
IBBLEBLIBBLE,
I didnt say it was American capitalism behind that, I said rich contries are behind that (Europe has not done better). besides, the international economic system does generate this imbalance and margin transfer, anyone with a minimum economic training knows that, several options are on the table to solve the problem (WTO free trade, bilateral or multilateral agreements).
Thanks for all the beautifull words you managed to write in such a short sentence, next time try to learn more about macro economic issues in the same short time. I am sure you will be able to do better in the future. And please stop labelling people that fast(SOCIALFREAKININIST!!!!!! ) whitout knowing more about them or because your own ignorance. (I am not a socialist), bloggers here know that since 2 years at least. have a nice day.
Posted by areyouok at 01/19/2006 @ 10:31am
Posted by AREYOUOK 01/19/2006 @ 10:31am | ignore this person
i think you have misapprehended the satirical nature of my scribblins'...
as an aside, as we all know, this anti immigrant dementia has precedent not only in our own country, but throughout history and the world. when i lived in costa rica, the locals there expressed much the same attitudes toward the "nicas" and others who work in costa rica for much the same reason many work here. ultimately the only way to stem the tide of illegal immigrants is to work to economically develop the countries from which they come.
but yes, i am familiar with the economic concepts to which you referred. i just have a penchant, i'm afraid, for pushing people's buttons, whether they be "enemies" or "friends", in order to get a reaction of some sort. i'll explain no more, confident that any (understandable) misapprehension of yours has been correctly apprehended...huh? you seem at least as well informed and intellectually capable as i...and neither of us are that bugaboo of the intellectually lockstepped name calling right, "socialist". and if we were, so freakin what, eh?
Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/19/2006 @ 11:11am
Todd
You buy one of those Hybrid SUVs yet? All groups like Sierra Club, etc. want folks to do is live a bit more sustainably...like the rest of the planet matters. Our general lifestyle in the US smacks of massive over-indulgence relative to most of the world. Is a bit more equality a bad thing? After all, simple math will tell you that the rest of the world cannot hope to use resources at the rate we do...there just wouldn't be enough.
ALL
Have seen some folks in thread support legal immigration and penalize illegal employers more. If this occurs, what happens to the price of food? (particualrly fruits & vegetables) as the "legals" might still do the work, but will be bound by "normal" wage laws. I'm not saying that lettuce SHOULDN'T cost $2/head, but it likely could.
Posted by leftofcenter at 01/19/2006 @ 11:45am
LofC,
" You buy one of those Hybrid SUVs yet?"
No..
I have done the math on the Lexus RS 400H and the Ford Escape Hybrid.
On both of these units based on factors such as: the increased fuel mileage of these SUV's compared to my Dodge Durango, the price of the hybrid SUV, and my yearly driving habits (in terms of miles per year driven), I calculated it would take me 20 years to make up in fuel savings the cost of the more expensive Hybrid.
That's analogous to buying down points on a home mortgage by paying more money down and it requiring me 20 years before I made up the savings.
Sorry.. It doesn't make any economic sense at this point.
When Hybrids become "really" economically viable then I will purchase one. I don't make purchasing decisions that are based on Sierra Club approved sales pitches like "but hybrid SUV's are environmentally sound and will put money back into your pocket book due to the increased fuel mileage!"
Also to address your statement:
" Our general lifestyle in the US smacks of massive over-indulgence relative to most of the world."
And your point????
Here's something that liberals tend to not understand. Many Americans don't give a hoot and aren't concerned what the rest of the world "thinks" about us, our habits, our lifestyles.
Your statement then falls on deaf ears and is a moot point to many possibly most Americans.
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 01/19/2006 @ 12:21pm
ZERO
Can you tell me the EXACT amount of the "living wage"?
Oh, and why once it's granted...$1, 3, 5, 7 etc more an hour won't be asked for to make it "more fair"?
Posted by Mask at 01/19/2006 @ 12:29pm
Zero,
So when LOC's head of lettuce is $2 because it's 100% American how many salds are you going to eat?
When American made cars are twice as expensive as Chinese or Mexican made cars which one are you going to drive?
There are no easy answers.
Todd,
Did you consider the tax rebate aspect as well?
Isn't a Lexus 400H in a totally different quality class from a Dodge Durango?
You know that you're a nationalist which is almost the complete opposite of a patriot right?
Posted by freedomplease at 01/19/2006 @ 12:33pm
Freedomplease,
"Isn't a Lexus 400H in a totally different quality class from a Dodge Durango?"
Yes... hence why I also investigated and did the math on the bottom end of the class with the Ford Escape. Did you not read my entire post?
"You know that you're a nationalist which is almost the complete opposite of a patriot right?"
According to whose deffinition? Yours? Right... that's what I would expect from you.. a bonefide proud and true liberal.
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 01/19/2006 @ 12:50pm
Todd
I seem to recall a post long gone along the lines of "When they make an SUV that can pull my boat, I'll be the first to buy one" Now there is one, and it doesn't make sense anymore? Hmmm....sure you don't work in DC?
as to "Here's something that liberals tend to not understand. Many Americans don't give a hoot and aren't concerned what the rest of the world "thinks" about us, our habits, our lifestyles.
Your statement then falls on deaf ears and is a moot point to many possibly most Americans."
Your perspective (which sadly MAY be most folks) is both sad and despicable. I see so many folks who claim to be amongst the Christian "wise steweards" of the Earth, then jump into their smoke-belching SUV to tool down to Wal-mart to buy new sneakers made by a 10 yr old Filapino girl who made a nickel that day, then snarfs down a half-pound of South American burger at the cost of acres of irreplaceable rainforest, and afterwards sit back and read the newspaper to laugh at those "crazy environmentalists" and their "global warming nonsense"...not noticing that its 60 degrees in mid-winter where it should be like 20 (where I live anyway), and weather forecasters boggle at the increasinly unusual patterns on the evening news.
You and your kind are not just part of the problem...by and large you are the problem. With all due respect, perspectives like the one you purport make me sick to my stomach, and is the reason that the "free world" hates the self-proclaimed "leader of the free world."
Take a look here: WARM [msnbc.msn.com]
Posted by leftofcenter at 01/19/2006 @ 12:58pm
Posted by OKSPORTSGUY 01/19/2006 @ 10:21am
Well, Todd, that's part of the point I was trying to make with my facetious, run-together partisan descriptors.
Maybe this is another issue that has too many dimensions to be served adequately by closed-minded partisan spewage.
(Did I just coin a new word?)
Posted by drhammer at 01/19/2006 @ 1:12pm
Todd,
In MY definition a nationalist seeks world domination for his nation and could give a fuck about countries or people that are not his countrymen/women. Kind of like Hitler cared about Germany / The Weimar Republic to the extent that he HAD to annex Poland since Germans were running out of room.
A Patriot cares about another country / other countrymen/women to the extent that to have no feelings / empathy will lead to the end of his country. Kind of like Nazi Germany doesn't exist anymore because it was too aggressive for its own good.
It's all well and good to not give a shit what the rest of the world thinks about you.....until you need someone and everyone and every country eventually needs someone.
A patriot would recognize that.
Posted by freedomplease at 01/19/2006 @ 1:16pm
"Here's something that liberals tend to not understand. Many Americans don't give a hoot and aren't concerned what the rest of the world "thinks" about us, our habits, our lifestyles.
Your statement then falls on deaf ears and is a moot point to many possibly most Americans." -- Posted by OKSPORTSGUY 01/19/2006 @ 12:21am
Are you one of "possibly most Americans?"
It's unfortunate when posters use the weaker of possible arguments. The "rest of the world" is one level of indirection away from the real issue. Why do they (except for the wealthy overindulged ones) think like that? Clue: It's not "hate America."
How about enlightened self interest. This is the self interest that looks beyond the month-end balance of checkbook, beyond feeling good by feeling superior, beyond how nice your lawn looks, etc.
More gas-guzzlers sold means higher gas prices for everyone. The buyer reasons that one more or less won't matter and probably is right as far as that reasoning goes. Wow! I sit so high on the road; I have so much room; I have so much power; I have so much prestige. Basically, I feed by ego beyond satiety.
Gas-guzzlers are just one piece of the problem -- a very visible one. (Ever get caught in traffic between several SUVs in a "SUV canyon?") We all overuse energy with excess gadgets, entertainment, air conditioning (visit a mall in summer with open doors), inefficient industrial plants and so on.
Oil is disappearing fast (Saudi Arabia may have overstated reserves by 100% or more). The polar ice that helps reflect solar radiation and keep the planet cooler is disappearing too -- a huge positive feedback loop that is about to swing into action. Clean water is disappearing. Bush & Co. oppose contraception, the best way known (unless you love abortion) to hold down population growth.
Well, lots of people don't care that you don't care about foreign opinion. To them, it's really just a harbinger, a tell-tale, a sign of what's to come. The people who don't care are smug and happy in their mortgaged ranch homes and are fiddling (watching Friends, NFL, NBA, etc.) while Rome (the U.S.A. and the world) burns.
Posted by adr at 01/19/2006 @ 1:17pm
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 01/19/2006 @ 12:58am
Dang straight, LEFT OF....and come the Revolution....
Everbody will be riding in a bus (unless you're Bobby Kennedy Jr or the editors of "The Nation")...wearing multiplied-patched sneakers, cuz they cost $150 and you only get a ration-coupon for one pair a year from the Federal Shoe Department...and eating bland soy salads, because that's all the fast food chains are allowed to sell under the Federal Fatness Reduction Control Act of 2013.
Can't wait!
Posted by Mask at 01/19/2006 @ 1:18pm
"Everbody will be riding in a bus (unless you're Bobby Kennedy Jr or the editors of "The Nation")...wearing multiplied-patched sneakers, cuz they cost $150 and you only get a ration-coupon for one pair a year from the Federal Shoe Department...and eating bland soy salads, because that's all the fast food chains are allowed to sell under the Federal Fatness Reduction Control Act of 2013." -- Posted by MASK 01/19/2006 @ 1:18pm
Not far off, except for the rationing and nutty controls. Won't happen. Prices will rise. Your vaunted capitalism will see to that. If the people don't like the high prices, "let them eat cake."
You exaggerate for effect, I assume.
However, let's be ready for the fact that the purchasing power of wages cannot stay high here while it's low in the rest of the world. Let's be ready for the fact that energy costs will rise -- by a lot. Free market forces are acting and will continue to do so. Do you support tariffs? It's another government welfare program! Even limiting immigration is a form of government welfare. Turning a blind eye to employers who exploit illegals is government welfare for business.
Hey, I thought we had a government to promote the general welfare. Oops, let's leave any ordinary or poor or racial minority out of that equation.
Promote the welfare of the rich and powerful. Let them drop a few crumbs to the rest of us. Great philosophy!
Posted by adr at 01/19/2006 @ 1:29pm
Hey, I thought we had a government to promote the general welfare. Oops, let's leave any ordinary or poor or racial minority out of that equation.
Promote the welfare of the rich and powerful. Let them drop a few crumbs to the rest of us. Great philosophy!
Posted by ADR 01/19/2006 @ 1:29pm
ADR,
I guess it's necessary every month or so to repost the words of Hamilton and Jefferson regarding this insane interpretation of the "general welfare" statement in the preamble to the constitution.
Here's what James Madison, the acknowledged father of our Constitution, had to say: "With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."
Thomas Jefferson, always fearful of the perversion of the general welfare clause, wrote, "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."
In 1794, Madison wrote disapprovingly of an appropriation to assist French refugees, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
If you want to expend money in ways to enumerated for Congress, the constitution says it is up to the individual States! Not the Federal Government
Oh, I forgot, it depends on what the meaning of the word "is", is.
Posted by love liberty at 01/19/2006 @ 1:40pm
ADR
Yeah...the "fiddlin" example is about right. I am preparing a lecture for my Intro Env Sci class on sustainability, so smug Wing-nut over-consumers make me wanna puke about now. Leaders of the Free World my ass....more like Dubya with a paper hat doing a Napolean pose with his tongue sticking out while Cheney siphons oil out of every country he can.
Posted by leftofcenter at 01/19/2006 @ 2:00pm
Mask
You'll only be riding that bus if its fueld by biodiesel rendered from the fat from liposuction clinics (wonder if THAT will still smell like french fries)? Oh, but that's right, as one of the priveliged wing-nut elite, you'll be on a palanquin carried about by new "legal" immigrants and "debtor's prison" bankruptees arising from Draconian fiscal legislation.
ALL
About what I'd expect from the Wing-nut crowd...self-righteous ridicule that does not engage any inconvenient facts. And never is heard a discouraging word...and the skies are not cloud-y all day!"
Posted by leftofcenter at 01/19/2006 @ 2:09pm
ADR and LEFTOF
Just curious....what will I need to do to become an apparatchnik in the US after the Revolution?....like Ms vanden Heuval, the Kennedys, etc.
You know, shop at the "closed off" floor of the State-run department store (US Dept. of Wal-Marts run I guess?)....get my dacha on the Chesapeake...my supply of the good bourbon/sour mash, while the masses get their lesser brands....have a car (even one with 20 year old hybrid technology from the State-run auto factory)?
Want to get in on the "ground floor" now.....?
Posted by Mask at 01/19/2006 @ 2:11pm
LofC,
And while we are driving our evil smoke belching SUV's down to Wal-Mart to purchase $60.00 sneakers manufactures by 10 year old's under bondage and forced labor in China (which although true, again the point is the majority of "us" that drive SUV's and buy sneakers manufactured by child labor in foreign countries DON'T CARE, if we did we wouldn't do it) you are supporting the ACLU and the decisions like the 9th circuit court in California that decided that parents rights to be the sole provider of sexual information and/or determiner of WHAT type of sexual information to their children and that the government via the school district's rights to give this type of sexual information usurps the parents rights; these are the issues that we are passionate about and just can't comprehend why you either don't care or defend the current positions.
It's all perspective and point of view bro....
I realize that, why can't you?
I will NEVER think like you and champion that causes that you champion; just like I'm sure you will NEVER agree with people like me nor champion the causes that are important to me.
There is no global law or rule that stipulates that we must all agree on issues thank God. Through history the laws of war or the law of survival of the fittest will determine the outcome on these various issues as one side will be defeated (quite literally as is the case with any of the species that have been exterminated, think Neanderthals, wooly mammoths etc.)
We can disagree on issues, even up to the point of war as is the case with Iraq and Iran. We believe terrorists are wrong, and terrorists believe that they are doing the right thing.
I'm surprised you don't see this from your science background. It all goes back to survival of the fittest. There will not always be agreement as there were not between the early Neanderthal humanoids and the Cro-Magnons. The Cro-Magnons being of higher intelligent and better adapted, in essence won the battle of attrition and lived on through God's law of survival of the fittest.
One side will eventually win in the war on terror, one side will win on the issue of global warning, one side will win on the issue of abortion, and on and on and on as the majority of these issues are issues that there will never be complete agreement on.
Now let's bring this all back to you pointing out that you blame me and my ilk because we are using up the earths resources because we drive SUV's....
If that's what you believe that's fine, but we aren't going to stop just because you think we are wrong. Now if SUV's are outlawed then we will have to make a choice as to whether to break the law or give up our SUV's.
Just like.... Although we don't like the fact that women are having abortions killing innocent life, however currently that is the law. We don't expect that anyone that is pro choice will ever become pro life just because we value the life of the child over the rights of the woman. However at some point, if RvW is over-turned then women will have to make a choice to either obey the law or have an illegal abortion.
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 01/19/2006 @ 2:14pm
afterwards sit back and read the newspaper to laugh at those "crazy environmentalists" and their "global warming nonsense"...not noticing that its 60 degrees in mid-winter where it should be like 20 (where I live anyway), and weather forecasters boggle at the increasinly unusual patterns on the evening news.
