Fox News Makes Me Dumberer

I had to post this. Since our resident lefties went on the attack this morning against good ole USW when I called this study complete BS. Of course, no one bothered to address the study itself. They simply took shots at me and shots at Fox News in general. But a simple reading of the article that Mathius provided regarding the study was enough, in my opinion, to prove my point.

Let’s take a quick look at a single fact that they used as their proof that watching Fox News makes you less aware of the truth than not watching any news at all: The situations in Egypt and Syria. According to the article:

Among other topics, New Jerseyans were asked about the outcome of the uprisings in North Africa and the Middle East this past year. While 53% of New Jerseyans know that Egyptians were successful in overthrowing the government of Hosni Mubarak, 21% say that the uprisings were unsuccessful, and 26% admit they don’t know. Also, 48% know that the Syrian uprising has thus far been unsuccessful, while 36% say they don’t know, and 16% say the Syrians have already toppled their government.

But the real finding is that the results depend on what media sources people turn to for their news. For example, people who watch Fox News, the most popular of the 24-hour cable news networks, are 18-points less likely to know that Egyptians overthrew their government than those who watch no news at all (after controlling for other news sources, partisanship, education and other demographic factors). Fox News watchers are also 6-points less likely to know that Syrians have not yet overthrown their government than those who watch no news.

He is Still in Power... Right?!?!?

You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to analyze this, which is why I was surprised that such smart people on the left would not see right through the BS. Just put some critical thought into what was said here. In order for this to be true and somehow correlated with Fox News, the reality would be that Fox News would have to be reporting something other than the fact that the toppling of Mubarek was successful, or at least not reporting it at all. Yet a cursory search shows this not to be true. Fox News clearly reported the facts around the fall of Mubarek’s regime. The same is true of the reporting on the situation in Syria.

So if Fox News is reporting the news accurately on those two subjects, which they clearly are, then how would it be possible to have those who watch Fox News not know the correct answer? That is like me saying if I tell you that 2+2=4, you are less likely to know that 2+2=4 than someone who was never told this fact. That is just ridiculous.

As for the rest. I could go on to show several things about this poll that are not mentioned in the article, which was clearly written with the intent of tearing down Fox News. For example:

  • On the question about Syria, 20% of Fox respondents said it was successful. The best ANY news source had was 17% believing that it was successful. That really isn’t a lot of difference between Fox and any other network or news source. It is, in fact, within the stated margin of error. Odd that this was not pointed out.
  • No bothers to mention that there is a new poll on who is leading in the races about every hour and every poll seems to give a different answer. Yet they sure seem to stake a lot on whether the news organizations do a good job of telling people the news.
  • Lost in the shuffle is the fact that while the article implies that Fox viewers are simply uniformed, it also implies that MSNBC watchers are intentionally DISinformed. Fox viewers, we are told, don’t know what happened in Africa. MSNBC viewers were actually lied to regarding the party affiliation of the OWS movement.

The bottom line, as I read the article and look at the methodology info, is that the poll is really a BS poll, just like most of the polls out there. Concocted to make whatever statement FDU was interested in making, especially about Fox News. Worse, the article itself draws inaccurate conclusions and refuses to use any critical thinking skills in the analysis.

Dumbass Republicans....

I am unsure why the left is obsessed with Fox News. I suppose it just goes to them fearing and disliking any message that doesn’t support their side of the story. I want to be clear that I don’t support Fox News at this point. They are no different than any of the other sorry ass “news” sources these days. But it is clear that this poll was BS. To say that Fox News viewers knew “less” than someone who watches no news at all is a clear implication that Fox News is either lying on the issues analyzed or isn’t reporting them at all. Since both of those things are not true regarding the world issue that were cited in the questions, common sense would tell us that the poll is fatally flawed.

You can go ahead and poke fun, saying that “USW thinks he is smarter than us,” but if you couldn’t see past the flaws in this “study” and if your bullshit meters weren’t going off as you read the article and applied some critical thinking….

Then I AM smarter than you. 😉

Now don’t go into a tizzy. I know you boys are very smart individuals. I have said so of each of you multiple times in the past. This is why I was surprised that Buck would even begin to accept this poll. Take my words with a grain of salt. I am a right wing nut who loves war, worships Wall Street, and bows at the alter of capitalism. I am clearly not as smart as you enlightened lefties. So I am unsure how this BS poll got past you.

Advertisements

Comments

  1. 😐 (first in)

  2. BTW USW, dumberer or dumbererest? 😉

  3. 8)

    • What’s the point BF? Why have money? It’s just a figment of our imagination. Why can’t I do this same thing? Why can’t anybody? Why work? But if no one works there is nothing produced to buy? But we all need food at least. Doesn’t that cost money? But money is just keystrokes. I have no idea what anything means anymore. Am I crazy? Or I just don’t get it.

      http://www.cnbc.com/id/45492655/

      • Of course they do not explain that if all of this -does not matter- why did they do it?

        If has no effect, why did they bother with all the paper work?

        Of course it matters, and of course it has consequences and a huge effect – that is why they did it.

        • Is that a YES I’m crazy or a NO?

          • Anita,

            Go back to my blog regarding “What is money”

            Start there – it will solve confusion about money.

            • Just checking back in. I read your post, for the second time, and I understand it. But the keystroke kids seem to take thing to the next level which is where I get lost. I don’t expect you to go through Dollars 101 for the thousandth time..it just doesnt seem right.

              • Anita

                Don’t let this article by Carney weigh on you. While it contains some true information about how money is transferred, it seems Carney is more intent on spreading cynicism and/or fear.

                Think of it this way. In days of old they shipped gold/silver between banks/countries. Then they started printing paper money based on the amount of gold/silver in the vault. This cut down on shipping costs. Then they started entering digits on spread sheets, based on the paper money in the vault. This cut down on shipping costs and spread up financial transactions on a global scale.

                Those “key strokes” represent real dollar obligations. What Carney fails to mention is that when the account is debited with cash there is a credit to the “paper money” account. In the end, the banks could demand delivery of the paper dollars/euro’s etc, and the Central Banks/Treasury would “print” the paper they used to back up the “digits”.

                As we have discussed before, the weakness is that there is nothing behind the “paper” or “fiat” money. The Gold/Silver part of the equation has been removed. So what is it that stands behind the “fiat”??? TRUST and CONFIDENCE.

                In other words, the value of our money depends on the trust and confidence that the CENTRAL BANKS have in each other and in the GOVERNMENTS they represent. Or, will the Govt or Central Bank actually produce the “paper money” to cover the digits when the bills come due. Greece just said NO and Italy is on the brink of doing the same thing.

                Another way to think of this “computer money” is that it is really no different than having your paycheck deposited “directly” to your bank account. That is nothing more than “key strokes” as well. Yet we don’t get ourselves all tied in knots over that transaction.

                In summary, don’t let the idea of computer generated money bother you. The real issue is WHAT stands behind the key strokes.

              • Mornin JAC. Just seems like a FRN should be backed by something..like gold or silver. Otherwise it’s all just a game. We should all just get everything for free. There! I just solve all the problems. Ooops no I didn’t. If everything is free then who produces?

              • Anita, JAC, Kathy

                A question to you all, since in one way or another, you made this comment:

                Why does “money” need “something” backing it?

                I ask this question, because it underlines a great and confusing assumption about what is money and what is not money.

                So briefly:

                Hold true to Mises’ definition of money: The most valuable commodity in a marketplace

                Money does NOT need anything to “back it” because it in of itself is MONEY, and therefore has been ordained a value by the people in a marketplace

                To say “money is backed by gold” actually says GOLD is MONEY.
                Then another Anita 2.0 comes along as says “well, what is backing up gold? It is just an metal…..”

                Money is money because people value it as money. It does not need to be backed up by anything other then the desire of the people to use it as money

                If you want gold to be money, that is an argument.

                But gold IS NOT MONEY today

                Today Reserve Notes are money.

                Reserve Notes as denominated by digits in a computer is also money.

                Think about it – if I called my bank and said “transfer $1,000,000 into your account” and the bank pushed a computer button and made that happen – are you saying the $1,000,000 digits that a computer says is in your account is not money to you? Would you go “Nah, it isn’t real, I can’t use it, it is worthless” OR would you go “Whooo! I can buy X,Y,Z …..!”

                So stop being confused by those that say FRN are worthless and not money, when in reality and fact you use FRN to trade to buy things! It is money, it is real, and it has value

                Second part:

                Why do gold bugs insist on gold becoming money?
                Realizing that most gold bugs are utterly confused about the nature of money (as above, Part 1) – what they are really trying to establish in this argument is how money is created.

                In a modern economy, money is part of 1/2 of every transaction. Think about that. Of the billions of transactions a day, money is 1/2 of that effort. You trade money for goods. You spend $1 of money to buy a coffee. You earn $1 per minute trading your labor.

                So control of money gives you the greatest control over the marketplace

                The ability to create money is the ultimate control

                This is why government demand control over the manufacture of money – it gives them the most direct fist to wrap around the heart of the economy.

                The easiest way to manufacturer money ever invented by man is a computer digits. There is no fundamental physical limit to the creation of money.

                It is this aspect the irks gold bugs. The ability to create money endlessly and without limit destroys the value of money and creates massive havoc within the economy.

                But gold is physically limited. It cannot be created out of thin air.

                Gold (or other forms of physical money) puts limits on the manufacture of money, and therefore puts limits on those who control the manufacture of money, and therefore put limits on the manipulation of the marketplace by use of money

                Gold bugs want limits to be placed on the manipulation of the economy.
                Government and their apologist do not want limits to be placed on the manipulation of the economy.

                But do not confuse this argument with any understanding of “what IS money”

                This argument is about control of money

                Any questions?

              • Anita

                Money doe NOT have to be backed by Gold or anything else. The reason we focus on Gold is because humans, over history, have placed great value in this metal. The only reason we still focus on gold is because we are losing trust in those who control the paper.

                It acts as an anchor, protecting us from Govt’s desire to just print more paper, or create more computer digits.

                Having our money backed by “something” or not, is a different matter than “getting everything for free”. Don’t mix up the concepts because it seems like money is free. Nothing is free. Fiat money, especially run away supply of Fiat money, carries a COST as well.

              • You continue to give me headaches 🙂 I’m just going to trust you guys on this. DO NOT FAIL ME!

              • This may be a stupid question-but can’t they still manipulate the economy by manipulating the value of gold?????

              • V.H.

                This may be a stupid question-but can’t they still manipulate the economy by manipulating the value of gold?????

                Yes, they can – however – it is much more difficult by orders of magnitude to do so then merely creating computer digits.

                In the past, governments have issued decrees on the conversion value of their currency compared to gold, in an effort to escape their debts.

                However, this has a very limited value – for all that happens is more people convert the government’s currency into gold, driving up the cost of gold, driving down the value of currency. Yes, the government debts evaporate – ….. – but so does the economy that surrounds such a government. Typically, such an evaporation creates massive social turmoil and -quite literally- elitist heads roll down the street.

                Thus, government -for the sake of their own necks- find much of their action bound up.

                But imagine if you have no other single resource to convert your currency into?

                Gold acted as a ‘canary in a coal mine’ for an economy – the conversion rate was meaningful to the health of such economy.
                Now, imagine “10 billion different canaries in a coal mine” – which one is meaningful? Some thrive, some die – which one gives a meaningful representation to economic health? Who can tell?

                In such an environment, the economic causation of government manipulation of money is incredibly masked.

                Prices for this product is going up …. does that mean demand is going up or is it due to inflation of the money supply?
                At the same time, prices for this product is going down … does that mean demand for this product is going down or is it due to deflation of the money supply? (Shrug)

                It now takes serious educational effort in economics to know the difference. You have the time to do that?
                You don’t – so now you are forced to listen to “experts” who will do all the interpretation of such things for you, and give you a one-line answer.

                98% of these experts are educated and paid by government. Guess what answer they will offer.

                So that is why government hates gold – it makes it difficult for them to hide their economic evil.

              • V.H.

                If Gold were money then YES, THEY could manipulate the supply of Gold, thus affecting its value, and thus manipulating the economy.

                But how could this happen?

                ONLY if the GOVT or whomever is THEY, had the ability to control supply and/or set price in some way.

                If Gold were available to anyone, without control, then THEY could not manipulate. Because THEY would have to have Gold to purchase more Gold, making their transactions wash out.