You and your kind are not just part of the problem...by and large you are the problem. With all due respect, perspectives like the one you purport make me sick to my stomach, and is the reason that the "free world" hates the self-proclaimed "leader of the free world."
Take a look here: WARM [msnbc.msn.com]
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 01/19/2006 @ 12:58am
LOC,
Guilty, guilty, guilty; I pronounce you guilty of misrepresentation (lightheartedly though!)
How about elsewhere than you own locale?
Cold wave brings disruption to new EU states in East Europe
Jan 19 9:18 AM US/Eastern
A cold wave brought disruption to the new EU member states of eastern Europe, with public transport hit as electric tram wires snapped and children stayed home from school, with temperatures as low as minus 30 Celsius (minus 22 Fahrenheit).
In Estonia, the authorities handed out extra food and clothing to homeless people in an effort to prevent deaths from hypothermia, said Marika Raiski, a spokeswoman for the social affairs ministry.
Homeless people were allowed to sleep at a number of train or bus stations during the cold spell, while shelters for the homeless that are usually open only at night kept their doors open 24 hours from Wednesday night.
The coldest temperature on Thursday, minus 30 C, was registered in the southeastern part of Estonia near the border with Russia.
In neighbouring Latvia, many schools were empty as parents kept their children at home as temperatures dropped to minus 30 degrees C Thursday morning in northern and eastern regions of the Baltic country.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/01/19/060119141837.r0tg2976.html
Posted by love liberty at 01/19/2006 @ 2:14pm
free trade is in general a good idea and i'm all fer it, but...
the countries to which we export all these jobs generally have a poor record of all sorts of things associated with worker rights and safety. it just seems such a shame that all that which american workers have so dearly paid for in terms of quality of job over the last century and a half are in effect thrown out the window when operations get shipped overseas. and when american executives are compensated at a rate of about 400+/1 vis a vis the lowest paid employee (some ten times what it once was, 5 to 10 times what it is in europe), i have to question at least a bit the claims of executives that such relocations are unavoidable. i may be (and probably am at least partially) wrong, but sounds like self serving bullshit to me.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/19/2006 @ 2:16pm
Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 01/19/2006 @ 2:14pm |
Actualy, LL..."global warming" as a phenomenon is pretty "cool".
See, when it's HOT in the summer....it's "global warming"...same for unseasonably warm weather in fall and winter.
But when it's FREEZING in the winter (as in Europe)....it's "changes in the Gulf Stream and fresh water flooding the oceans from polar ice cap meltoffs"...same for unseasonably cool weather in spring and summer.
Funny thing is...I'm old enough to remember back to the 70s, when the environmentalists were telling us...
we're on the verge of a new ICE AGE! (check it out!)
Posted by Mask at 01/19/2006 @ 2:23pm
ADR,
"More gas-guzzlers sold means higher gas prices for everyone. "
Out of curiosity, so is your argument that I should get your approval before I buy my next car because I should share your values on what type of gas mileage is acceptable?
Tell you what, when liberals start sharing my values on abortion, I'll start sharing your values on gas mileage.
Right...
like either of those is going to happen.
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 01/19/2006 @ 2:32pm
Mask,
The only thing funnier than an environmental wacko, would be a member of PETA.
Posted by love liberty at 01/19/2006 @ 2:32pm
LL
While I did put "warming" out there as "the" issue, the scientific community acknowledges that global change involves complex alterations of weather patterns. Some areas will get warmer, others colder (for spells at least), while the "average" global trend is upward...or actually, what turns out to be a real issue is increases in night-time temps (don't want to wax too scientific here). Evidences include the world-wide decrease in glacial mass, All glaciers retreating, sea-level rising....etc, etc.
For some digestible info see HERE [usgcrp.gov] and hit the "Research Program Elements" Under any of these pages, go to the bottom "yellow box" and you can download gov't reports, Powerpoints, etc.
For the Dubya's priority on climate research see this article [tinyurl.com]
Posted by leftofcenter at 01/19/2006 @ 2:34pm
NACL – in response to your typical BS posted on 01/19/2006 @ 02:30am
Thanks for admitting that you're a dumbass who sees everything in black and white. Where could you possibly get the idea that I think the insurgents may have a point? Your complete lack of anything but the most knee-jerk response is astounding, your puppy-dog adulation of your corrupt masters is sickening.
You happen to think that our adventure in Iraq is a firm measure that represents a clear stance against islamofascists. What a ridiculous joke! So, you must think that terrorist activity has gone down as a result, that the US is safer. Keep your head firmly in the sand, or up your butt – you have lost touch with reality. For verily is it said, when the salt hath lost its savor wherewith will it be salted.
Posted by Fishbite at 01/19/2006 @ 2:42pm
Mask,
You are kidding when you act like you're not sure about the whole global warming thing right?
I mean it's only being debated in The USA. The rest of the world has already moved to implementing policy to combat global warming (Kyoto). It's only debated in the USA because big biz has taken over the government and paid for a couple of dodgy reports to be made to "refute" the OVERWHELMING evidence.
You were kidding right?
Todd,
I for one wouldn't tell you what to drive. I can certainly appreciate that your penis is that small that you need to compensate. I would simply make you pay the real market price for the gasoline you wish to consume. Of course, that price would include taxes sufficient for the government to fund programs that would reduce emmisions elsewhere to compensate for your usage. In other words, gas would be $6-7/gallon if I had my choice and income taxes would be measurably lower.
Posted by freedomplease at 01/19/2006 @ 2:44pm
Mask and LL - The only thing funnier than an environmental wacko, or a member of PETA
is a troglodyte wingnut ignoring every scientific expert and chuckling in their own fetid stew of ignorance.
Posted by Fishbite at 01/19/2006 @ 2:46pm
Mask
Let's see if I can force-feed knowledge to a wing-nut. (*sigh*...worth a try) I do have a littel knowledge in this area so I am hardly a tree-hugging, doom-crying nut-job (I hold degrees in Geology, Natural Resource Studies and Environmental Risk Assessment.)
Weather, temp, oceanic circulation [vertical and horizontal]-(water temps & salinity) all are linked together in a rather delicate dance. ADR is quite correct in relating glacial retreat to alteration of the planet's albedo....simply put, if less light is reflected back, more light hits the surface. This alters the planet's energy balance. Very simple physics. If ocean temps change it changes the water's ability to hold CO2 (warm water holds less CO2), if ice melts into surface currents, it alters salinity which, along with temp, contribute to the vertical cycling of seawater. So if surface currents, like the Gulf Stream, become less saline and/or warmer, then they don't don't sink as readily in the North Atlantic disrupting vertical currents (the North Atlantic conveyor). This in turn disrupts the gas balance associated with oceanic turnover (a long-term issue) and the weather that arises from winds blowing across this water (a shorter term issue). [See HERE [poemsinc.org] for a primer on ocean circualtion (towards bottom)] This of course, ignores the changes in biota arising from these basic environmental changes and how they alter the food chain regionally...
So if you and yours decry the world of science as mere "nut-jobs", then I hope you don't lay any claim as a "wise steward" of the land...as many quasi-environmental (so-called) Christians seem to espouse.
Posted by leftofcenter at 01/19/2006 @ 2:49pm
Freedomplease,
"I can certainly appreciate that your penis is that small that you need to compensate. "
Oh I didn't know we could do penis jokes on the nation! Neat! Hey can I play too?
Freedom, your wife tells me quit often that it's not the size of the dick that matters it's the motion made with it. And by the way she says that I do it much better than you do.
Are we even now? Can we dispense now with the softmoric dick humor? I can assure you bro I can dish it out just as well as you can if not better, but it's really a waste of space.
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 01/19/2006 @ 2:54pm
Todd,
What makes you think I'm not a woman?
Posted by freedomplease at 01/19/2006 @ 2:56pm
Todd
So let me get this straight. You...a proclaimed "Christian" doesn't mind if your sneakers were made by a child in a 3rd-world sweatshop. Furthermore, you claim that such a stance engenders "survival of the fittest" (dangerously close to the path of evolution I might add.)
You know, come to think of it...there was a group of like-minded Christians a while back. Their leader was an enlightened fellow by the name of Torquemada. You seem to be stepping into his shoes (and fine sneakers they are!)
As to global warming...no one will win. Its not us versus them or me versus you....it is a minority of the world's population using a majority of its resources and ignoring simple scientific realities because they think their "right to ignore" will cause said facts to go away?
Must be a mighty blissful existence out thre in OK...us Liberals actually care about the world. Funny how you "Christians" don't. Go figure.
Posted by leftofcenter at 01/19/2006 @ 3:00pm
FREEDOM
the whole world?....except India and China who'd get a pass from "Kyoto".
Posted by Mask at 01/19/2006 @ 3:16pm
LEFTOF
Like I said ..."global warming" is pretty "cool"...works on HOT summers, HOT winters, COLD summers, and COLD winters.
and if you dare to open YOUR mind, you'd see that the SAME guys 30-35 years ago, like Paul Erlich of "Population Bomb" fame, were talking "global cooling"!
Posted by Mask at 01/19/2006 @ 3:18pm
Mask,
Good grief you wern't kidding. Sinister, clever, cynical, quick and witty are all adjectives that I have thought about to describe you but this utter contempt for reality is something I completely did not expect.
Well I guess I've learned something new today.
Posted by freedomplease at 01/19/2006 @ 3:22pm
Freedomplease,
"What makes you think I'm not a woman?"
Oh Lord...
Ok, you are right, I don't, however I'm sure I could come up with a woman version of my previously stated penis joke if need be.
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 01/19/2006 @ 3:28pm
LOVE LIBERTY, I know what you mean about those environmental wackos. I read this book where this guy said it rained for 40 days and 40 nights. Completely out of this world.
Posted by MyParadigm at 01/19/2006 @ 3:28pm
LofC,
"dangerously close to the path of evolution I might add"
I never said I believed in what many of my evangelical friends do in that earth was created in a literal 7 (human) days.
In my view LofC evolution IS God's great and grand design of creation. He created it through evolution. Hence why I believe God's plan IS survival of the fitist.
But I digress...what does that have to do with our issue regarding SUV's, sneakers, global warming and Americans not caring about what other countries "think" about us?
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 01/19/2006 @ 3:33pm
Yeah, dozens of polar bears were drowning between ice floes near the arctic circle thirty five years ago, Mask. I remember it well as a boy in Fairbanks, that as well as the disappearing permafrost. We ate polar bear so as not to waste the meat and resunk the foundations of the house, go with the flow, we said.
Posted by Sweetdaddy at 01/19/2006 @ 3:33pm
.
Here is one recent example (FISHBITE 01/18 @ 6:37pm) and there are others.
You want it both ways, to oppose the US invasion and the continued war, but not to be supporting the insurgency.
You're a child hopping back and forth between the ends of the see saw, a chameleon, a recreant.
.
Posted by nacl at 01/19/2006 @ 3:40pm
.
It wasn't sensible to support Saddam Hussein. It is not sensible to support the Insurgency. It is not sensible to slander Wal-Mart. It is not sensible to call the Downing Street Memo a "Smoking Gun," to say the US faked the intelligence, to deem wiretapping al-Qaeda illegal.
It is not sensible to make the Democratic Party the party that refuses to defend the United States against terrorism, against illegal immigration, against crime.
Katrina vanden Heuvel, left-radicals and the Democrats are a study in what is not sensible.
Words alone do not make stupidities, sensible, just as they don't turn failures and defeats into "Sweet Victories."
.
Posted by nacl at 01/19/2006 @ 3:46pm
NACL, it's also not sensible to cleverly format broadsides and platitudes and think anyone will be affected by them. Your posts containing facts are very useful and difficult to refute. The post above just makes you seem like a crank.
I'm just setting myself up for one of your highly literate insults, of course.
Posted by MyParadigm at 01/19/2006 @ 3:59pm
"I will NEVER think like you and champion that causes that you champion..." -- Posted by OKSPORTSGUY 01/19/2006 @ 2:14pm
I agree with what you say in principle, but will disagree in practice; politics makes strange bedfellows, etc.
Even the most opposite of people sometimes find common ground.
Much of what you said sounds a lot like social Darwinism, which I don't really like. Recall that Hitler used Darwin as one of his excuses for this crimes against humanity.
I also don't like the "one side will win" attitude. It suggests a zero-sum war. In many situations, both "sides" can win. If I knew how that will happen in the cases you mention, I'd be a candidate for the Peace Prize.
Nevertheless, I'd like to take a crack at some ideas surrounding abortion. I deplore abortion on principle. Look at India where male births now significantly exceed females because of abortions. The possibility of using abortion as a convenience instead of an absolute last resort is simply too great. Outlawing abortions leads to illegal (hence unsafe) abortions. It's just bad. Abortions occur because of unwanted pregnancies. A good portion of the effort on both sides should be directed to preventing unwanted pregnancies. I don't like killing viable fetuses. I don't like telling women, basically, to "stuff it."
There's a very slippery slope here on both sides. Are you destroying life by preventing it? What's the practical difference between abstinence (Bush's rosy idea) and condoms? With improved medicine, should fetus viability be pushed back a month so that we ban abortions in the last four months instead of just three? Can we erase social stigma so that more unwanted pregnancies can be allowed to run to term, and can we ensure a decent home for the babies?
I'm staying away from absolutist concepts deliberately. No "abortion is murder." No "women must have complete control over their bodies." I'm attempting to show that there could be common ground between apparently warring factions.
After all, there's now (thanks to science) plenty of (frozen) fertilized human ova sitting around waiting to become human beings. Are they people with rights? Things will just get more difficult in the future. RvW did us a service in finding a middle way and may have to be revised as new medicine comes about.
Most people do not take either extreme position on any issue. Let's step back from "one side will win." Let's attempt to reduce taking sides.
Posted by adr at 01/19/2006 @ 4:07pm
NACL - Again, you're missing the point, I think willfully. This is clearly NOT a binary situation, as in:
(a) support the US occupation of Iraq, or
(b) support the insurgency
Your saying that it IS, does not make it so. Also, your list of things that aren't sensible indicates a complete lack of any sense on your part. Not sensible to slander Wal-Mart? Come on, you pompous ass. The Democratic party refuses to defend the country against terrorism? Where do you get this kind of horseshit?
You're right about one thing - words don't turn failures into victories no matter how many times the crackpot in chief uses victory in a speech.
Posted by Fishbite at 01/19/2006 @ 4:10pm
Todd
You respond to the jibe, but not the rest of the post.....(pre and post-jibe)
To quote Seinfeld...."What's up with that?"
Rio
See below to Mask
Mask
Actually I am talking "global change" which can swing different ways in different places. Can we argue that decrease of glaciers and rising sea levels are due to something other than temperature rise? Probably not. As to "cooling" and such....I have opportunity to lecture on such subjects, so I'm pretty open-minded about what I look at in the world. Too much warming can actually trigger ice-ages. Is supported by the Geologic record as well. (Don't want to get too long-winded here)
So because its still cold in Moscow and parts of Europe you think that the mass majority of climate scientists are wrong?
Posted by leftofcenter at 01/19/2006 @ 4:19pm
"They are taking their car batteries inside overnight for warming to be able to utilize their transportation the next day!" -- Posted by RIO BRAVO 01/19/2006 @ 3:17pm
Once again -- nothing to do with what's really happening. An increase of average world temperature of a couple of degrees C will not help our Moscow friends (or enemies) with their winters. Because global temperature changes affect different regions differently, it could even make their winters worse (colder) and their summers worse (drier).
The real issue is what it does to global food production, to global fresh water availability, to global land availability, to global disease patterns. Getting rid of all of that unpleasant polar ice might seem like a good idea to some. Not, however, to the Dutch, whose dikes will have to be raised a meter or two. And so it goes. Fact is, we're entering uncharted territory and all extrapolations look unpleasant or worse.
No one is suggesting a scenario that produces an overall worldwide net benefit from continuing increases in average global temperature. Predictions range from bad to inconceivably horrible. Even so, Moscow may still have cold winters.