                In short, ONLY BY GOVT FORCE can THEY manipulate MONEY, regardless of its form.

  4. Buck the Wala says:

    USW, I’ve never seen you get into such a tizzy like this before!

    Meanwhile, hate to burst your bubble but I never pointed to this study as definitive proof of anything. But, despite your arguments it does show there is a problem with Fox…along with MSNBC, CNN, etc. Though it does point to how great Jon Stewart really is! 🙂

    • I am really not in a tizzy at all. I thought my smiley faces would let you know that I am not upset in any way. I didn’t expect that my quick assessment of your posted poll info this morning would elicit such a strong response from folks eager to bash me. I figured the least I could do was explain why I thought it was BS.

      And for the record I agree. I didn’t argue that it there is nothing wrong with Fox. I merely pointed out that their premise that people who watch Fox News are less informed than those who watch no news is ridiculous. The poll was complete BS. The fact that the entire spectrum of what we consider “news” these days completely sucks is not BS.

      And John Stewart rocks. I am a big fan.

      • Buck the Wala says:

        Just having some fun with you. Glad to hear you’re a big Daily Show fan!

        And I completely agree – very sad what “news” has become in this country.

  5. Hey you peeps from Jersey…..

    Where in the World Is Jon Corzine?

    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/where-world-jon-corzine-175229463.html

    Personally, I would not be surprised if he Vince Fostered.

  6. Oh boy – here’s an interesting one….

    NYPD: Manhattan Woman Charged With Performing Self-Abortion

    http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/12/01/nypd-manhattan-woman-performed-self-abortion/

    Mathius – I suppose you would just describe this as removing a parasite, huh?

    • Mathius™ says:

      The article doesn’t say hold far along the woman was, just that it was more than 24 weeks.

      I’m not an expert in the area of viability (and have never claimed to be), but I also don’t think that should necessarily be the litmus test. We’ve been all over my views on abortion and I know you’ll never come close to agreeing with me.

      But yes, I would probably classify it as removing a parasite. But, this article leaves a lot of questions unanswered, so I really couldn’t speculate at this point.

      • That’s interesting-if not, viability-than what should the litmus test be?

        • Mathius™ says:

          Well now.. we’ve been over this and it makes tempers heat up. But here it goes again.

          The thing that is special about human beings is our brains. This, and this alone, sets us apart from the other animals. In ever other category, there is something on this planet which is superior to us, yet we do not recognize the set of rights (which we collectively call “human rights”) as applicable to any of them. Why?

          If we have the right to, say, kill and eat a deer but not a person, the reason we don’t have this right must be intrinsic in some fundamental difference between humans and deer. This difference, logically, can only be in our brains. (There are other differences, but none of them make any sense as a reason why it’s ok to eat them but not us – being a sentient entity does make sense).

          So, now, the question becomes what about our brains and what level of development is required to hit this magical benchmark. And that’s as far as I’ve gotten, really. Somewhere between a single cell and teenager, humans advance to a level of sentience where a right to life (more accurately, a right to not be killed) comes into play. Before that point, they are a potato, not a human (genetics are just a series of letters – it’s the expression of those letters which matters) – and if you have a potato in your uterus and don’t want it there, you should be free to remove it.

          • Yet, you claim the right to remove said potato-without being able to identify when that potato becomes a sentient human being?

            • Mathius™ says:

              No. I claim to have no idea where that line is (as I said, somewhere between single-cell and teenager, though in hindsight, it might even be later than teenager).

              What I also claim is that, since I’m not sure where to draw the line, it’s none of my business to tell other people what they can and cannot do with their bodies.

              • Okay-same question I asked Buck-if SC said abortion is legal anytime before birth-Would you agree or disagree?

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                Mathius,

                You are making the critical error of arguing by fallacy here. The fetus is not PART OF a woman’s body, it is a separate and individual organism which happens to be a resident of the woman’s body from the time of conception to the time of birth. Certainly it is ATTACHED TO the woman’s body via the umbilical cord, etc, etc. but that doesn’t make it a PART OF her body

                Saying “a woman can do whatever she wants with her own body” in this case is like saying “you can knock down an apartment building that you own, and you don’t even need to check to make sure if anyone is still living in it or not before you knock it down! If anyone is killed in the demolition, so what?”

                This is why people who favor abortion tend to view a fetus as a “cluster of cells (somewhat like cancer)” or a “parasite”, and people who do not favor abortion tend to view a fetus as a unique organism which is currently dependent on the mother. If people who favored abortion came to the realization that a fetus is a separate organism, unique from the mother (in fact only 50% of the DNA came from the mother), which was merely resident inside of the mother for reasons of biological necessity, then people who favor abortion might either be forced to change their minds, or at least reassess their reasoning for being in favor.

              • Mathius™ says:

                V.H. No. SC is not right about everything. Just because they say something does not make it so…. although your phasing leaves some question.. “if SC said abortion is legal anytime before birth-Would you agree or disagree?” Yes. They decide what is LEGAL, so if they say it’s legal, then I have to agree. But I don’t have to agree it’s MORAL. Does this make sense?

                PeterB, I think of it more as evicting your apartment tenants squatters, and if they die, it’s not really your problem. Certainly, a fetus is a separate biological entity. But it is not a PERSON in the vital sense which I have specified to be my litmus test for obtaining human rights (ie, a “human mind”). Since I cannot communicate with a fetus in any meaningful way to simply ask it to leave, I am perfectly justified in showing it the door.

                As for it being a “cluster of cells” (it is) and a “parasite” (it is), how do you define these? They are perfectly accurate. You simply anthropomorphize it.

                If people who favored abortion came to the realization that a fetus is a separate organism, unique from the mother You think we’re unaware of this fact? Of course we know it’s something “else”.. we just don’t think it has the right to spend 9 months mooching off the mother against her will, creating tremendous biological changes, risks, and liabilities, etc.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          LIFE Magazine had an AMAZING picture of a fetus in-utero taken by a scientist back in 1962 or 1963. It stated that the fetus was 19 weeks old at the time. The fetus had EVERY FEATURE of a baby by that point. You could clearly tell, just by looking at the picture, that a 19 week old human fetus was indeed a human baby. Certainly, at 19 weeks the fetus would not be viable outside of the womb, but why SHOULD that be the “litmus test”??? A two-year-old toddler is not “viable” without the complete support of a parent, so why is it “not ok” to kill 2 year olds? Many parents wish they could… terrible twos and all that….

          • Mathius™ says:

            You know what else looks just like a human baby? A MONKEY fetus. Just because something looks like something else does not make it so.

            As for two year old abortions.. well I did specify my litmus test was somewhere between single-cell and teenager..

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              Actually, at 19 weeks, a monkey fetus and a human fetus are clearly different using the exact same photography techniques used in the early 1960s.

  7. This is inresponse to Plainlyspoken and Todd from the previous blog.

    T-RAY’S IMMIGRATION PROPOSAL

    We need to solve the illegal immigration problem in a way that is fair and just but also legal and enforceable over the long term. The problem is the uncontrolled flow across the southern border. This lawless flow has encouraged not only citizens of our southern neighbors to come here looking for work but also terrorist elements to use the border as an easy route in to the US and as a route for criminals to smuggle illegal drugs, guns, and other contraband into the country. While the illegal workers do contribute to our society, they often work in the underground society, hence do not contribute to SS or pay income taxes. If they do contribute to SS it is via stolen identities, a crime in and of itself. Many of these individuals also take advantage of free healthcare and schooling. Some even apply for and are granted welfare benefits. The overall negative impact on our governmental resources has been estimated to be $113B/yr.

    My proposal is multistage and for the most part voluntary.

    1) Secure the border (criminal activity along the border is a separate issue but this should also help reduce that as well)
    2) Simultaneous with securing the border, increase immigration quotas but with a significantly reduced lag time between application and entry. It should take no more than 30d to determine the true identity and criminal status of any applicant. All applicants entering the US using the proper procedures will ultimately be on the path to citizenship via the normal waiting period and rules.
    3) After the border has been certified secure (defined by an 80% reduction in illegal entry), then a one year voluntary period of registration for all illegals in this country begins. All must step forward and be identified. If free of any criminal activity, they will be granted green cards but any individuals who came here illegally after turning 18 will not be eligible for citizenship. (Thus no instant new voting block for either party. This is the punishment for illegal entry. I would not require fines or other remuneration. We want full cooperation.)
    a. Any children born here to illegals are citizens by birth
    b. Any minor children brought here illegally can apply for naturalization after reaching the age of 18 and after waiting for the normally prescribed period of time
    c. Any illegal who volunteers for military service, completes that service, and is honorably discharged will be granted citizenship upon discharge from the military
    d. All individuals who have been using illegal ID’s and SSN will surrender such information upon registration so that records can be properly corrected. Their SS accounts will start at zero from the registration date. Failure to surrender such documents or continued use of same will be grounds for criminal prosecution and future deportation
    e. Any individual with a criminal background will be deported immediately
    4) Any individual who entered this country after the date this legislation was introduced in Congress will be deported but may apply for reentry after one year via clause 2 above (this is to stop any magnet effect)
    5) Any individual who registers and voluntarily leaves the country for 1 year may reenter under clause 2 above. (Note Clause 2 is the path to citizenship.)
    6) After the voluntary phase, any employer who employs illegals (now defined as anyone who did not come forward voluntarily or who subsequently entered the country after the borders were sealed) will be fined or imprisoned. The fine would be no less than 3x the salary paid to any and all illegals so hired.
    7) Any illegal immigrant apprehended crossing our border after the closure date will be identified and a criminal background check will be run. If the individual has a criminal background, it will be treated as a felony entry into the US and the individual will be incarcerated for a period of not less than 6 months before being deported. If the individual does not have a criminal background, they will be deported but instructed on how to enter legally. A second illegal entry by that individual will result in a misdemeanor 90d jail sentence and any legal future entry will be blocked. Subsequent illegal entries will be criminal (felony) in nature with an escalating penalty.
    8) Once the voluntary phase is closed, any illegal apprehended by law enforcement beyond the border region will be deported without the right to reenter. All levels of law enforcement (local, state, and federal) will be authorized to detain any illegal who is stopped for just cause and questioned for possible violations of the law.
    9) Illegals (again defined after the voluntary registration period) will not be eligible for free medical care, schooling, or welfare. Use of same without paying will be considered a crime.
    10) Any individual who is voluntarily registered but then commits a crime (felony) within 5 years of that registration date will serve whatever punishment is meted out by the courts and then will be deported without right of reentry. After 5 years, any registrant convicted of a crime will be treated as any other legal US resident.
    11) All registrants must physically report in to INS once a year for the first 5 years.
    Border security and immigration is constitutionally a federal matter. As such they need to take the lead. Since many of the things the federal government does are not constitutional, I would use savings from eliminating those programs to secure the border. DOE and a few other departments come to mind. As D13 has noted, it can be done. We are being invaded by 1M individuals per year. The feds need to take this seriously and apply the appropriate manpower and technology. The increase quotas and fast track entry method should take most of the pressure off. Increased education of the proper entry method will require some advertising as will staffing for the increased flow of legal immigrants.

    As noted above, we are spending $113B/yr now on illegals. Some of that spending will continue with the newly registered now legal residents. My guess that the increased revenue collection and the savings will more than offset the increased border security costs. Also if we can keep the criminals out, our jail populations will go down. Some of those in jail now ended up there because they were in the underground society and had no investment in legal status in the this country. Being legal will reduce future criminal activity.

    I am open to a thorough discussion of this proposal. What puzzles me is if I can see a way through this, why can’t the politicians. Of course the answer is they do not want a solution as it would cost them votes and more importantly power.

    • Hey T-Ray, thanks for posting it again. I started looking for it earlier and hadn’t found it yet.

      I’ll be commenting on it, but not likely until tomorrow.

    • T-Ray,

      Do you happen to have the link handy back to that thread?

      • No, I just did it all over again from memory. This time in MSword so I have a backup. I see point #8 turned into a *)
        There are probably some minor differences between the previous post and this one. I would like to hear more about the tactics that D13 is using but that may be classified. Securing the border will take cooperation from all parties, federal, state, local and private. I am not sure that long streatches of fence, especially at the prices mentioned are effective. They may be more effective in the urban areas than on the desert. What is most effective in certainty of capture. If the probability of capture is high and there are consequences for illegal entry, then the attempts will be reduced. That is if there is a viable alternative such as legal entry that is not too cumbersome. If successful, this takes the criminal element out of the routine human smuggling and leaves only the drug smuggling for law enforcement to worry about.