Posted by adr at 01/19/2006 @ 4:24pm
NaCl
Its not sensible to make unfounded claims either, but it doesn't seem to stop you!
FrankG
I think we have a winner......NaCl, on behalf of Left side of America, we hereby award you this thread's WingNut Award [tinyurl.com]
Posted by leftofcenter at 01/19/2006 @ 4:25pm
LEFTOF
No....but can I be a LITTLE dubious, when a bunch of guys 30 years ago told me that the world was going to end in a flood....and NOW tell me it's going to end in a drought?
Posted by Mask at 01/19/2006 @ 4:28pm
ADR, abortion is an issue of privacy. the biological process of pregnancy and its end are literally in the hands of the mother and her doctor. the state has no interest there, a democratic one, that is. we know what they do in totalitarian states.I'm afraid there is no middle ground here.
to argue about anything with people who know nothing, want to know nothing and will never know nothing, is a supreme exercise in futility. that describes the global warming argument in these pages
Posted by johannesrolf at 01/19/2006 @ 4:35pm
"No....but can I be a LITTLE dubious, when a bunch of guys 30 years ago told me that the world was going to end in a flood....and NOW tell me it's going to end in a drought?" --Posted by MASK 01/19/2006 @ 4:28pm
Silly argument. Same guys? Probably not. Same amount of data? Definitely not. Same percentage of scientists? Certainly more now by a large margin. Etc. Etc.
Waiting and doing nothing is a decision. At this moment, the data show clearly that it's a bad decision.
If you understand positive feedback in control systems, you know that we're on very thin ice on this planet right now.
Posted by adr at 01/19/2006 @ 4:37pm
paradigm, that flood story seems to be one of the oldest we got, dating back over 5,000 years, wether it actually happened is up for grabs.
Posted by johannesrolf at 01/19/2006 @ 4:40pm
"ADR, abortion is an issue of privacy. the biological process of pregnancy and its end are literally in the hands of the mother and her doctor. the state has no interest there, a democratic one, that is. we know what they do in totalitarian states.I'm afraid there is no middle ground here." -- Posted by JOHANNESROLF 01/19/2006 @ 4:35pm
Yet, SCOTUS has intervened and most people accept that. RvW is the middle ground.
RvW should have taken abortion off the table and allowed us to concentrate on prevention of unwanted pregnancies. Too bad some people are ideologically unable to allow that.
Posted by adr at 01/19/2006 @ 4:43pm
ADR,
"No "abortion is murder."
I'm sorry man, anytime a beating human heart of an innocent (someone with out sin) it's murder in my book. I don't feel comfortable giving that up.
What about all those innocents in Iraq that we are killing you might ask? I absolutely agree with you, it's WRONG. innocent lives lost in war is murder as well. And shame on our military when that happens.
However the sin of the American GI who kills an innocent Iraqi civilian (although an argument can be made that the Iraqi is not without sin) is no more or less than the sin of a mother who kills her unborn child.
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 01/19/2006 @ 5:02pm
Todd,
Due to the USA's dependence on oil we are, as of today, being coerced into a lesser stance in negotiation with Iran and their pursuit of mushroom clouds.
Keep driving that Durango patriot.
Also, isn't it terrific that Iran is so intent of building a bomb.....could it be they were named as one of the three axis of evil countries? and the one of the three we have already attacked in an unprovoked manner was the one without nukes because it posed no threat to us. Isn't Iran just being rational by building a bomb?
How patriotic of you and GWB to go and make us more dangerous enemies.
Frigging idiots.
Posted by freedomplease at 01/19/2006 @ 5:10pm
OKSG - So the criteria for murder are that the "victim" has:
(1) no sin, and
(2) a beating heart.
If both criteria are satisfied, then you got yourself a murder. So, when does the fetus' heart start beating? Or is that just a figure of speech. In other words, when does life, in your definition, begin?
And what about the part where the sins of the father are visited on the son? What if my religion says that everyone is born with sin until redeemed (say by being bathed in holy corn oil) but other than that, I share your definition of murder. Then, as a follower of my religion, I can permit abortion. Why does your religion trump my religion?
Posted by Fishbite at 01/19/2006 @ 5:16pm
Todd,
For the love of everything sacred on God's green earth, just give up your SUV!!!
Of course, if you truly want to be a steward of the environment, you would cut down all of your trees, as well as those of your neighbors, since the new studies are now indicating that TREES are contributing anywhere from 10-30% of global methane production (the third largest contributor to global warming behind CO2 and "vapors") (Nature Jan.12,2006). Among other environmental hazards that trees cause.
Wouldn't it be fun to watch the global warming nuts and tree-huggers duke it out? I'd like to see that offerred on PPV.
Posted by usc1 at 01/19/2006 @ 5:26pm
Fish,
"In other words, when does life, in your definition, begin?"
My opinion and deffinition of when life begins is that life begins at conception:
"At the moment of fertilization, your baby's genetic make-up is complete, including its sex."
From http://www.webmd.com/content/article/51/40790.htm
The babies sex and entire genetic make up occurs at the moment of conception.
"Why does your religion trump my religion?"
That is non-sequitar, what does that have to do with the issue of murder?
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 01/19/2006 @ 5:32pm
USC,
"For the love of everything sacred on God's green earth, just give up your SUV!!!"
Ya..no kidding right? How DARE I choose a vehicle that meets my needs without first checking that all of the other poeple who live on this earth will check off on my selection after giving the litmus test to my Durango regarding it's fuel consumption.
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 01/19/2006 @ 5:46pm
Conservatives should take their racism into the US Chamber of Commerce, see how much they pay attention to you.
Conservatives should boycott all products produced by illegal immigrant labor - fruits, vegetables - it would do them some good and if they starve it would do us all some good.
Business owners who wish to make FAR LESS PROFIT, also have the option of being patriotic and only hiring American citizens.
Posted by reidsucks at 01/19/2006 @ 5:51pm
OKSPORT - if Osama Bin Laden approves of your Durango, screw what the innocent people of the world think, right?
Posted by reidsucks at 01/19/2006 @ 5:52pm
ADR, that abortion thing was quiet for a few decades. it is the rise, along with cynical GOP exploitation of, the religious fundamentalist right, and their aggressive pursuit of doctors and patients, that has created this poisonous climate.
Posted by johannesrolf at 01/19/2006 @ 5:56pm
REidsucks,
" if Osama Bin Laden approves of your Durango, screw what the innocent people of the world think, right?"
I place as much value on Osama's opinion of my decision to purchase an SUV just as much as I value yours, absolutely none.
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 01/19/2006 @ 6:00pm
LOVE LIBERTY, I know what you mean about those environmental wackos. I read this book where this guy said it rained for 40 days and 40 nights. Completely out of this world.
Posted by MYPARADIGM 01/19/2006 @ 3:28pm
Myparadigm
Haven't ever done a good housecleaning?
Posted by love liberty at 01/19/2006 @ 6:00pm
during WW2 my uncle Karl had a factory, turning out toothpaste tubes. as the expansive wars gained success and resulted in many prisoners of war, which could be exploited as forced labor, he was offered this very low cost labor. all his competitors had aviled themselves of this boon to the bottom line. what could he do? the competition ate his lunch, he had to accept these slave laborers for the good of his company, his family, his REICH. and so he did. and so it is with cheap illegal labor, only the names and the circumstances have changed.
P.S. the above is an allegory, uncle Karl was a nazi all along and he screwed my grandparents out of their inheritance at war's end
Posted by johannesrolf at 01/19/2006 @ 6:02pm
"My opinion and deffinition of when life begins is that life begins at conception" -- Posted by OKSPORTSGUY 01/19/2006 @ 5:32pm
Doesn't answer what you'd do with all of those fertilized ova in liquid nitrogen. Doesn't answer what happens when fertilized ovum fails to implant. Doesn't answer what miscarriages are (God's abortions?). Does "conception" mean fertilization of ovum by sperm? Or does it mean implantation (viable blastula with support mechanism)? Or does it mean cell division by fertilized ovum (fertilization resulted in viable cell)? Or does it mean development to a fetus (at about 8 weeks)? What about ectopic pregnancies?
Regarding the heart beat. It begins around three weeks, but it's not a full human heart yet. It's more like a fish's heart. Organs begin to develop around 8 weeks.
Finally, doesn't matter what your opinion or mine is. Matters what the law is. RvW is the law.
Posted by adr at 01/19/2006 @ 6:05pm
this thread reminds me of that show, "connections" where the history prof starts blabbing about one thing and somehow connects it to something completely different. that was a good one.
i bet rese can connect it all to a lot more...
speaking of, i need to un-ig you, rese, for a looksee...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/19/2006 @ 6:07pm
ADR, that abortion thing was quiet for a few decades. it is the rise, along with cynical GOP exploitation of, the religious fundamentalist right, and their aggressive pursuit of doctors and patients, that has created this poisonous climate." -- Posted by JOHANNESROLF 01/19/2006 @ 5:56pm
Agree. Was what I was saying, obliquely. Still, middle ground is RvW.
Posted by adr at 01/19/2006 @ 6:08pm
OSKG - I said "Why does your religion trump my religion?". You said That is non-sequitar, what does that have to do with the issue of murder?
How is this a non-sequitur? Your religion says that abortion is murder, my religion says that it isn't. Why does your religion and its definition of abortion as murder trump my religion? How about the folks in your church outlaw abortions for your church members but stay the hell out of setting the rules for my church?
Posted by Fishbite at 01/19/2006 @ 6:43pm
in this argument about abortion, can we all agree that holding a woman down and forcing an abortion against her will is wrong?
todd, if you're against this happening, you should rethink your party affiliation. it seems a good many of them are into that sort of thing. conrad burns, here in mt, at first voted to put a stop to that and other things occuring in the repub paradise of the mariannas islands.
then, for $5,000.00, the well-off, well-connected (abramoff), mr. burns changed his vote.
he says he has a clear conscience.
those chinese women, being forced to have abortions, after being forced into prostitution, were brought to the islands by willie tan, a clothing manufacturer. those chinese women were told they were being brought to america and given american jobs. they had to come up with $6,000.00 each, their parent's and grandparent's life savings. the ugly ones lucked out and only had to work 12-14 hour days before they were returned to their cells, barbed-wire and all.
conrad told everyone here in montana that he wasn't being investigated for his connections to abramoff. but then a reporter cornered him and he admitted that he didn't know if he was being investigated.
Posted by loveloki at 01/19/2006 @ 6:51pm
of course he's being investigated!
Posted by loveloki at 01/19/2006 @ 6:53pm
another egghead channel favorite of mine was "the barbarians", where they analyzed and cheezily reenacted the high points of several ancient to middle ages groups of (in)famous barbarian peoples.
you would think that the best episode would have been the one about the huns, or the vikings, or the vandals, or the big daddy of all barbarians, the mongols, but no. the one i liked most was about the visigoths.
seems as though the romans had allowed them to enter the empire, fleeing from the proto-mongols known as the huns, heavily armed and smelly as they were. this was in the empire's decadence, and almost immediately the big hoohas of rome said to each other, "oh shit. what have we done?", for there was an entire nation of hungry, destitute, oderiferous barbarians within rome's borders.
the romans then cheated them, trading food dogs for slave girls and treated the visigoths like crap. finally the head roman in charge sent them to a nearby city to get some food and help, but when the city saw the approaching hoard of filthy, pungeant teutonics, they said to each other, "oh shit!!" and closed all the gates of the city. the visigoths tried to tell them that they had been sent there by the HRIC and that they were hungry, but the guards said, "fuck off" and the visigoths proceeded to go apeshit, scaling the walls and carting off everything that was not completely hidden or bolted down, including the slaves (whom they largely freed and armed or copulated with) and lots and lots of good high quality roman weaponry... and they ate everything they could digest and got real drunk and by all accounts had a great time.
and now well armed, almost well fed, and reinforced by all the freed slaves, deserters, vagabonds, and theives they could gather, eventually proceeded to beat the crap out of the roman army sent to teach them a lesson at adrianople, killing the emperor.
after a big "oh shit" session, the romans cut a deal with the visigoths. the huns were ever nearer, though still kind of "out there", and the romans were slipping into surly, effete, grubbing decadence, so it was agreed that the visigothic men would form a couple or three legions and serve the empire, while the women, kids, and old, would settle down and eventually become good roman citizens. so everything ends all happy, eh?
no...
first of all the romans are abunch of assholes. they continue to cheat, humiliate, and in general treat like dirt, the foul smelling visigoths amongst them. secondly, in one of their innumerable civil wars the romans manage to position 2 of the visigoth legions in a major battle, in such a manner that they will be slaughtered, but in effect allow the roman troops to win the battle.
once again, the visigoths proceed to go apeshit. this time, however, they really HATE the frickin' gosh darned mother fudgin romans and they march all the way from modern romania to rome, again grabbing everything not bolted down, including lots of freed slaves (many of them gladiators), and sack the sweet bejebus out of the holy city...
ah, karma...
and we think we live in interesting times? wonder what the next empire will end up saying about us a couple of millenia down the road......
Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/19/2006 @ 6:54pm
oh and i forgot to mention, that clothing being made in the marianna islands, by the chinese slavegirls, has made in the USA on the tag.
Posted by loveloki at 01/19/2006 @ 7:00pm
Adr,
"Doesn't answer what miscarriages are (God's abortions?). "
Yes, but that's God's business not mans decision.
"Doesn't answer what you'd do with all of those fertilized ova in liquid nitrogen."
Keep them frozen until someone can use them, that's still better than sending them to a medical waste dump. In frozen state they at list are still viable and have a chance at life.
"Does "conception" mean fertilization of ovum by sperm? Or does it mean implantation (viable blastula with support mechanism)? Or does it mean cell division by fertilized ovum (fertilization resulted in viable cell)? Or does it mean development to a fetus (at about 8 weeks)? What about ectopic pregnancies?"
All would be included as a viable life IF any sort of fertilization, whether natural or artificial. With the exception of ectopic pregnancies, I would most definitely concede abortions are needed only in medical emergencies such as an ectopic.
"Finally, doesn't matter what your opinion or mine is. Matters what the law is. RvW is the law."
Sure it matters, laws can be changed. Before November 2004, our state constitution did not clarify marriage as a union of one man and one woman. We changed the constitution via a democratic process involving a ballot initiative to rewrite the laws of marriage in Oklahoma to clarify that marriage IS a union of one man and one woman, which in effect outlaws gay marriage.
Laws can be changed, even ones in constitutions. How many times has our national constitution been amended over the years?
It absolutely matters. I figure what must scare you the most then, is the upcoming appointment of Alito to the SCOTUS. As you then will know you can no longer rest on your laurels as a liberal in that RvW may come back into the picture.
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 01/19/2006 @ 7:14pm
Loki
OK_Todd doesn't care. "Survival of the fittest" dontcha know.
Posted by leftofcenter at 01/19/2006 @ 7:31pm
Way to not answer a question todd.
Damn, man...even when we take politics and religion out of it, you still can't answer a question...just spout off about abortion. (Using too much oil is probably the only thing we have in common).
Why the problem with sierra clubbers just pointing out the obvious to you? Annoying perhaps, but hardly a hardship on you or your liberties.
"since the new studies are now indicating that TREES are contributing anywhere from 10-30% of global methane production (the third largest contributor to global warming behind CO2 and "vapors")"
Posted by USC1 01/19/2006 @ 5:26pm
Any source for this on the web? I could not find any reference to the article you mention.
I was always under the impression that plants use up CO2. And don't give off methane til they are rotting. (which would include all organic matter.)
Not saying your wrong (yet). Would like to read more, if this is true.
Eric
Posted by malcontent3 at 01/19/2006 @ 7:45pm
Of course, if you truly want to be a steward of the environment, you would cut down all of your trees, as well as those of your neighbors, since the new studies are now indicating that TREES are contributing anywhere from 10-30% of global methane production (the third largest contributor to global warming behind CO2 and "vapors") (Nature Jan.12,2006). Among other environmental hazards that trees cause.
Wouldn't it be fun to watch the global warming nuts and tree-huggers duke it out? I'd like to see that offerred on PPV.
Posted by USC1 01/19/2006 @ 5:26pm | ignore this person
that does not actually sound like much...10-30% of the 3rd largest contributer?
Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/19/2006 @ 8:26pm
Mal/Ibble:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200601/s1545977.htm
Posted by usc1 at 01/19/2006 @ 8:44pm
...I'll just state that if we are attacked from within, it will probably be because the terrorists entered from our southern border. This of course is because, Dubya is more interested in the hispanic vote than he is about national security.
Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/19/2006 @ 6:47pm
You won't get an argument from me, and I doubt from many conservatives. But I would change Dubya to MOST POLITICIANS. Until border security becomes the dominant issue to the average American, this negligence will continue no matter who is in office. Otherwise, any attempts to control the borders will be painted as racist.
My conspiracy theory is that they (terrorists) are already here, just a-waitin' for the signal. Maybe Rese/Plunger can track this down for us.
Posted by usc1 at 01/19/2006 @ 8:53pm
"I figure what must scare you the most then..." -- Posted by OKSPORTSGUY 01/19/2006 @ 7:14pm
Doesn't scare me. Our people have survived worse (my viewpoint). We even survivied the Warren court (assumed you didn't like them -- maybe incorrectly). The things that scare me are drunk drivers, unstable people with guns, etc.
Good to see that you're fairly consistent in your absolutism. Like some extreme liberals, you're not always practical in your views. We can't afford to keep all in vitro fertilizations frozen forever, for example, especially with the numbers burgeoning.
Your are right that laws can be changed and are all of the time. Our individual opinions still make little difference here -- unless you're a legislator in disguise. I'm seeing control over media as being a much more important factor as is the money to use lobbyists to influence the legislators. (I'm not saying this to gain leverage from the current mess in DC.)
My wish is to get people to think clearly and to understand how to avoid being sold snake oil. Even so, there'll still be widely differing opinions. However, we may avoid imbroglios like the invasion of Iraq for no purpose that the American people would have supported beforehand.
I like that you acknowledge a continuing difference in beliefs. You express yours without insisting that I agree, unlike some of your rightward leaning associates (and, shamefully, some of my leftward-leaning ones). Good!
I dislike that you insist on attempting to change laws so that the government may interfere with my privacy. My personality is one that inherently distrusts authority and really likes my freedom.
Posted by adr at 01/19/2006 @ 9:21pm
USC1 and Frank,
"You won't get an argument from me, and I doubt from many conservatives."
I couldn't agree with you guys more. I have serious criticisms of Bush's non-action on anything having to do with illegal immigration and border control. And I agree with the batted around premise that this is simply to cater to big business for the cheap labor. I have no problems paying higher prices for commodities currently available cheap due to cheap (and illegal) immigrants working for less than minimum wage all under the table.
It reminds me of a rather funny (although I'm sure some could argue offensive and bigoted) video I received from this guy in Texas that drove his truck to the local parking lot known to be a place where illegal immigrants hang out looking for day work (the kind of day work that is all cash and there are obviously no 1099's filled out).
The dude tells the 5 or 6 immigrants there that he has work for everyone building a deck on the back porch of his house and offers them each $50.00 for the days work.
They all jump in the back of the guys truck and off the guy drives, only unfortunately for the immigrants the man isn't driving to his house to put them to work, he drives straight across town to the governments local immigration office and pulls up into the drive way rolling down the driver side window shouting "La-migra" (spelling?) I guess something like "I have illegal immigrants in the truck!" in Spanish.
Needless to say the workers jump out of the truck and scatter in multiple directions to avoid getting caught.
That's one way to fight illegal immigration; however I'm not sure it's the most effective.
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 01/19/2006 @ 9:26pm
ADR,
"I like that you acknowledge a continuing difference in beliefs. You express yours without insisting that I agree, unlike some of your rightward leaning associates (and, shamefully, some of my leftward-leaning ones). Good!"
Thank you.
And I appreciate that you understand that I will not just abandon deeply held core values that I have, and you don't demand that I do..like some of your liberals (and many of my conservative "fundyvangles" as I have heard them referred to by liberals)
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 01/19/2006 @ 9:31pm
ALL
Take a look at a globe sometime. And ponder the fact that much of western Europe is warmer than areas of similar lattitude in North America.
The oceans redistribute heat. If the currents change, the 'temperate' zones will change. Global warming will make Europe colder. Not warmer.
It is, in fact, these complex systems that make any predictions for exact consequence, tentative, at best. This does not change the fact that the overall global temp. is rising. And, well it may actually benefit some, predicting who will benifit is nigh unto impossible.
What if it ain't you?
I'll leave y'all to argue over the politics of it. But denying it is foolhardy. Won't stop it from happening.
Eric
Posted by malcontent3 at 01/19/2006 @ 10:01pm
ADR, it doesn't matter when what happens inside the woman's body, it is her decision, no one else's. there have been some really insane opeds in the Times by their right wing nut Tierney agitating for men's rights to a woman's rerpoductive processes. this all dates back to a time when a woman and her progeny were the property of the husband. kind of like that feudal right of the first night, we discussed here not long ago. those days are gone.the woman's right to her body is indivisible, I don't care what any religion says, and yes the pope's a dope
Posted by johannesrolf at 01/19/2006 @ 10:06pm
Jr,
Th abortion arguement can't be won from any side,so why bother. No matter what positionone one takes he will be vilified.
BTW, what ever happened to your Uncle Karl or his family in the end?
Posted by john maasch at 01/19/2006 @ 10:29pm
Oh let's have some fun with BOTH sides....
Global warming means warmer US and colder Europe?....Okay, means we get to save OIL MONEY on home heating oil, while using our natural coal deposits for electricity for AIR CONDITIONING. We start growing citrus in Nebraska and wheat and barley in Alaska! Meanwhile, the Euros get to fork over big bucks to their "free health care" systems for frost-bite!
Abortion made illegal, banned, whatever? Cool...now I can open up that chain of "speakeasy abortion clinics" in Mississippi and Georgia and make BILLIONS smuggling in RU-486 from Canada and Mexico. My "weekend trips" to Aruba Travel Agency does gangbusters ("Arrive Pregnant And We'll 'Natalee' That Kid For Ya!" could be the motto).
There...did I end the night making EVERYBODY mad at me?
Posted by Mask at 01/19/2006 @ 10:30pm
Bush isn't doing anything about illegal immigration? What bullshit. He looks the other way while a bunch of fat white crackers down on the border harass people who are just trying to get out of an economy dominated by maquiladora fuckheads. As usual, though, it's plain as day that most of the posters here don't know because they don't have to know. Fuck you assholes.
Posted by Legba at 01/19/2006 @ 10:42pm
Posted by MASK 01/19/2006 @ 10:30pm
Don't forget to be vigilant when crossing the border or things could get very tough for you.
Posted by Will C. at 01/19/2006 @ 10:45pm
right on legba! where have you been?
Posted by loveloki at 01/19/2006 @ 10:51pm
.
What is the reality?
Has a nation of 23 million been robbed of its freedom and independence and wealth by the United States and is now forced to live under the guns and whips of 140,000 Americans?
Or, has a dictatorship been ejected and replaced by a constitution and govt elected by over 10 million voters? And does that Iraqi regime, the first free and representative govt Iraq has ever had, not depend on the US to defend it?
In the absence of the US - would that regime not in all likelihood be replaced by the insurgents who are principally remnants of the Baath, in uneasy alliance with foreign fighters? How then is your non-support of "the US occupation" not "support [of] the insurgency"?
.
Everything I say I have responsibly backed up with facts and or reasoned arguments in previous posts.
I don't have the time or patience to repeat it all again and again.
.
Posted by nacl at 01/19/2006 @ 11:11pm
Mal
Tried giving them a science lesson on climate earlier...don't think it took. During my MA studies I took a course on Env Risk Communication....this is a prime example of the lay public's inability to grasp scientific intricacy - and the scientific communities' inability to lay out the info in a digestible manner. Then there is the matter of "trust"...much of the lay public juat doesn't trust "science"....*sigh*
Posted by leftofcenter at 01/19/2006 @ 11:36pm
People who are opposing torture, government spying and other stupid lies and practice ARE defending the United States from jerks like NACL.
Greetings to you as well, LoveLoki. I've been at the Southside Tricksters reunion. Coyote and Iktomi say hello. My regards to Baldaar, Thor and the rest of the clan.
Posted by Legba at 01/19/2006 @ 11:38pm
I am a progressive and I oppose illegal immigration. I support decent jobs at decent wages. Illegal immigration allows employers to find workers at shit wages, and avoid paying a decent wage. My position is pro-labor. I do not understand the liberal position of tolerance and amnesty for illegals. I am for quick deportation. It is the task of Mexicans to reform their own country, build business, and elect better leaders. It is not viable for all the poor people in Latin America to come here. Secure the borders and deport the illegals. That is the pro-labor position.
Posted by philbq at 01/20/2006 @ 12:07am
Just out of curiosity, what will be the left/right argument on what to do with all the coastal refugees. Especially from the southeast, where vast portions will go underwater, regardless of the temp. in the area, when the oceans rise.
It ain't just The Netherlands problem. Imaging Katrina, but on an even more massive scale. But, in slow motion.
Oklahoma, here we come. Leave the light on Todd.
Eric
Posted by malcontent3 at 01/20/2006 @ 12:23am
eric, i'm sure that'll be great with todd, as long as they're all gay. he loooves those gay people!
by the way, todd, what about all those republicans and the forced abortions i was talking about earlier. still no comment?
legba, sounds like a wonderful meeting. my regards as well, to you and yours, ogun, chango, obatala and others.
Posted by loveloki at 01/20/2006 @ 12:50am
Mal/Ibble:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200601/s1545977.htm
Posted by USC1 01/19/2006 @ 8:44pm
Ok. Read the story. If plants rotting count for 10-30% of methane released, then animals must count for 70-90%...flatulating (omg! thats plant matter making the gas) and rotting.
Damn trees.
Even if an old forrest releases alot of methane as it dies. There is more carbon in the ground than before...and it came from the CO2 the plant breathed throughout it's life. Plants take in CO2, respirate the O and sequester the carbon in their structures...even if some gets airborne at the end..the net gain is still carbon in the ground, oxygen in the air.
People and animals do the opposite...no big deal...it balances....until we dig up eons of sequestered carbon and burn it...realeasing the CO2 back.
Blaming it on plants rotting? Please!
Plants were here before animals. Their sequestering of carbon over time, created a cooler climate (what we consider normal), and realeasing enough oxygen for animal life to flourish. We are reversing that cycle.
Good for trees. (Algae too. Gonna be alot more ocean surface.) But not for people.
Eric
Posted by malcontent3 at 01/20/2006 @ 02:12am
Loveloki,
"by the way, todd, what about all those republicans and the forced abortions i was talking about earlier. still no comment?"
I've responded to you on this question before....
I have never claimed to be "pro-republican" or "pro-Bush"
I don't like the Republicans! I don't particularly like Bush, they aren't conservative enough!
I simply voted for Bush because of the lessor of two evils syndrom!
If it were up to me, I would rather have someone in the white house that was tuff on terror, sealed the boarders IMMEDIATELY, deported all the illegal imigrants and really would follow through on what the person SAID they were going to do while campaigning, particularly the part on supporting a national change to the U.S. constitution to define marriage, which Bush has convienently backed off from now that he bas been elected.
I am not a Republican band stander and flag waver, I never have been. When did you get the ill-conceived and incorrect idea that I was?
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 01/20/2006 @ 07:53am
Maasch:"Th abortion arguement can't be won from any side,so why bother.
this could be said about any issue. I thought I presented a cogent argument, instead of the wildly emotional appeals from the "other" side.
I think all of this is misogynism, which I trace back to womb envy. men envy the close connection to the life processes that women have. women are there at the dawn of creation, they are nature and growth, they are our future and our past. men are too often Kali like, creating with one hand and destroying with the other.the chinese have a saying: women hold up half the sky.. they are too conservative, in my experience women hold up at least four fifths of the sky.
Maasch, I don't know what happened to great-uncle Karl, after getting screwed out of their inheritance, all contact was broken off. my grandfather lived to see his 70 birthday as did grandma.I myself am no longer in contact with my uncles and cousins in germany and they are no longer in ccontact with me. this is how it used to be in the past, when someone in the family emigrated to Amerika, they were often never heard from again.
Posted by johannesrolf at 01/20/2006 @ 08:06am
Phil, I agree completely. I would just like to add that we owe the illegal workers ethical and fair treatment.
Posted by johannesrolf at 01/20/2006 @ 08:09am
There...did I end the night making EVERYBODY mad at me?
Posted by MASK 01/19/2006 @ 10:30pm | ignore this person
in that i am not a member of the group known as "EVERYBODY" the fact that you have not made me mad does not, therefore refute the possibility that you MAY have indeed made everybody mad at you.
i, as a member of the group known as "somebody", however, am intrigued by your enterprising idea and would like to offer my assistance for a cut in the profits...
ah crime, the great uniter...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/20/2006 @ 08:28am
i am also a member of the groups known as "they", "we", and "the "functionally insane".
Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/20/2006 @ 08:30am
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 01/20/2006 @ 08:28am
See, IBBLE, that's the cool thing about a criminal business under a "Prohibition", like some hypothetical "ban on abortion"....LOTS of profits and no taxes. (Remember how they got Capone).
But to further extend my net of "people I'm trying to get mad at me"....throw in THIS Prohibition----hand guns!
See, a GOLDEN opportunity to make money exists whenever one side or the other of the "We know best, so we're going to control your lives" Crowd gets what they want.
Ban booze....Get Capone, O'Bannion, etc.
Ban drugs....get Medillin Cartel.
Ban abortion....get RU-486 "runners" and "speakeasy clinics"
Ban handguns....get a black market, where you buy a $30 .357 Magnum in Nueva Laredo, MX....and sell it to some guy in Chicago or Atlanta who wants to defend his family...for $800.
Posted by Mask at 01/20/2006 @ 09:37am
johannesrolf, that whole thing about misogny being at the root of all this prohibitive abortion stuff is very deep. you have some very interesting perspectives on our problems. to further your thought on the envy side of it, there were many birth-giving male gods during the struggle to change the world from polytheism to monotheism. this wouldn't work, the people wouldn't buy it.
so then we get this birth through the spirit, the complete subjugation of the horrid females and the horrid earth, and in the catholic church, centuries of a tight-wire act with mary.
however, with Kali, i'll have to disagree. her destructive side is one connected with mother and mother earth. possibly, this global warming discussion is related to that side of her. don't mess with mother nature.
Posted by loveloki at 01/20/2006 @ 11:00am
todd, sorry. i stand corrected.
Posted by loveloki at 01/20/2006 @ 11:01am
Loki, I must have gotten my gods and godesses mixed up, maybe someone can enlighten me on that one, I'm thinking of a male deity who creates with one hand and destroys with the other.you seem to be one of the readers to offer understanding to my thoughts, thanks
Posted by johannesrolf at 01/20/2006 @ 11:34am
That would most likely be Shiva (Hindu). Although technically Shiva is the destroyer and Brahma is the creator. But most images of Shiva have this two-handed thing going on, so that might be what you're thinking of.
Posted by MyParadigm at 01/20/2006 @ 11:44am
It's all good. It all folds back into place anyway. I was talking to Jesus about it just the other day, he said, "hell, if we hadn't turned multiple personality disorder into an artform to begin with, I might've danced with skulls around my waist at Golgotha too. But somebody else had the gig, I wasn't going to bust her chops. Kali's a hotty". That guy.