        Anyway, there needs to be consequences for crossing the border illegally for work or criminal intent. The criminals should not just begiven a free pass back over the border. They need to serve time ala Sheriff Joe’s tent prison. First time illegal workers can be returned but repeat offenders should be denied the very thng they are after which is work. Time in jail denies them that.

        Well it is late and I am rambling. I will be working tomorrow unlike today so probably will have a few minutes early in the morn and then again later. Don’t forget I live in D13’s no cajones state, i.e. land of fruits and nuts.

    • “3) c. Any illegal who volunteers for military service, completes that service, and is honorably discharged will be granted citizenship upon discharge from the military”

      This does not leave any room for continuation of militray service. I would suggest some kind of alteration that would allow someone to become a citizen after the initial recruitment periord instead of upon being discharged.

    • Mathius™ says:

      T-Ray,

      On balance, I think your view is much better than many. Here’s my take:

      This lawless flow has encouraged not only citizens of our southern neighbors to come here looking for work So take the lawless part out and make it legal.

      but also terrorist elements to use the border as an easy route in to the US I keep hearing this, but the hijackers on 9/11 were here legally, no? There are lots of ways to skin a cat and plugging one hole (which adversely affects millions), but does nothing to really stop terrorists, seems foolish to me. Also, terrorism is a vastly overrated threat. Our REACTION to terrorism is far worse than any damage terrorists could ever do directly.

      and as a route for criminals to smuggle illegal drugs, Easy, legalize drugs. Then we can grow them locally, and the profit margin will disappear. Good for the economy, good for millions of Americans who are locked up for exercising the freedom to poison themselves, good for product control (you don’t know what’s in the drugs you buy from some guy on the street, but I would feel better about buying pot from CVS)

      guns, Not sure where I stand on this, but generally, I would consider this a non-issue. We have plenty of guns in America. I assume you mean guns for illegal activities, such as drug dealers. But if drugs are legal, they won’t need guns anymore. Or gangs, but I don’t think gangs are buying cross border guns so much as just stealing them or buying and “losing” them. But again, I’m not sure this is such a big threat that it justifies the reaction.

      and other contraband into the country. Such as? I probably think that should be legalized as well.

      While the illegal workers do contribute to our society, they often work in the underground society, hence do not contribute to SS or pay income taxes. True. But by letting them work here legally, they WOULD pay SS and income taxes.

      If they do contribute to SS it is via stolen identities, a crime in and of itself. I guess. But letting them work here legally would eliminate this issue as well.

      Many of these individuals also take advantage of free healthcare I’m sure they use emergency care here and there. But, again, letting them be here legally would mean that they also pay into the system, so it wouldn’t be free.

      and schooling. Nope, sorry. Schools are paid for by property tax. They live somewhere. So they pay property tax. If they rent, they pay indirectly through the owner. So they pay for school.

      Some even apply for and are granted welfare benefits. I see this as well from time to time. But my understanding is that there is specific wording the the laws that expressly prohibits illegal immigrants from collecting.

      The overall negative impact on our governmental resources has been estimated to be $113B/yr. And the overall POSITIVE impact on our society is MASSIVE. MASSIVELY MASSIVE. Who do you think picks your strawberries? Who do you think washes dishes at your local restaurant? Who do you think cut my lawn? Who do you think was hired to help out with construction of your house? Who do you think keeps all of these costs suppressed? Do you want to pay $15 for a carton of strawberries? They work 13 hour days in 110 degree weather (what D13 and I would call a nice warm day), in conditions that Americans simply will not accept. What about the sales taxes collected on things they buy? What about the taxes collected on their property/rents? What about the affects of their spending on the economy?

      ——————————————————————–

      But all of this is moot for one simple reason: You have no right to tell a free human being where he can and cannot live. If you bought a house in a new neighborhood, you would have a conniption at the idea of having to get your new neighbors’ permission before moving in – imagine being told that you would have to wait 30 days while they conduct a background check on you and then they place in a 5-year probationary period during which they can kick you out.

      Why should the fact that someone had the misfortune to be born in place X mean that you have the right to tell him he cannot move to place Y or that he must complete these ten things and wait for a time period and submit to an invasive background check in order to get your permission? Why should he have to jump through your hoops?

      • For the same reasons that we have to jump through Mexico’s hoops if we want to live there.

        • Mathius™ says:

          And why should you have to jump through the hoops of some foreign government if you want to cross some imaginary line on a map?

          • For the same reasons that you want to know who wants in your home. Let’s make a roadway from the border to your doorstep. You sponsor them..sight unseen. I hardly think you see this as acceptable.

            • Further..you make a mockery of everything D13 and his gang are trying to accomplish.

              • Mathius™ says:

                D13 and I have a fundamental disagreement in the nature of what he and his gang are trying to accomplish. I think, maaayyyybbbbeeeee, that it is somewhat necessary while our idiotic “war on drugs” is creating an environment of escalating criminal activity and violence along the border. Before I would be comfortable just throwing the doors wide open, the US would have to legalize drugs – this would take the wind out of the sails of the gangs and cartels (much like ending prohibition devastated the mob).

                HOWEVER – two wrongs don’t make a right, so to say that it’s ok to violate the rights of one group of people based on the evils of a different group of people (especially when we are (at least partially) directly responsible for that evil) is untenable. I know that I’m not Black Flag, so I am willing to make compromises in the face of a complex and nuanced situation, but I just cannot see what gives me the right to interfere with the mobility of someone whose only crime is that same mobility.

            • Mathius™ says:

              It’s not your home. It’s land near your home which is owned by someone else who chooses to sell or rent to a third party.

              The appropriate analogy is not “knowing who want in your home” but “knowing who wants in your neighbor’s home” – it’s none of your business.

              Don’t want them in your house, don’t let them in your house – get an alarm, hire a private security guard, who cares? – but if they can find someone willing to rent to them for a price they can afford on the private property owned by someone else, you are an interloping third party and it’s none of your business.

              • Tell that to the ranchers. They ARE the alarm and security guard. You go live on the border, or just go hang with D13..he’s invited you.

              • Why do you have such a problem with using the front door. Why do they have such a problem with the front door. What’s to hide from? If you have no reason to hide then go to the front door..why the sneaking around?

              • Mathius™ says:

                I would love to, but I have taken one vacation day in the last 6-months. A trip to Texas to assess the border does not seem to be in my near future.

                But, no, you’re confused Anita. A security guard only acts when someone is doing something wrong. If I hire a guard for my house, he will stop someone from breaking into my house. If they are just walking by on the street, he will not detain them. And if they are trying to move into my neighbor’s house with my neighbor’s permission, THAT IS NONE OF HIS BUSINESS.

                America is not yours. You do not own it. You one small piece of it – your house. The rest belongs to whoever owns the respective pieces. The public land is public. The private land is private. And you have no right to tell someone that they cannot have a private interaction which does not harm you or violate your rights.

                You are imagining that you have a right over my land – you do not. That’s why my name, not yours, is on the deed. And if I wanted to sell it to a Mexican, I should be able to. And if he wants to buy it, he should be able to. And if he wants to live in his house which he just purchased, he should be able to. And if someone wants to hire him, they should be able to. And if he wants to accept the job, he should be able to. (did you notice how none of these interactions involve you? So why are you sticking your nose in it?).

              • Mathius™ says:

                Why do you have such a problem with using the front door. Why do they have such a problem with the front door. What’s to hide from? If you have no reason to hide then go to the front door..why the sneaking around? Because some armed hooligans are blocking the front door and demanding that I jump through twenty hoops and wait years and that only allowing a certain number of us through.

              • Soooo how many get to come in? 7 billion?

              • Mathius™ says:

                7 billion? Don’t be ridiculous, Anita.

                There are 7 billion people on the planet. 300 million of them are here already.

                So only 6.7 billion. 🙂

                ———-

                Humor aside, it would never work like that. If the US got too dense or drained too many resources, people would stop moving here. We’d establish equilibrium.

                “They should have to suffer in their poor country, because I don’t want to have to suffer having move people in mine, using up resources I don’t own and taking up space that belongs to other people and competing with me for jobs for which they may be better qualified.” Is that it?

              • SK Trynosky Sr says:

                Matt,

                This is not an insult nor should it be construed as such but you sir are an intellectual. You have yours. You have yours because of the hard work of an awful lot of people who came before you. I am going to assume that your forebears who came here did not arrive carrying gold bars and immediately set up shop as 1 percenters nor that they came here with graduate degrees in engineering, medicine, or science. . Now, question is: today, now, in this modern age, with totally unregulated immigration of people at the bottom of the social scale, just exactly what chance do their offspring have of making it to where you and I are?

                If you have been to the third world and have seen it, subsistence on the 34th Street subway platform in a cardboard box seems preferable. Since it is now relatively easy to get here as compared to when Trynosky the elder arrived in 1905, who could resist the temptation.

                I just find it fascinating that people can casually comment on these issues without thinking them through to their logical conclusion. So, Anita
                is being a little facetious with her 7 Billion, but how does 500 million grab you? Who exactly is going to pay for this transition? What hope in hell do any of them have to gain any traction in a society where they are constantly being underbid in the labor pool by new Somalian refugees?

                So, I return to you have yours and I have mine. How did we get here? What about that journey is relevant to new immigrants? Can we save the world. I think the answer is no. Should we try? Yes but. The but involves triage. Save who you can, save those most likely to survive and thrive. An immigrant friend of mine in discussing this with me one day pointed out to how different immigration is from what it had been 100 years ago. Those people, my ancestors, left with no hope of ever returning, none of ever seeing their loved ones again. They left with few or no possessions and in some cases walked half way across Europe to get to the boat. When you got here, you were stuck and you learned quickly that to thrive (not survive) you had to adapt. There was no welfare, SS disability, food stamps, food pantry’s you had to adapt. The numbers of 1st Generation American born immigrants as well as young new immigrants who volunteered for military service in the World Wars is staggering. Their sense of being Americans should be profoundly humbling to the rest of us. Just last week, I watched again the controversy that erupted in California on Cinco de Mayo over the gringo kids who were threatened and ultimately sent home from school for wearing shirts emblazoned with the US national colors. Somehow on some Italian Holiday in the 1930’s or German holiday I can’t see American born children of those immigrant parents pulling the same stunts as the Mexicans did.

                I do not wish to hear about how we stole California, Texas or the rest of the Southwest from Mexico. Fact is Mexico stole it from Spain who stole it from the Indians, all within relatively recent memory.

              • Mathius™ says:

                just exactly what chance do their offspring have of making it to where you and I are? Less chance. Or more chance. Or the same chance. But they can work hard for it. There will be more consumers so more opportunities to run successful businesses. There will be more universities so more opportunities to get a good education.

                Since it is now relatively easy to get here as compared to when Trynosky the elder arrived in 1905, who could resist the temptation. Many people. Roots run deep and it’s a big commitment to abandon your live and move to a completely alien land. But even if all of them want to, what right do we have to stop them?

                Who exactly is going to pay for this transition? Why does anyone have to pay for this? What is there to pay for? More people come here, more people are consuming. More people consuming means more people producing. More producing means more jobs. More jobs means more employment. More employment means more wealth. More wealth means more consumption. And round and round she goes.

                Yes, it would be rocky at first, especially if they all came at once with nothing but the shirts on their backs, but again, what right does that give me to tell them where they have to live.

                What hope in hell do any of them have to gain any traction in a society where they are constantly being underbid in the labor pool by new Somalian refugees? What “right” do you have to earn $15 for a job that someone else is willing to do for $5? Also, widgets are being produced by $5 workers, they will be sold to you for cheaper. If they are sold to you for cheaper, then you don’t need $15/hr to live on. You’re using fear of competition as justification to violate other people’s rights.

                Can we save the world. I think the answer is no. Should we try? Yes but. The but involves triage. Who are you to decide who to triage? Why do you get put at the head of the line, just because you were lucky enough to be born in the US of A?

                When you got here, you were stuck and you learned quickly that to thrive (not survive) you had to adapt. It should still be that way. Intense competition is in everyone’s interest all of the time. 500mm people arrive by boat in the space of two years, you can be damn sure they are going to compete their rear ends off. This will generate massive innovation and massive rewards.