Posted by Sweetdaddy at 01/20/2006 @ 12:33pm
Paradigm, Shiva is the god I was referring to, thank you, o enlightened one
Posted by johannesrolf at 01/20/2006 @ 12:35pm
legba, while we're discussing the names, i just wanted to point out that i'm not some sort of pagan religious fanatic. while i do love the god loki, and all the gods and goddesses, my name is in reference to my dead pet, a huge valiant grey wolf, loki.
Posted by loveloki at 01/20/2006 @ 12:42pm
sweet daddy, loved the post. hilarious. i was raised catholic, so i have a little firsthand knowlege of that multi-personality disorder artform.
Posted by loveloki at 01/20/2006 @ 12:53pm
johannesrolf, no, thank you.
Posted by loveloki at 01/20/2006 @ 12:54pm
Got to love the consistency.
Whenever someone on the left posits a question meant to insult or ridicule Christians about Jesus, the posters ring out with "keep your religion out of here".
But bring up pagan idols or gods, and it becomes a religious love fest.
But I'm cool with it, just find it a bit inconsistent.
Posted by love liberty at 01/20/2006 @ 1:06pm
Kinda hoping a new thread will be started soon, but perhaps our Nation columnists are taking a long weekend.
Connecting back to the original topic of this thread, a brief and interesting column was posted on counterpunch.com counterpunch.c om [counterpunch.com] that details the struggles of workers to maintain their wages as inflation inches up. They do not go so far as to connect this to illegal immigration, but I don't think it would be that demanding a project to relate the two.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 01/20/2006 @ 1:31pm
TJ
I think John Nichols probably has his weekly interview with Al Franken....Katrina vanden Heuval may staying at the "Hamptons house" so that she can avoid returning Chris Matthews phone calls....and Peter Rothberg is with the other 12 guys attending John Conyers' latest "Hey Gang, Let's Put On A Hearing In My Dad's Basement" "hearing".
Posted by Mask at 01/20/2006 @ 1:50pm
"I would most definitely concede abortions are needed only in medical emergencies such as an ectopic." -- Posted by OKSPORTSGUY 01/19/2006 @ 7:14pm
I could go on for volumes on this one. You've started down the slippery slope. Be consistent and keep to no abortions at all!
The ectopic pregnancy begins with fertilization, growth to zygote and to blastula. Looks like conception to me. Once you allow an abortion for ANY reason, you open yourself up to a line-drawing contest. And, no matter where you draw the line, someone can magnify that bit of logical territory and show you that the line is fuzzy.
I personally prefer no absolutes and minimal state interference in what should be a very anguished decision informed by a trained and licensed medical doctor. Personally, I hate abortions. I also understand their necessity for several reasons. Understanding something does not mean liking it!
OTOH, I don't really understand the death penalty. Not necessary to save the mother's life. It's just state-sanctioned killing for vengeance.
Finally, regarding original topic, I can't figure out how to handle immigration and end up with a totally fair system. I know that I don't like the H1B guest worker program that seeks to undermine the wages and benefits of "permanent" citizen workers. Instead of importing so-called skilled workers on a temporary basis, we should be training our own underprivileged citizens to do that work.
In an ideal world (never happen), we'd just have open borders. People who work here, like those who work in a state different than their home, should pay taxes in the place that they work and support that economy. Oh, well -- dream on.
Posted by adr at 01/20/2006 @ 2:17pm
Back on the topic of conception and birth, I'd like to share a bit of personal history. My second child was born two months early. He was also sideways and had to be born by C-section. In an earlier age, he would have died -- God's will??
I went into the pediatric ICU to see him on that birth day and held him in one hand -- head on finger tips, bottom on palm, legs down wrist. It chokes me up today, 29 years later, to think about it. Today, he's 6'6", 210 lbs, an avid beach volleyball player, a Brown physics graduate and my partner in business.
He came to the PICU because my wife's original doctor desired an amniocentesis (my wife was 36 at the time) and botched it. An amniotic infection resulted unknown to us. My wife switched OB-GYNs. On her first visit to the new doctor for a checkup, he rushed her into surgery -- an emergency!! I was many miles away at a sales meeting and drove back as fast as possible when informed in the middle of dinner.
I have great regard for the potential of life in the womb as a result. Still, I have to wonder what to do with a Tay-Sachs baby.
On September 8, 2001, I took American flight 11 from Boston to Los Angeles three days earlier than planned because my wife (on a contract assignment near Boston) insisted that I shouldn't leave my son alone for the extra three days. So, on September 11, I was able to watch the event on television instead of being a part of it. My daughter was visiting in-laws in New Jersey on that date and had planned an early excursion to NYC via PATH right into the basement of the WTC. Her plans changed the day before.
Life is fragile and should be cherished.
Posted by adr at 01/20/2006 @ 2:33pm
Loki,:"johannesrolf, no, thank you.
what is this in reference to?
Posted by johannesrolf at 01/20/2006 @ 3:35pm
Does Ms Van den Heuvel take a position on the Imperialist Immigration of Settlers into Palestinian territory in light of the ad in The Nation by the Historical Revisionist Israeli group "FLAME", which denies the well-established historicity of the Palestinian presence there over the last few centuries?
Ellen Bollinger, Vice President for Advertising, has stated:
Yet The Nation has banned ads denying the Holocaust, which, though equally exempt from the policy blocking fraudulent commercial speech by being political in nature, is apparently less "politically correct" in The Nation's eyes.
Posted by ProudPrimate at 01/20/2006 @ 3:41pm
johannesrolf, u said thanks for understanding your thoughts. no, i thank you for posting your thoughts. sorry i should be more clear sometimes.
Posted by loveloki at 01/20/2006 @ 3:41pm
Todd
I went and edited out the "snide comments" to see if you might actually comment on the "meat" of the post.... ________________________________________________________________________
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 01/19/2006 @ 3:00pm | ignore this person
So let me get this straight. You...a proclaimed "Christian" don't mind if your sneakers were made by a child in a 3rd-world sweatshop. Furthermore, you claim that such a stance engenders "survival of the fittest"
As to global warming...no one will win. Its not us versus them or me versus you....it is a minority of the world's population using a majority of its resources and ignoring simple scientific realities because they think their "right to ignore" will cause said facts to go away?
Must be a mighty blissful existence out there in OK...us Liberals actually care about the world. Funny how you "Christians" don't. Go figure. _________________________________________
Posted by leftofcenter at 01/20/2006 @ 3:53pm
Loki, you are very kind
Posted by johannesrolf at 01/20/2006 @ 4:09pm
LofC,
"So let me get this straight. You...a proclaimed "Christian" don't mind if your sneakers were made by a child in a 3rd-world sweatshop."
Sure I do... just not enough to pay extra money for sub quality sneakers manufactured in the U.S.
"As to global warming...no one will win. Its not us versus them or me versus you....it is a minority of the world's population using a majority of its resources and ignoring simple scientific realities because they think their "right to ignore" will cause said facts to go away?"
I will not change my driving habits or the cars that I like because they don't meet your or anyone else's fuel mileage criteria.
Just like I don't expect that any person that is voulantarily pro-choice to change their position on the matter just because I disagree with it.
If your deffinition of "Christianity" is based on a litmus test of sweat shops and green house gases, then no I deffinitely don't meet your deffinition of "Christianity", thank God.
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 01/20/2006 @ 4:29pm
thank you, Zero for this helpful historical report. to me, privacy is still the salient issue. I see it akin to the amendment prohibiting unreasonable searches. if a woman's body is not a privacy zone what is?
Posted by johannesrolf at 01/20/2006 @ 4:32pm
Todd
Not a litmus test...just checking the depth of your moral relativism. Guess I should get my scuba gear on....
Posted by leftofcenter at 01/20/2006 @ 4:34pm
Posted by MASK 01/20/2006 @ 09:37am | ignore this person
this is the point i begin to dream of an america in which some kind of green/libertarian yin yang replaces the dem/republican two headed monstrosity. yeah, i know, take another bong hit, ib and tell me more...
it seems like there did exist a nostalgized past where for a while such existed in the form of the dem/pub system, before the yn/yang mutated into the current abovementioned twoheaded monstrosity. the dems represented compassion while the pubs stood for wisdom. too little compassion is ultimately foolish and too much compassion can result in situations more dire than if there had been no compassion at all.
sometime in the seventies it seems that wisdom possessed by the dems drained away while that compassion which always tempered the party of lincoln also withered so low as to endanger their strength, their common sense understanding of the impossibility of alleviating all of life's uglier realities.
now they are BOTH owned by corporate america, who also owns, of course, the msm...
as political correctness infested the dems, fundyvangelist medievalism broke down the gates of the republican party and poisoned it. i would also posit that neoconservativism has similarly poisoned the pubs, or at least the most rabid strains of it, but am attempting to be fair here, and would leave only the third wing of the modern republican party, the good ole fashioned moderate to conservative country clubbers, who sometimes quite wisely suffer from a lack of empathy (esp for the suffering of those they cannot directly percieve, but who are basically decent folk) unscorned.
but here's a conservative wisdom that seems to be forgotten these days by many - there are certain vices, the elimination of which produce more evil than the attempt itself to eliminate, eliminates. is that "conservative", or just wise? or just confusing...i dont know, but spinoza had it right when he blabbed about this a very long time ago.
guns? oh lord - along with abortion, an issue the dems could really look at, in terms of adopting a plank that might allow them to take over in a big way...not just for a couple or four years in one or two branches of government, either.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/20/2006 @ 4:38pm
Going back to the issue of illegal immigration:
I normally don't agree with VandenHeuvel and think she's ordinarily a far-left whiner, but she's right on this one. I agree with what Zero and MyParadigm said earlier. Illegal immigration is a boon to the U.S. economy because a growing population creates economic growth. And the illegals are here overwhelming to work, not collect benefits. In fact, they help keep the Social Security program solvent because they pay payroll taxes (using false SS numbers provided by their employers) without being eligible to collect SS benefits, because they're not citizens. So they pay out more in payroll taxes than they will ever collect in benefits.
The argument that they take jobs from native-born Americans is bogus. They either do jobs native-born citizens will not do or they are simply much better workers than the native-born workers available. An example: the construction trades. Hispanics have come to dominate certain types of manual construction labor in certain fast-growing parts of the country, such as installing cabinets, sheetrock, etc. because they work much faster and more diligently than will the typical American willing to do such work. And these are not generally low-paying jobs, so the argument that they are depressing the wages of blue-collar Americans is, at least in the construction industry, not true. If you doubt this, ask any home-builder or building contractor in metro Washington D.C., Florida, Arizona, Colorado, California, or anyplace else where illegal immigrant labor does the bulk of the construction labor.
And this notion of training unemployed Americans to do this work is laughable. If these native-born unemployed were so eager to do this type of work and were being displaced by Hispanic labor, wouldn't we hear something in the news about it? Wouldn't there be stories about clashes between unemployed Americans and Hispanics? To take another example: The Washington D.C. area has the lowest unemployment in the country because of a booming economy. In light of this, why aren't the unemployed and marginally employed of Appalachia, which is right in D.C.'s backyard, migrating to the city en masse to find work? Why aren't they taking the unskilled jobs there instead of Hispanics? In the past, during the 1930s, the poor of Appalachia migrated to Detroit and other cities in the industrial Midwest to find work in factories because they had no better options at home. D.C. is closer to the coalfields of West Virginia, Kentucky, and Tennessee than Detroit. While the economy in Appalachia is probably better now than it was in the thirties, it's not that much better. I think the answer is obvious: because the Appalachian unemployed don't want the work bad enough. The same holds true for the unemployed of the inner cities, like D.C. itself.
This points to an uncomfortable truth many people won't want to hear: a lot of Americans, white and black, employed and unemployed, rich and poor, have gotten really physically lazy. Most of us have probably heard about someone or other who makes a dubious claim of disability and is seeking, or already receives, SSI checks. Even among those who want to be employed and shun welfare, there is an ever-shrinking number who are willing to do physical labor.
In light of all this, why the hell are some people stigmatizing people who actually want to work, and generally do an excellent job? The reason so many people cross the border illegally is because our government simply doesn't grant enough temporary work visas for all the manual laborers our economy needs. The solution to the illegal immigration "problem" is to vastly increase the number of work permits granted, so everyone in Mexico who wants to emigrate for a better life in the U.S., and is a law-abiding citizen generally, can get one easily, instead of having to sneak across the border. The illegals who are already here and have demonstrated a willingness to work and are have not committed a serious crime should be given an opportunity to become a U.S. citizen.
And by the way, I am an Anglo myself.
Posted by MontebelloKid at 01/20/2006 @ 4:46pm
Zero
At times I am tempted to use that option and then I back up and realize the only way to really solve things is to have a meaningful discourse. I am trying to understand "them" and in doing so I think I need a stiff drink about now.
Along Ibble's "pipe dream" thread above, I'd like to see campaigns finanaced on an equal footing to disallow the 2 headed "rich old white boys" club and get some diversity in government representative of the "real" America.
Posted by leftofcenter at 01/20/2006 @ 4:47pm
I am trying to understand "them" and in doing so I think I need a stiff drink about now.
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 01/20/2006 @ 4:47pm
You're falling into their trap. They coax you in with the promise of something meaningful ("come to me, LEFTOFCENTER, and I will treat you to cookies and cocoa and a tete-a-tete on the order of William Buckley") and then they vomit on you with their ignorant self-satisfied bombast. Then, what happens? You have no choice but to turn to the bottle.
And their deed is done: your brain is loaded with inanities and then drowned in alcohol. One more liberal bites the dust.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 01/20/2006 @ 5:05pm
"The argument that they take jobs from native-born Americans is bogus." -- Posted by MONTEBELLOKID 01/20/2006 @ 4:46pm
The "they" to which you refer, I assume, are the very low wage workers. I know not to which post you reply, if any. However, if to mine, then understand that the H1B guest workers I'm thinking of were receiving around $20 per hour with little or no benefits compared to Americans getting $75 to $200 per hour (also with no benefits in this case) or getting six figure salaries with great benefits. Well, I can find plenty of native-born U.S. citizens willing to train to make $100/hour or so! At the time of this situation (dot-com boom), this particular employee had hundreds of "guest workers."
BTW, most were only worth (in relative terms, of course) what they were being paid. The employer was not saving money. The only benefit was being able to push back on American wages.
I was not one of the employees of this company.
Posted by adr at 01/20/2006 @ 5:25pm
Monte, you must be kidding, with the americans are lazy jive. anything an illegal immigrant worker can do, can be done by a LEGAL immigrant, and for better money, a minimum wage for example. your diatribe adds nothing to the discussion except your bigoted attitude.the illegals are hired not because they are better workers but because they are CHEAPER workers. more illegals, more cheaper workers, a race to the bottom.