                There was no welfare, SS disability, food stamps, food pantry’s you had to adapt. I went over this before, but I think the current incarnation of SS, etc, is not right either. We certainly cannot have unfettered immigration AND unfettered benefits. This much, I agree.

                I do not wish to hear about how we stole California, Texas or the rest of the Southwest from Mexico. Fact is Mexico stole it from Spain who stole it from the Indians, all within relatively recent memory. The US (country) stole land from MEXICANS (people) who owned pieces of the land. Mexico (country) stole land from Indians (people) who owned pieces of the land.

        • Anita,

          That’s an empty argument. What Mexico chooses to do has nothing to do with what America chooses to do. Mexico doesn’t have a death penalty, we do – are we wrong then and should change the law in the US?

          • Buck the Wala says:

            Re: Death Penalty

            YES! ABSOLUTELY YES! We are wrong on this and should change the law in the US. Though admittedly not because of what Mexico does. So I guess your main point still stands. 🙂

            • Anita,

              Actually of late I have been giving a lot of thought to my pro-death penalty beliefs as to whether or not I can maintain that belief in good conscience. I’ll let you know the outcome.

              BTW – do you know why people live in Michigan? Two reasons – they either couldn’t swim or their wagons broke down before they could get to the Great State of Wisconsin!!!! 😉

              • BUCK I believe he’s talking to you except…

                Our Great Lakes help keep the rifraf out (except the hooligans in the D) and once the wagons broke figured out the automobile..you owe us a debt of gratitude..you..you..cheesehead!

              • you..you..cheesehead!

                I thank you for the compliment! 🙂

                figured out the automobile

                Believe me, I could have lived just fine if ya had kept the damn things to yourselves!

                owe us a debt of gratitude

                Ok, you can have Ohio.

                😀

              • Ok..Michigan just got 5 hours bigger.

      • First I am not addressing the illegal drug or smuggling problems. Only the illegal immigration and human smuggling. We need to separate the two problems and deal with them independently.

        When the US was young and had a continent to fill, unrestrained immigration was beneficial. If you have done any genealogy work, you will know that ships passenger lists have been recorded since colonial days. Even during colonial days, oaths of allegience were required for citizenship. Border crossings in frontier regions were uncontrolled because of lack of resources and the shear length of the borders. Ellis Island, after its opening in the 1890’s, did screen newcomers for health and other reasons. Not all were let allowed on the ferry to NY or NJ. We have controlled immigation for over 100 years as does every other country. For my ancestors to leave Germany in 1709, they had to get permission from the local duchy. They could not even travel down the Rhine to Holland and then England without the proper papers. As a country we do have the right to restrict and control immigration.

        Yes, immigrants do contribute significantly to our society. But we have all seen the Joe Legal, Jose Illegal email that details the difference between being here legally and being here illiegally and working in the underground society. I think I have addressed that. We need everyone to move to the above ground society. That will leave only the criminals in the undergound society. Law enforcement can deal with them. As for my strawberries, they are picked and sold directly to me by a SE Asian family a few miles down the road. I am sure they are here legally.

        You misinterpreted the 5 year propationary period. Those who enter legally after border closure do so under current immgration rules. Only those who crossed illegally and then volutarily registered will have the five year propationary period. They broke the law and came here legally. That is part of the price they pay for doing so along with the lack of citizenship and sufferage. Why is it too much to ask for a five year clean criminal record. We are talking felony convictions not arrests or misdemeanors. Also those that leave the country for one year and then reenter the proper way will be on the path to citizenship. They will have registered during the registration period and they should document their departure with INS on leaving. Reentry then should be quick and easy since records exist.

        • Mathius™ says:

          First I am not addressing the illegal drug or smuggling problems. But the two are intricately intertwined. It’s be like having a conversation of peanut butter and bread but never mentioning jelly.

          If you have done any genealogy work, you will know that ships passenger lists have been recorded since colonial days. The liberal in my doesn’t see anything wrong with just getting a list of names – to know who’s here. But, still, I don’t like it.

          Even during colonial days, oaths of allegiance were required for citizenship So because we always used to do something immoral means that it’s ok?

          Ellis Island, after its opening in the 1890′s, did screen newcomers for health and other reasons Ellis Island is the reason my last name isn’t [redacted]-orowitz. What right did they have to change my great-great grandfather’s name? Also, that “other stuff” included mental retardation, lazy eyes, etc – does that seem moral to you?

          We have controlled immigration for over 100 years as does every other country. Yes, but by what right? Why should some guy in a uniform tell me whether I can or cannot live and work peacefully in the place of my choosing?

          But we have all seen the Joe Legal, Jose Illegal email that details the difference between being here legally and being here illegally and working in the underground society. No, I don’t’ think I have seen this….

          We need everyone to move to the above ground society. See? We agree – so why are we arguing?

          That is part of the price they pay for doing so along with the lack of citizenship and suffrage. I’m not sure why they shouldn’t have an equal say as you and I – they are living in the same society, affected by the same government, same taxes, same policies.

          Why is it too much to ask for a five year clean criminal record. We are talking felony convictions not arrests or misdemeanors. Because you have no right to tell someone where he can and cannot live and with whom he can and cannot have business interactions. Commit a felony, you can be removed for the protection of society (I have serious issues with the legal system and the penal system, both of which also need extensive reform), and serve his time. Same as you and I. When he’s done, he should be done. Did you ever read Les Miserables by Victor Hugo (or see the play or movie)? Val Jean committed a crime and was forced into more crime because the government never let him live it down. He had money, but couldn’t buy lodging or food. (this is even after his release). The government does not have a right to make second-class citizens out of people. They do not have the right to interfere with interactions between private individuals. It does not have the right to say who can live and work where. It does not have the right to, effectively, punish you because you MIGHT do something else.

          Also those that leave the country for one year and then reenter the proper way will be on the path to citizenship. But this is just the bureaucracy. The red tape and logistics. It does not address the underlying problem: you’re interjecting yourself and government force somewhere it has no right to be.

          Reentry then should be quick and easy since records exist. Reentry should be quick and easy, period. Entry should be quick and easy, period. And this should be because people who have no business with someone else’s comings and goings should STAY OUT OF IT.