Posted by johannesrolf at 01/20/2006 @ 5:25pm
Posted by RIO BRAVO 01/20/2006 @ 3:55pm | ignore this person
so rio, just how long can we go on keeping nuclear weapons out of everybody's hands but ours and our "buddies", anyway? what, is this to be, the hundred years worldwar 3? because as the all powerful benevolent ayn rand economic nihilist world order bestows ever more wealth and development upon every now darkened backwater, and as the wealth of new scientific discoveries make possible horrors now only imagined as it makes access to those currently in existance easier, more and more peripheral nations will gain the ability to bust out da bomb et. all.
it may be possible that this honestly hypocritical crusade to deny da bomb to all who now do not possess it, esp the most demonstrably violence prone, is indeed the wisest and best course in the long run. but what i fear, knowing how even the mightiest of empires falls, is that we arrogantly swagger about it, insulting all who question, eschewing input from even our closest allies, and ugly americanizing the world for our profit - i. e. slip into imperialism, then suffer the ugly karmic fate of all empires.
its a decision that we must, if we are to remain a republic, ALL discuss seriously, not just those we deem most knowledgeable, smartest or most powerful, but a significant proportion of the american people need to decide how we will face this reality. even if "the gububbament" has to try to force the question down our throats over the static siren song of moronic, lobotomizing, pop culture, we the schmuks, have to seriously discuss, analyze, and make a decision in this matter, and NOT leave it up to that nebulous constellation of distant stars known as "they" or "them" - our politicians...
but then even if the interest of the people could be slapped away from their american idol, the young and the restless, pro rastlin, and all the other countless trivialities and circuses that infest the current sociohistorical millieau, then we would run into another problem - the fact that we cannot trust those who inform us - the msm, whose concentrated ownership by the elite group in power taints its objectivity, while the collective trivia addicte add nation limits by choice the amount of relevant news covered, honestly or not.
we, the schmuks (as in the average joe/jane) of the united states of america, need...
good, honest information - i.e. the truth
in order to...
rationally and responsibly analyze, discuss and make decisions about our future.
and we probably need to use our government to cramm this issue in our faces whether we like it or not, until we the schmuks make some decisions.
unfortunately our politicians, our elected servants fear/disdain us to much to tell us this. and certain folks in power are keeping too many secrets and telling too many lies.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/20/2006 @ 5:30pm
.
I haven't seen that ad, and I don't know the philosophy of "FLAME." But I doubt that it denies that Arabs have for centuries lived in Palestine. That cannot be disputed.
What is easily disputed is the claim that a distinct nation of Palestinians inhabited the region before the 1970s.
Whoever wants to uphold that claim needs to produce a history text of a Palestinian people written before the 1970s. Moreover, where is there a text on the sociology of a Palestinian people, or on their anthropology, or their politics? How can a people exist for centuries, self-conscious of itself as a separate nation, yet be without its own poetry, its own folk tales, cooking recipes, myths, songs, jokes? Where is there any account of a uniqueness Arab people who call themselves Palestinians before the 1970s?
A nation has peculiarities and distinctions; it has its own special customs and traditions. Those are discussed and recorded, either as boasts or lamentations, in written or oral records. Where are they in the case of Palestinians?
Todays Palestinians didn't even call themselves that before the 1970s. Before then that name was a term of derision. It was what the Jews had called themselves before May 1948. Thus, the Palestinian Telegraph Agency, the Bank of Palestine, the Palestine Post, etc., had been Jewish institutions. The Arabs on the other hand had insisted on calling themselves, the Arabs of Palestine, or South Syrians. They had never entertained the idea that they were a distinct nation separate from other Arabs. That notion was not just alien to them, if was offensive.
That all changed in one week in June 1967. The Israelis came into control of the West Bank and Gaza. The Egyptians and Jordanians had ruled those territories as had the British before them. The Ottomans had for 400 years before the British. Never had it occurred to the inhabitants of the region that they were a nation under foreign occupation. Until, that is, the Jews entered the picture.
.
Posted by nacl at 01/20/2006 @ 5:32pm
the construction trades. Hispanics have come to dominate certain types of manual construction labor in certain fast-growing parts of the country, such as installing cabinets, sheetrock, etc. because they work much faster and more diligently than will the typical American willing to do such work. And these are not generally low-paying jobs, so the argument that they are depressing the wages of blue-collar Americans is, at least in the construction industry, not true. And by the way, I am an Anglo myself.
Posted by MONTEBELLOKID 01/20/2006 @ 4:46pm
Monte,
You are wrong here. The prime motivation for contractors to hire immigrants is for the cheap labor. Obviously, a Mexican immigrant worker will not command the same wage as a domestic one who speaks fluent english, knows the existing threadbare labor laws, and doesn't have to fear deportation. Are you joking, in stating that this doesn't depress wages in construction?
An abundance of labor depresses wages. That is why the business sector favors immigrant workers.
Posted by Oustbush at 01/20/2006 @ 5:35pm
NACL,
Visit http://www.factsandlogic.org/ad_15.html for info on FLAME's ideology.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 01/20/2006 @ 5:37pm
"I will not change my driving habits or the cars that I like because they don't meet your or anyone else's fuel mileage criteria." -- Posted by OKSPORTSGUY 01/20/2006 @ 4:29pm
Describes the "tragedy of the commons."
If you assert your "right" to use to excess a common resource, then you are being selfish and, along with those of like mind, are messing up things for all of us -- including you.
How will we ever get people to understand enlightened self interest without passing intrusive and unpleasant legislation? We wouldn't have to have CAFE or EPA or plenty of other laws and agencies if people weren't so selfish.
Even murder is often just a selfish act. How about tax cheating? Shoplifting? These benefit one or a few people (unless they get caught) at the expense of everyone. Soon, restrictions on mobility, extra expenses of preventing these crimes, etc. weigh on all of us.
If it were absolutely proven (don't have to assume it ever will be -- this is hypothetical) that SUVs are destroying the environment and will ultimately result in widespread crop failures and famines, then a law outlawing them might be passed. (More likely a truly draconian gas tax would be passed -- may $10 per gallon.)
It doesn't matter too much which item I take. I took SUVs because of your stentorian defense of your right to own and drive one. Our rights are precious. I hate to see the tragedy of the commons yet again restricting them because of those who would abuse their privileges. BTW, driving is not a right. Driving a particular car is also not a right -- although you may own any car you can afford, there are many restrictions on what you can drive right now. With our population willy-nilly driving cars that are out of sync with the situation today, you can expect these restrictions on your so-called right to drive to increase. The longer we wait to do something, the more severe and sudden these restrictions will be. Please remember that I hate the idea of having my freedom so limited. However, if we as a population behave like children, then we'll probably all (even the more enlightened ones) being treated like children.
So go ahead and see how much Arab oil you can use up, how much CO2 you can dump into the air, how much extra space you can occupy, and be prepared to pay the price along with lots of fellow citizens who did not do these things and won't like having to pay for your licentiousness.
And, don't I remember you claiming to be a Christian?
Posted by adr at 01/20/2006 @ 5:43pm
"You don't see Latinos on the street asking for anything accept work." -- Posted by ZERO 01/20/2006 @ 5:35pm
APPLAUSE!
Posted by adr at 01/20/2006 @ 5:44pm
ZERO, et. al.,
Perhaps there is some generalization to be made, but I don't think you can go so far as to identify industriousness through race or ethnicity. I have experienced industry and sloth in every race I've encountered. And such stereotypes don't relate at all to productivity. I've watched those in the entry level positions at my workplace--male and female, white and black and Hispanic and Indian--some have worked well and some have failed, and I couldn't possibly identify a genetic or even a cultural predisposition to either the success or the failure.
What I think might be truer is that immigrants of almost any background have a greater passion and real need to work their butts off in this country. Money is scarcer and their appreciation of what this country can provide is all the greater.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 01/20/2006 @ 5:45pm
Zero, that's a nice anecdote and it proves....nothing, except perhaps some hidden racism. we do not need more people willing to work for $3 an hour and living 64 to a single family home.this all benefits only the bosses, who like the cheap labor, did you read MY anecdote about great uncle Karl above?
Monte's post is the height of absurdity, and I'm surprised you don't see that.I realize the contribution immigrants make, but legal ones make an even greater contribution, they follow the law, and we are a nation of laws
Posted by johannesrolf at 01/20/2006 @ 5:48pm
Posted by NACL 01/20/2006 @ 5:32pm | ignore this person
good points. but then why are there more than 1 arab "nation" at all? i argued similarly in the balkans issues, but truly i dont know of any specifically palestinian national conscienceness prior to the arab-isreali conflict. i have also argued often that egypt should get gaza and jordan should have the west bank - both are moderate, recognize isreal, and with continued massive dumping of $$$$$ and aid by us, could become the type of countries isreal just wont have to worry about.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/20/2006 @ 5:53pm
TJ, as usual, you nailed it. the important distinction is to be made between legal and illegal immigrants, period. that they want to work hard does not distinguish illegals from legals. if we make people desperate enough, they will come.
Posted by johannesrolf at 01/20/2006 @ 5:55pm
Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/20/2006 @ 5:56pm
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 01/20/2006 @ 5:56pm | ignore this person
actually posted by my cat
Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/20/2006 @ 5:58pm
Ibble, arab is more of an ethnic description than a political one. Jordan HAD the west bank between '48 and the last war.they did not absorb the population but kept them in camps. I don't think they would take it now, nor would Egypt take Gaza, why should they, they have enough islamic radicals of their own, the muslim brotherhood
Posted by johannesrolf at 01/20/2006 @ 5:59pm
Ibble, my friend's cat has his own website
Posted by johannesrolf at 01/20/2006 @ 5:59pm
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 01/20/2006 @ 5:59pm | ignore this person
oh i agree - I wouldnt want those places either - cant blame 'em...
which brings me to another suggestion of mine that almost always draws blank stares - why is th UN not involved? in a major way? if its so crucial to the peace of the world and all these wackos are, as always, running around blearily eyed babbling about armageddon, why not commit un forces? i know, there are a buzillion reasons why it IS not happening, but i can think of precious few for why it SHOULD not...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/20/2006 @ 6:05pm
TJB
Yeah...sometimes I feel like I'm trying to teach a dog to talk, and other times its just beating my head on the wall.. But to luring me in....ain't gonna happen.
BTW: Just in case you have too many "do-goody religious doorknockers" in your neighborhood, try this:
Next to your door hang: a black graduation gown, a life-size rubber chicken, a big knife (either real or Halloween prop). When you see them coming, don the robe and grab the props. They knock...you open door....they say "May we come in and speak to you about the Lord?" You fling door wide wide, brandishing the props and proclaim (loud and wide-eyed) "Why certainly brothers (or sisters) We were just getting ready to hold services!"
Works every time!
Posted by leftofcenter at 01/20/2006 @ 6:08pm
ADR
Brav-o
Posted by leftofcenter at 01/20/2006 @ 6:08pm
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 01/20/2006 @ 5:59pm | ignore this person
my cat's posting here accurately reflects his opinions on all topics discussed here...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/20/2006 @ 6:09pm
Sorry if I misunderstood, Zero. I have read every post on this thread (save the nuts) and had read a similar one posted by you earlier on. Perhaps I should have interpreted your posts to be lauding the will to work demonstrated by illegal immigrants who happened to come from south of the border, but it appeared to me to be more of a condemnation of some groups through the praise of another, based on race. I apologize for questioning the motive behind your point.
It's been said in a number of different ways by a number of different posters, but as long as our economy finds a way to utilize the labor of illegal immigrants, then the overseer of our economy--the federal govt--ought to be prepared to provide them with the basics that anyone else in this country deserves. If the feds don't wish to do so, then they need to enforce harsher penalties on businesses that undermine our labor laws and our legal workforce, and they need to get serious about preventing the supply of illegal workers. I don't expect either of the latter two to occur.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 01/20/2006 @ 6:13pm
Posted by TJBEHRENS1 01/20/2006 @ 6:13pm | ignore this person
you, tj, are a master (or mistress) of the obvious. that is the highest of compliments, by the way, not snide sarcasm.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/20/2006 @ 6:16pm
Though we are a nation comprised of numerous nationalities, it is still the characteristics of Great Britain that dominate the American ideology. The British, coming from an island lacking resources, developed a culture based on expoitation (division of labor, aggressive military). And despite our Founding Fathers having seperated us from the mother ship, our system is predominantly Anglo-- and this was their limitation. For example, John Locke writes wonderfully about individual rights, but with less fanfare, describes them as suitable only for the ruling elite. And it was no coincidence that the majority of Native American tribes alligned themselves with the French over the British (the French were less aggressive and treated them better than the British/American traders). All industrialized nations exploit to some degree, but the UK and US just happen to be the worst of the lot.
Posted by Oustbush at 01/20/2006 @ 6:23pm
one might also mention Calvin and his absurd and dangerous ism
Posted by johannesrolf at 01/20/2006 @ 6:41pm
.
.
Thank you, that link was useful.
I don't see what is so objectionable in that FLAME presentation. Or how it justifies PROUDPRIMATE's wild talk about "Imperialist Immigration." Even less, how it deserves being called a "Historical Revisionist" group. That is a foul allusion to the Holocaust Denier, David Irving's, Historical Review.
It is the Palestinians who are trying to turn history on its head. As for example when they claim the Jews have no connection to the Holy Land and that the Temple Mount is solely an Islamic site unconnected to the Temple of David.
.
Posted by nacl at 01/20/2006 @ 6:46pm
"Now get ready for the Nation to lambast the prosecution of these righteous environmentalist doing "Gods work" Right?" -- Posted by RIO BRAVO 01/20/2006 @ 6:22pm
So weak that it's not even up to the "guilt by association" standard. I condemn violence by anyone. I condemn deliberate attempts to divide otherwise friendly people too.
Left, right, libertarian, whatever, there'll always be some extremists who believe that extremism in defense of (fill in term here, e.g. liberty) is no vice.
The problems we face as a nation and as a world are simply too large to allow people to prevent us from sitting down together to seek rational solutions.
I understand the frustrations of people watching the Bush people (and Reaganites previously) rape the environment. Responding in kind is just wrong and makes you as bad as they are.
The right way is to throw the bums out of office. Not easy, but not impossible.
Posted by adr at 01/20/2006 @ 6:56pm
apropos SUVs, let's remember the federal gov't complicity in this case, by classifying them not as cars, which they are,but light trucks. this was done to protect the domestic car industry, a shortsighted approach for sure as it only postponed the day of reckoning for Ford and GM. the bill for these companies is now due, see massive plant closings and lay offs. advertising did the rest, persuading folks that they needed these behemoths to climb that wild mountain, when in reality they are mostly used to drive to the mall. advertising works, look at the Bush administration, he was advertised as something he isn't, bright, competent, a texan, a uniter not a divider, etc
Posted by johannesrolf at 01/20/2006 @ 6:58pm
Ibble, doesn't your cat want to check out my friend's cat's website?
Posted by johannesrolf at 01/20/2006 @ 7:00pm
LofC,
Are you seriously defending the civil rights of women to destroy human life via abortion and then turning around and preaching to me about "moral relativism"?
I'm just checking...
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 01/20/2006 @ 7:04pm
ADR,
"OTOH, I don't really understand the death penalty."
The difference is innocence and lack there of.
inmates who have commited crimes have sinned (I'm certainly not suggesting that I haven't sinned, however I have never commited any sins that end up with a judgement of the death penalty) innocent babies in mothers wombs have commited no sins.
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 01/20/2006 @ 7:06pm
Now get ready for the Nation to lambast the prosecution of these righteous environmentalist doing "Gods work" Right?
Posted by RIO BRAVO 01/20/2006 @ 6:22pm\
Wrong
Posted by Will C. at 01/20/2006 @ 7:19pm
It doesn't matter too much which item I take. I took SUVs because of your stentorian defense of your right to own and drive one. Our rights are precious. I hate to see the tragedy of the commons yet again restricting them because of those who would abuse their privileges. BTW, driving is not a right. Driving a particular car is also not a right -- although you may own any car you can afford, there are many restrictions on what you can drive right now. With our population willy-nilly driving cars that are out of sync with the situation today, you can expect these restrictions on your so-called right to drive to increase. The longer we wait to do something, the more severe and sudden these restrictions will be. Please remember that I hate the idea of having my freedom so limited. However, if we as a population behave like children, then we'll probably all (even the more enlightened ones) being treated like children.
So go ahead and see how much Arab oil you can use up, how much CO2 you can dump into the air, how much extra space you can occupy, and be prepared to pay the price along with lots of fellow citizens who did not do these things and won't like having to pay for your licentiousness.
And, don't I remember you claiming to be a Christian?
Posted by ADR 01/20/2006 @ 5:43pm
ADR,
I recognize that you are a sincere, well meaning poster. What I find interesting about this specific posting, is that it represents a stereotype of liberal defeatism. I don't mean that as an insult, rather an observation of that conclusion based upon a unique condition known to conservatives as "liberal myopia".
This inability to see in the distance except in negative terms if the dominant thought, would completely destroy the US and our historically unique economic engine.
Your response lacks the awareness that today's technology including the combustion engine will be obsolete within the next 15-20 years. Today's hybrids will even be obsolete and Fuel Cell technology will most likely just a transition phase to even more advanced technology gains.
As to the overcrowding you cite, are you aware that the Western United States is only about 10% developed. Drive through the Southern California desserts, Nevada, and Arizona specifically and you will find vast wasteland. I have been proposing that tremendous economic opportunity, coupled with technology advancements and higher quality of life for millions of Americans is available if we would direct more of our efforts on this subject.
I am an eternal optimist. I believe the history of the US demonstrates that we can achieve anything if we have the right focus.
Most of our right-left arguments would disappear if we could reach a broad level of agreement on working towards maximizing everyone's opportunities instead of appealing only to narrow political interest groups.
Posted by love liberty at 01/20/2006 @ 7:22pm
babies in mothers wombs have commited no sins.
Todd
Posted by OKSPORTSGUY 01/20/2006 @ 7:06pm
Except original sin.
But hey that's a Christian thing
On a side note the Catholic Church has just done away with "Limbo", the place where the souls of babies that are miscarried or die without the sacrament of baptism (to wash way original sin) go.
The souls of said infants are reported seen headed for the Caribbean to celebrate with a few margaritas and, you guessed it, limbo dancing.
Posted by Will C. at 01/20/2006 @ 7:27pm
Most of our right-left arguments would disappear if we could reach a broad level of agreement on working towards maximizing everyone's opportunities instead of appealing only to narrow political interest groups.
Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 01/20/2006 @ 7:22pm
You first
End your fight against legalized abortion
Posted by Will C. at 01/20/2006 @ 7:30pm
ADR,
WOW where to start regarding your 5:43 p.m post.
How about here...
"How will we ever get people to understand enlightened self interest without passing intrusive and unpleasant legislation?"
Many of Americans don't WANT what you refer to as "enlightened self interest" on anything and as a matter of fact flat our rebuke that type of garbage. Let me fill you in on something, I don't want ANYTHING that you feel you could teach me that would be "enlightening" to my self interest. I know you think you are more intelligent, and would be doing it for me for my betterment. But really..... You just keep it bro, I'm good the way I am, I promise = )
"Even murder is often just a selfish act."
Murder is never justified, however killing is. If a terrorist came after your family and your options where to kill the terrorist or allow the terrorist to take your wife (assuming your married, your girlfriend or gay lover if you aren't) are you suggesting that you wouldn't kill if it were the last resort to protect those that you love?
"How about tax cheating? Shoplifting?"
Non-sequitur, tax cheating and shoplifting have nothing to do with fuel mileage and the possible link between hydrocarbons and ozone depletion.
It's against the law to cheat on taxes or shoplift; it's not against the law to drive an SUV that get's bad gas mileage.
"If it were absolutely proven (don't have to assume it ever will be -- this is hypothetical) that SUVs are destroying the environment and will ultimately result in widespread crop failures and famines, then a law outlawing them might be passed."
And if this happens, I'll obey the law. However that is merely a hypothetical "what if" scenario. What also might eventually be found through scientific research is that the ozone depletion is happening due to all of the hot air exhaled by whacko environmentalist complaining all day long about conservatives who drive SUV's, and therefore at this point laws might be put in place excommunicating the environmentalist whacko's to live in communal small islands in the Pacific, kind of like they used to do with lepers. If this happens will you pack up and move to the whacko island to follow the law?
"So go ahead and see how much Arab oil you can use up, how much CO2 you can dump into the air, how much extra space you can occupy, and be prepared to pay the price along with lots of fellow citizens who did not do these things and won't like having to pay for your licentiousness."
Don't worry, I will, I just got back from a trip out to dinner with my wife where just in your honor, I mashed the gas peddle to the floor at every green light to see how much fuel I could burn through that 5.7 liter Hemi. I've counted the cost and am willing to pay the price, and if there weren't millions of other consumers like me, SUV's wouldn't be so damn popular. One of these days liberals will learn the concept of economics, supply and demand.
"And, don't I remember you claiming to be a Christian?"
Yes, and I can assure you there is no pre-requisite to being a Christian that states that a believer must drive a car that meets a certain fuel mileage litmus test, trust me, I've read the bible many times.
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 01/20/2006 @ 7:30pm
But, then you probably would never have known how important life can be?
Posted by RIO BRAVO 01/20/2006 @ 7:51pm
Sure I'd be here. I'd just be someone else. God doesn't waste perfectly good souls on a fetus he knows will never be born.
Unless you are suggesting that he is not master of the universe, all knowing, perfect...
Posted by Will C. at 01/20/2006 @ 7:55pm
You must be presuming upon a God that is other than the Sovereign one revealed by scripture in the Holy Bible
Posted by RIO BRAVO 01/20/2006 @ 8:06pm
Who said anything about reincarnation? I'm refering to the point of ensoulment which your scripture places at first breath (see Adam).
Unless you know something I don't, then this is an active step taken by God, supporting my position that he is an integral part of the process.
and that he wouldn't waste a perfectly good soul on a fetus he knows will never be born.
Posted by Will C. at 01/20/2006 @ 8:14pm
Affirmative on that call! You do know Christian basic knowledge!
Posted by RIO BRAVO 01/20/2006 @ 8:11pm
I was raised Christian. On the other hand your boy Todd claims to be Christian yet seems to be observe some rather heretical beliefs.
Posted by Will C. at 01/20/2006 @ 8:17pm
Most of our right-left arguments would disappear if we could reach a broad level of agreement on working towards maximizing everyone's opportunities instead of appealing only to narrow political interest groups.
Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 01/20/2006 @ 7:22pm
You first
End your fight against legalized abortion
Posted by WILL C. 01/20/2006 @ 7:30pm
Will,
Why do you pick the singular issue that has the least likelihood of right-left agreement? Especially given the context in which it was placed. We have to begin with those issues which have agreement on finding solutions, but currently differ primarily on the specific solutions.
Abortion is like trying to resolve Jerusalem between Arabs and Jews. It is practically impossible. There is no real room to negotiate.
We all want everyone to have an opportunity for a better life, a home, good education, jobs, a better environment. I find it difficult to believe that right and left cannot somehow lay down some ego and seek more areas of common agreement.
Posted by love liberty at 01/20/2006 @ 8:19pm
I see no indication that they are standing in line in heaven waiting for an unaborted fetus to reside in. Maybe thats a Catholic Church thing?
Posted by RIO BRAVO 01/20/2006 @ 8:22pm
I wasn;t raised Catholic, but I grew up in an Italian neighborhood in Jersey so it might be culturally catholic.
You have to ask yourself if the soul is an immortal being created by God or if it is a product of biology.
Your answer implies that it is the latter. I believe it is the former.
Posted by Will C. at 01/20/2006 @ 8:28pm
Why do you pick the singular issue that has the least likelihood of right-left agreement?
Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 01/20/2006 @ 8:19pm
But Liberty
It is the easiest of issues to agree on. If you oppose abortion,
don't have one.
Posted by Will C. at 01/20/2006 @ 8:32pm
Posted by OKSPORTSGUY 01/20/2006 @ 7:30pm
You either missed or evaded my points.
Enlightened self interest has a specific meaning. It doesn't mean that I enlighten you. It means that you look at all of the consequences to you of an action by you. The last Tsar of Russia thought he had it all in hand. He went by his self-interest, which was anything but enlightened. An extreme example, but one that may at least be suggestive.
If you wish to cross an old foot bridge to get to the other side for reasons important to you, you may ignore the fact that your weight added to those of the others already on it will cause it to break and cause injury or death to all.
The Jesus I studied and learned about, based on my imperfect understanding, would not appreciate you stomping on your gas pedal to see how much additional insult you can add to the environment.
Do you not believe that we should treasure the Earth that we have inherited? Do you not believe that you should always do your best to honor your fellow man and not cause unnecessary pain? Should our role be that of masters or of stewards? Does causing the extinction of God's creations mean nothing to you? These are the questions I intended by asking about your version of Christianity.
When did Jesus ever say (or even imply) that we should exhaust all of the planet's resources to make ourselves comfortable? How about picking the largest whatever for yourself to raise your own self-esteem or to compare favorably with your neighbor. An SUV was originally intended as an off-road vehicle that morphed into a yuppie show-off chariot, most of which never go off the road. Remember that SUV stands for Sport Utility Vehicle.
Now, if you truly use yours with reasonable frequency in situations where a sedan just wouldn't do, then you, unlike millions of SUV owners should have one. The rest are just show-offs and are guilty of vanity. You shouldn't have to have a big car or whatever, bigger than you'll ever really need, to prove your worth.
Now, go ahead and pick off the out-of-context stuff you can. Or, answser the meat of my discourse.
Posted by adr at 01/20/2006 @ 8:34pm
Abortion is like trying to resolve Jerusalem between Arabs and Jews. It is practically impossible. There is no real room to negotiate.
Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 01/20/2006 @ 8:19pm
They could share the city as both their capitols.
They were bound in the struggle. They will be bound in the peace.
Posted by Will C. at 01/20/2006 @ 8:35pm
"Abortion is like trying to resolve Jerusalem between Arabs and Jews. It is practically impossible. There is no real room to negotiate.
We all want everyone to have an opportunity for a better life, a home, good education, jobs, a better environment. I find it difficult to believe that right and left cannot somehow lay down some ego and seek more areas of common agreement." --Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 01/20/2006 @ 8:19pm
Amen to part II. Re: part I; I believe that RvW is the middle ground. Those who would depart from it are off to whatever side. We have a law. Some say we're a nation of laws; I'd prefer a nation of people, but that's another issue.
Abortion must be legal (and is) or we'll be back in the back-room abortion world again. Abortion must be rare, or we risk abortion on whim. RvW splits the difference. Those who cannot agree to the two points above belong outside of the discussion because with them there is no discussion.
The discussion then progresses to definitions of "rare" and "legal."
Yeah, yeah, I know I've simplified this, but, after all, I'm not writing a book. You all get the point.
Posted by adr at 01/20/2006 @ 8:40pm
Rio,
I'm in advertising and marketing, and I'm a non-denominational Christian.
Main line denominations are a dying breed, just look at any mainline Methodist, Episcopalian, and Presbyterian Church.
God is shutting their doors and bringing up the non-denominational churches (which makes sense, when we get to heaven there won't be any divisions by denomination)
Leaders and Pastors I listen to and follow are men like Ted Haggard, Rod Parsley, Joel Osteen, Ed Young jr. and sr. etc.
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 01/20/2006 @ 8:42pm
ADR,
"Now, go ahead and pick off the out-of-context stuff you can. Or, answser the meat of my discourse."
The meat of the discourse is simply this....
I determine what type of vehicle to purchase based on my needs, wants and desires. I don't value your opinion on my decision nor any one else's in the world. Your guys aren't the ones PAYING for the car or the gas that fuels it. I am. Do you get it yet?
And if you can't accept that answer, then go to your representatives in Congress to try to get the united states constitution changed to outlaw SUV's, I can assure you conservatives are to try to get abortions outlawed.
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 01/20/2006 @ 8:47pm
Your guys aren't the ones PAYING for the car or the gas that fuels it. I am. Do you get it yet?
Posted by OKSPORTSGUY 01/20/2006 @ 8:47pm
You're right, somebody's paying that 9 billion were spending in Iraq every month to keep our oil supply safe.
But it ain't us.
Posted by Will C. at 01/20/2006 @ 8:53pm
our children will be paying for ALL this
Posted by johannesrolf at 01/20/2006 @ 8:56pm
Oklahoma guy -- you can see the responses of others. Basically, you're paying only part of the cost. Are you so materialistic that you can only relate to your checking account in this discussion?
I do not challenge your right to spend your money unwisely, only the ethical issues surrounding your decisions. Our markets do not value ethics or pollution (except maybe a little bit) or other factors that they should. It's the problem with unfettered capitalism and the tragedy of the commons -- you've heard of that, haven't you?
Posted by adr at 01/20/2006 @ 9:12pm
Your guys aren't the ones PAYING for the car or the gas that fuels it. I am. Do you get it yet?
Posted by OKSPORTSGUY 01/20/2006 @ 8:47pm
Two trillion dollar war, coastal erosion...potential for crop failure, etc. You aren't the only one who suffers the consequences of your actions. We all do. Do you get it yet?
(And, no, I don't mean only you. We are all guilty on some level. A small amount of acknowledgement and discussion might take the load off of your guy, who handles all your 'sins' for you).
Surely, just flagrantly using up the resources we all have to share is a bigger sin than sleeping with someone (not wife/same sex, etc.))
Eric
Posted by malcontent3 at 01/20/2006 @ 9:35pm
Eric,
"Surely, just flagrantly using up the resources we all have to share is a bigger sin than sleeping with someone (not wife/same sex, etc.)) "
Perhaps on your value scale, not mine.
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 01/20/2006 @ 10:26pm
I think the salient point in global warming is not whose fault it is, but rather what do we do about it. Friedman has a good op ed in today's Times that touches on this
Posted by johannesrolf at 01/20/2006 @ 11:55pm
sorry, I did not remember that unless you have a subscription they charge you now for this stuff
Posted by johannesrolf at 01/20/2006 @ 11:56pm
"Surely, just flagrantly using up the resources we all have to share is a bigger sin than sleeping with someone (not wife/same sex, etc.)) "
Perhaps on your value scale, not mine.
Todd
Posted by OKSPORTSGUY 01/20/2006 @ 10:26pm | ignore this person
Ok, I can't speak for Todd but here are some points i think he will agree on.
1. The measuring stick that Todd uses is the Bible.
2. The Bible is the inerrant word of God.
3. Man's arguments posted here are worthless unless they are in line with scripture.
4. God said it, i believe it, that settles it.
Surely by now bloggers can understand the foundation for Todd's responses. He is not proselytizing anyone, just plainly stating his beliefs. I can respect that.
Posted by vano at 01/21/2006 @ 08:20am
Todd
Don't believe in abortion? Hey..don't have one! In truth, in my 1st marriage (young and stupid, blah, blah) we had an unplanned pregnancy and decided that A) we were too poor, and B) our relationship was too unstable anyway...so after much deliberation we terminated the pregnancy. It was not a decision taken lightly, and think what you like....but Todd, you don't pay my bills either.
As to who is paying for the effects of your (and many others) overconsumption [SUVs, etc.] That one is easy. You will mete that out on your children....but I guess you don't care about their futures either?
As to moral relativism....I should think that yours most certainly dwarfs mine as related in Posted by OKSPORTSGUY 01/20/2006 @ 10:26pm.
Rio
I noted your little anti-environmentalist diatribe didn't give any detail as to what these "heinous eco-terrorist" acts actually WERE. Are we talking tree-spiking and disabling bulldozers, or did they actually DO something we shouold be concerned about?
Posted by leftofcenter at 01/21/2006 @ 09:01am
Vano
Of course everyone who reads the scriptures comes up with a different set of "rules".....that I can't respect.
Posted by leftofcenter at 01/21/2006 @ 09:02am
I've said it before, I'll say it again, the bible is the wisdom of the best minds of the bronze age, its oldest part is the poetry of shepherds, pretty good poetry too. of course a lot of it was taken over from the Babylonians and Sumerians. the "new" testament is mainly greek in origin and point of view.
Posted by johannesrolf at 01/21/2006 @ 09:12am
instead of greek, one might better say hellenistic
Posted by johannesrolf at 01/21/2006 @ 09:33am
Of course everyone who reads the scriptures comes up with a different set of "rules".....that I can't respect.
Agreed LOC. It is up to the reader. I know for myself the question i had to ask was: Why am i upset with fundamental Christians espousing their views?
Posted by vano at 01/21/2006 @ 09:37am
Vano
Quite so. I figure any religion (or sect thereof) that claims that it is uniquely the "right one" is by default amongst the wrong ones...
Posted by leftofcenter at 01/21/2006 @ 10:03am
Vano,
"Surely by now bloggers can understand the foundation for Todd's responses. He is not proselytizing anyone, just plainly stating his beliefs. I can respect that."
Yep, you pretty much nailed the proverbial nail on the head. Great way of explaining it.
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 01/21/2006 @ 10:03am
Johann
Agreed on my end. Poems and parables with lots of useful moral guidelines embedded. (Of course, some of THAT occurred in England in the middle ages) Also lots of poetic "crap" as well as out and out "tall tales" too! But should we design a society lookiong to the future on values from poems of the ancient past? Probably not.
Posted by leftofcenter at 01/21/2006 @ 10:08am
Don't worry, I will, I just got back from a trip out to dinner with my wife where just in your honor, I mashed the gas peddle to the floor at every green light to see how much fuel I could burn through that 5.7 liter Hemi.
Todd are you our thorn in the side Paul spoke of ? (lol.) On an aside , Do you noodle for catfish in OK. ?
Posted by vano at 01/21/2006 @ 10:17am
Responding to the people who include some religious content in their posts is the road to hell. Trying to make sense of something that's designed to stop you from trying to make sense of things that don't make sense.
Did that make sense?
Posted by MyParadigm at 01/21/2006 @ 10:21am
eminently, and that's not the pasty faced rapper
Posted by johannesrolf at 01/21/2006 @ 10:23am
Responding to the people who include some religious content in their posts is the road to hell. Trying to make sense of something that's designed to stop you from trying to make sense of things that don't make sense. Did that make sense?
From your perspective , it absolutely makes sense.
Posted by vano at 01/21/2006 @ 10:27am
"Man's arguments posted here are worthless unless they are in line with scripture."
"Unless"? Try "if they believe".
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 01/21/2006 @ 11:12am
Vano,
"Do you noodle for catfish in OK. ?"
No, although I am an avid angler, I prefer to use a rod and reel = )
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 01/21/2006 @ 11:16am
they hate people while professing their love for god
Posted by johannesrolf at 01/21/2006 @ 11:36am
esponding to the people who include some religious content in their posts is the road to hell. Trying to make sense of something that's designed to stop you from trying to make sense of things that don't make sense.
Did that make sense?
Posted by MYPARADIGM 01/21/2006 @ 10:21am
Yes it did. I will pound my head against an actual wall some more, to see if I can't get it to stick. I don't know why I keep trying. I just find it so hard to believe these seemingly conflicting/illogical points of view reside in the same head. Todd says he enjoys the responses he gets, but I keep waiting for him to say, "Just yanking your chain. You guys are so gullible. Surely you didn't think I really believed that, did you?" Iknow...not gonna happen. I'll try to give up.
Eric
Posted by malcontent3 at 01/21/2006 @ 12:43pm
MALCONTENT3, Todd has said that in so many words on more than one occasion. In fact, I had to re-read your post to make sure you weren't quoting him, it was so accurate.
Posted by MyParadigm at 01/21/2006 @ 12:50pm
He is not proselytizing anyone, just plainly stating his beliefs. I can respect that.
Posted by VANO 01/21/2006 @ 08:20am | ignore this person
well, i like todd just fine, think that despite his political insanity, he is a decent guy and suspect that were my laid back buddhist ass in need and he could provide reasonable succor, as would i for him...
and i most definately welcome any discussion about his faith in which he wishes to engage.
that said, if todd is not trying to proselytize his religion, technically he is not following his faith to the letter of the scripture...in fact all who believe in a literal interpretation of scripture...
1. must attempt to spread their faith to all others. whether this is done by gentle persuasion, leading of an exemplary life, subtle coercion or blatent force, scripture does not say, as far as i know...
2. must believe that the only way to achieve some kind of pleasant immortality is to accept his religion's narrow interpretation of scripture and that the consequense of failing to do so is suspiciously draconically unpleasant, esp. for a god that is supposed to be all knowing and all compassionate...
this set of beliefs in inherently a menace to all who do not share them and no matter how those who ascribe to those beliefs try to reassure those they believe hellbound and a threat to poluute the faithful, history shows that time and again faiths which believe similarly do horrible, evil things to those who dare not accept them. over and over and over again.
and to not understand this would be foolish for anyone who does not share these beliefs. there was a damn good reson our founding fathers specificall tried to ensure a separation of state and religion...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/21/2006 @ 1:02pm
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 01/20/2006 @ 7:00pm | ignore this person
other that sleeping, killing things weaker that himself, matriculating painfully on my stomach and drooling when i pet him i'm afraid he has few interests...heehee - but give me the address anyhoos, JR
Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/21/2006 @ 1:08pm
Posted by NACL 01/20/2006 @ 6:42pm | ignore this person
how about my queries for more UN involvement? i know that peacekeeping forces from many countries would be unacceptable by both sides, but, like i said, if this conflict is as important as we all seem to agree it is, with the potential to create as much widespread mahem as we impute onto it, (and largely it is, i think), well, what the hell was the UN's purpose to begin with? i thought that preventing some kind of self fulfilling apocalyptic prophecy by dangerously deluded fanatics was, like, pretty high up there on the reasons for the UN to exist list...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/21/2006 @ 1:16pm
Ibble,:"matriculating" means enrolling in college, whatta smart kitty. I believe the word you may have been looking for is masticating, which means chewing. here is the site babyrex.com
and the drooling is probably very endearing. My cat insists on chewing on my nose, a painful expression of affection. I chew on his ear, which he likes, chewing on HIS nose he definitely does not like. enjoy the site
Posted by johannesrolf at 01/21/2006 @ 1:53pm
Ibble, I think the reason the UN hasn't been more involved in the west bank conflict is that there used to be an active peace process, sponsored by the US. under the Bush regime that process has degenerated into giving Sharon carte blanche. another instance of freedom on the march, backward
Posted by johannesrolf at 01/21/2006 @ 1:55pm
how about my queries for more UN involvement? i know that peacekeeping forces from many countries would be unacceptable by both sides, but, like i said, if this conflict is as important as we all seem to agree it is, with the potential to create as much widespread mahem as we impute onto it, (and largely it is, i think), well, what the hell was the UN's purpose to begin with? i thought that preventing some kind of self fulfilling apocalyptic prophecy by dangerously deluded fanatics was, like, pretty high up there on the reasons for the UN to exist list...
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 01/21/2006 @ 1:16pm
IB,
You have posed the questions to the answer that conservatives like myself have been giving for decades.
The UN is a fairly worthless organization as regards actually 1) mediating peace between nations in conflict, 2)preventing wars, 3)proactively providing humanitarian aid (they wait until world pressure becomes so intense, it is virtually impossible to not do something.
I Grant you, they do all of those things sporadically. They have never lived up to their so-called charter because the first goal of every member nation is it's own self interest. That very valid basis will forever prevent the UN from becoming what many on the left envisioned it to be.
Posted by love liberty at 01/21/2006 @ 2:35pm
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 01/21/2006 @ 1:53pm | ignore this person
matriculating is not a synonym for "kneading"? oops...
as for isreal, well, thats a rational/plausible analysis/explanation. i cant help but conjecture that israel would have had reservations toward such a proposal when the israeli gov was de-facto abetting a drive to permanantly annex said territories by not halting jewish settlements in occupied territories.
hold on - permit me to take another bong hit and quote to you from my book, "solutions to all the problems", chapter somethingtysomething, "the palestine question".
the UN should cobble together a sizeable force of peace keepers from all over the world and send it to occupy gaza and the west bank for an indeterminate amount of time. this would permit the isrealis to withdraw to their internationally accepted frontiers while ensuring security (as much as possible). these forces would remain in position until a solution to the problem was arrived at, whatever that solution would be. i would reccommend strongly considering (at least) giving the west bank to jordan as well as giving egypt soveriegnty over gaza (not too encouraged by the historical record of nations seperated by other nations from possessions, except us/canada, that is). perhaps, with enough development $$$$$$$$ gaza could become some kind of middle eastern/medditerranean version of a wealthy micro state a la singapore...who knows, eh?
ok, one more big bong hit before i continue...
...and i do not think the usa should be involved in this operation in any way other than as enabler/logistics controller/assistance. i think that the primary controller of the actual military operation, and perhaps the diplomatic as well, should be western europe, especially france, and even more so....gulp.....germany....
"wow ibble - thats some good stuff..."
it certainly is, but thats not the point. germany has achieved peacefully, by submitting rather than forcing to submit, that which she attempted to in two world wars by force - leadership of europe. not to put down any other nationality in europe, but by all measurable standards it is true. economically, socially, politically, scientifically, and, i would argue, morally...germany is the first among equals leader of europe (the european union). AND THANK GOD!!!!
in just 60 years germany has gone from last to damn near if not right there, the pinnacle of civilized morality, in my opinion. and i'm not just kissing your butt here, JR, suspecting that you MAY be a blessed kraut by your name. by the way no offense, all tongue in cheek, ok? my dad, a ww2 vet, liked/respected germans, but called them krauts anyway. he hated that show, "hogans heroes", however - when i asked him why, he replied that "germans are niether stupid, nor bumbling, nor cutesy; they are highly efficient and capable people", after which i just kept watching and he kept remarking about how stupid it was.
but honestly - if we are going to try to ensure that instability in parts of our world will not threaten to ignite nightmarish potentialities, we need leadership that is prepared to 1. think outside the box, and 2. encourage/engage in rigorous debate and purposeful action
the usa, as the most powerful nation in the world, SHOULD humbly assume a mora, ethical, first among equals position and thereby powerfully lead the world. just as germany is the current lord of europe.
ps - yes i know that germany is not, in effect, perfect, and suffers the same problems and shortcomings that afflict all in this tough ole world. i just think that in realistic terms, they have, by largely tossing that old racist crappola out the window and having devoted themselves so admirably to righting their historically horrendous karma, come damn close to generating comfortably human and humane race of MORAL/ETHICAL ubermensch and should be taken into account in any discussion of world stability and action to assure the same.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/21/2006 @ 3:55pm
Grant you, they do all of those things sporadically. They have never lived up to their so-called charter because the first goal of every member nation is it's own self interest. That very valid basis will forever prevent the UN from becoming what many on the left envisioned it to be.
Posted by LOVE LIBERTY 01/21/2006 @ 2:35pm | ignore this person
LL,
if we do not elect leaders that attempt to make something come to pass, even if that thing may seem very difficult if not perhaps impossible, nothing will ever change, a self fulfilling negative prophesy will perpetuate itself, giving all of us a comfortable excuse to eschew our pesonal responsibilities of becoming moral/ethical ubermensch, which in turn leads us to elect similarly underachieving representatives, at whom we rail because we recognize our own inadequacies therein.
but look, 2000 years ago if you had told me that slavery would/could/should be eliminated, i might very well have laughed in your face and called you a lunatic. but, relatively speaking, all word parsing and nictpicking aside, now we have that which was once impossible - a world largely without slavery.
because we (we being humanity in general) DECIDED slavery was wrong, and PURPOSELY worked to end it.
realism and cynicism are not synonomous
Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/21/2006 @ 4:07pm
The souls of said infants are reported seen headed for the Caribbean to celebrate with a few margaritas and, you guessed it, limbo dancing.
Posted by WILL C. 01/20/2006 @ 7:27pm | ignore this person
oh you r bad. merengue?
Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/21/2006 @ 5:15pm
Posted by MALCONTENT3 01/20/2006 @ 02:12am | ignore this person
thanks for the perspective
Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/21/2006 @ 5:21pm
instead of greek, one might better say hellenistic
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 01/21/2006 @ 09:33am
JR
so then you also noticed that Jesus was modeled as a traditional greek hero: dads a god, moms a human, the offspring has super powers, in this case control over matter and energy.
Of course the one thing that still intrigues me is that the story came at a point where mankind then goes on to tame the world by gaining control over both matter and energy.
interesting isn't it?
Posted by Will C. at 01/21/2006 @ 7:32pm
Yep, you pretty much nailed the proverbial nail on the head. Great way of explaining it.
Todd
Posted by OKSPORTSGUY 01/21/2006 @ 10:03am
Then we will look forward to you giving up all your possessions to the poor and working for the salvation of all mankind.
Posted by Will C. at 01/21/2006 @ 7:35pm
Abortions fell under Clinton, but rose under Bush, because of bad policy, just as Israeli terror victims fell under Ehud Barak, but skyrocketed under Sharon. The Fascists say they are against these things, but their actions have the opposite effect.
In the 20 months prior to Sharon's obnoxious strut on the Temple Mount on September 28, 2000, FIVE Israelis died from intifada-related incidents. In the 20 months FOLLOWING, the number was 440 [based on an Excel file provided by a website which is suffering from an as-yet unrepaired crash, but I have posted my (annotated) copy at Israeli Victims [home.gwi.net]]
Posted by ProudPrimate at 01/21/2006 @ 10:04pm
NACL: I have been absent from blogging for a few days, but I wish to acknowledge your civility and answer some of your points. Indeed, as I read your post, I began to wonder if I had been careless and immoderate. I hadn't read the FLAME webpage -- what if I'm overextended?
But a couple of hours have passed, and I have to say I stand by my original words. Lokking at that page, my eye falls on this quote:
If they can say that, why can't I say:
I remember in my Christian days my church was visited by a certain wacko preacher now famous to California college students, Jed Smock, who produced a book about South Africa called "Gold in the Furnace". Here is a quote from the blurb on the back cover:
Like the rationalizations used now by European-Americans vis-à-vis the since-displaced indigenous peoples of this hemisphere [N.B.: Hugo Chávez and Evo Morales IN-cluded], the doctrine of Manifest Destiny is the real issue here. The land, water, and relics (these last being the most politically valuable by far) in Philistia -- excuse me, Palestine.
Why was Morales overwhelmingly elected? Why was Carlos Mesa deposed by a massive popular uprising in the streets? Most of all because Bechtel had been given the privatization contract over the municipal water system of Cochabamba, as suggested by the World Bank (more white-devil Bush crime family ties there), and immediately proceeded to raise the price of water some 200 – 300%, and even outlaw the catchment of rainwater.
That's your Manifest Destiny. I heard a great comment by a black guy on Air America one night, saying, "This thing in Iraq is kind of like if a guy I know calls me up and asks me if I wanna help him move some furniture. So I show up and it don't take me long to realize I'm in the middle of a burglary."
Oh, and don't forget the Jebusites, from whom David the King took Jerusalem (2nd Samuel, ch. 5), the original inhabitants of the Temple Mount (Abraham had only been a Day Tripper to the land of Moriah (Gen. 22)
Posted by ProudPrimate at 01/21/2006 @ 11:13pm
Just a couple of my favorite spitballs for the "inerrancy" crowd:
"As a snail which melteth, let every one of them pass away: like the untimely birth of a woman, that they may not see the sun." Ps. 58:8
Um -- snails don't actually melt. That trail of slime is for locomotion purposes.
In the book of Numbers:
Why is he called Deuel three times, but Reuel once? Cowardly defenders of inerrancy will say, "well, these are obviously two different men!"But Jesus said: "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." [Matt 5:18]
Anybody know what a "tittle" is? In the original Greek of Matthew, the word is κεραια [keraia], a feminine form of the more common neuter κερας, [keras], "horn", where we get words like "rhinoceros", "triceratops", and "keratin", the stuff of hair & fingernails. In the context of the drawing of letters, it means, the apex of the letter. In particular, Hebrew has chronic problems keeping straight the letters D and R, which in the AlephBeth are written like this:
ד -- Daleth
ר -- Resh
Not a lot of difference, eh? No wonder they made an occasional mistake, those copyists.
The "tittle" is the little corner, that fell from the D, making it look like an R.
Posted by ProudPrimate at 01/22/2006 @ 12:10am