          • I – as I pointed out in my article – that I there should be no restriction on the freedom of an individual to come and go as they please from the USA. It should be a basic right in all nations (yes Anita – wishful thinking on my part 😉 ), but since as a national society the country has decided there need to be rules and restrictions on immigration so I speak to having sensible rules (yes, that is subjective – I know) for that reason. That being said:

            First I am not addressing the illegal drug or smuggling problems. But the two are intricately intertwined. It’s be like having a conversation of peanut butter and bread but never mentioning jelly.

            Mathius, I disagree. They are problems that are and can be worked on separately. There is some blending in that the cartels take advantage of the illegal immigrants, but saying they are intricately intertwined is saying that solve either one and you solve both and I don’t believe that to be true.

            If you have done any genealogy work, you will know that ships passenger lists have been recorded since colonial days. The liberal in my doesn’t see anything wrong with just getting a list of names – to know who’s here. But, still, I don’t like it.

            I have no problem with this minimal level of intrusiveness. It is no worse than the state having the authority to require I have a drivers license.

            Even during colonial days, oaths of allegiance were required for citizenship. So because we always used to do something immoral means that it’s ok?

            But T-Ray, we aren’t talking about citizenship only. Being here legally is one thing while earning the privilege to become a citizen is another (which I agree we can have a path to follow to obtain AFTER legal entry/existence in the country). Legal immigration status is a stepping stone to those who wants to be citizens, but I would wager there are many who do not want to be citizens and only wish to be allowed to be here for other reasons.

            • To Mathius: I disagree with the statement that we have no right to determine who comies into the country. We have every right. Visitors from all countries are required to have valid passports. Some even require visas. Visitation rights are not unlimited. You have stated your views. Thank you.

              Plainly: My comments on oaths were just historical to point out that even 300 years ago, the British required them. I am not confusing residence with citizenship. Many immigrants come to this country legally and never acquire citizenship. That is their choice. Previous proposals called for illegals to register and pay a fine to be on the path to citizenship. I do not like selling citizenship. It must be earned. Illegal entry should have a nonmonetary price. This is why I proposed voluntary deportation for a reasonably period of time.

    • T-Ray,

      Very well thought out, overall a great plan for discussion.

      “The problem is the uncontrolled flow across the southern border. ” I disagree.
      The “problem” is a poor mixed policy on immigration that even an illiterate can see offers them financial rewards greater than they can achieve in their home country.
      “Many of these individuals also take advantage of free healthcare and schooling. Some even apply for and are granted welfare benefits.”

      They gain a better level of living on welfare in the US than they had in their home country. They can increase their reward level simply by having more children out-of-wedlock. I also think citizenship should only be available to immigrants that have contributed by working and providing for themselves. Those who come here to live off our entitlements are not earning citizenship.

      • LOI

        Fully agree, we need to de-energize the magnets that draw the illegals here. While I like the right that anyone born on our soil is American, I see the problem that it is causing. There may need to be a change to that rule which does not grant automatic citizenship ot children born to illegals after the border is closed. Visitors who are here on valid visas would not be impacted although I understand there a Chinese baby factories (not the right word) that have been set up just for that purpose. So maybe even that would need to be changed.

        The welfare system is a whole other can of worms. It is far too liberal for all and does more harm than good. The example the other day of the mother with 15 kids is not typical but not totally atypical of the problem. There is another email (obit) floating around about a young man (~28) in New Orleans who died leaving 19 children. He was described as an entrepeneur. I can’t imagine having 19 kids at 28. It sounds as bad as D13’s hogs.

    • T Ray….I have not seen this before. Very thoughtful. With your permission, I will dwell on this a little and then respond..but there will be little change. I think I can offer some insight by referring to what actually happens and why, consequently, tweaking some of your points but you are very close. I will admit that I am passionate about our border down here and we have taken a lot on ourselves to rectify the problem…..without Fed help and money. But we are a big enough state to do that (ie. money). There are some pitfalls to your suggestions but will be back to you today.

      • Your input will be most welcome. I am under no illusion that I have the perfect solution. We need to solve this problem and the solution needs to be one we can live with for decades. Not like the last time we all we did was increase the magnetic force. I do not know at this time how to turn off the magnet, i.e. the freebees the the illegals get by crossing our borders, healthcare, welfare, schooling etc.

        On a side note, for all who say policing our border is impossible to police, how do Iran and N. Korea do it? As we have seen in the news, they are very good at grabing wayward Americans near or over remote sections of their borders.

    • Hi T-Ray, I have had some sleep and might even make sense now. 🙂 I think I recall answering some of these points before, but I don’t recall what I may have said. So, please, consider my thoughts now to be the current and updated ones.

      1) Secure the border (criminal activity along the border is a separate issue but this should also help reduce that as well)

      See my next comment.

      2) Simultaneous with securing the border, increase immigration quotas but with a significantly reduced lag time between application and entry. It should take no more than 30d to determine the true identity and criminal status of any applicant. All applicants entering the US using the proper procedures will ultimately be on the path to citizenship via the normal waiting period and rules.

      What constitutes securing the border? Are we talking physical system (fences and manpower to monitor), electronic systems, or some blends? I believe that if we reform the policies and procedures for legal entry and take away the illegal immigrant aspect of the issue we do increase border security (though we don’t reach what I would call having a secure border).

      I don’t see why the government should need 30 days to determine a person’s eligibility to enter the USA. With the proper support system in place (which exists now in a fragmented local/state/national set of systems) scanning a fingerprint at the border and checking for a record electronically wouldn’t work (an AFIS system – Automated Fingerprint Identification System) to speed this process up to minutes and hours – and prints don’t lie right? In the department I worked for when we suspected someone was giving us a false identity we did just that. It really took the wind out of their sales quickly too.

      That isn’t to say that an individual couldn’t go to any US embassy or consulate and get pre-authorized either. Their prints would be entered into the system and check to verify the person approved is the same person entering at the border.

      3) After the border has been certified secure (defined by an 80% reduction in illegal entry), then a one year voluntary period of registration for all illegals in this country begins. All must step forward and be identified. If free of any criminal activity, they will be granted green cards but any individuals who came here illegally after turning 18 will not be eligible for citizenship. (Thus no instant new voting block for either party. This is the punishment for illegal entry. I would not require fines or other remuneration. We want full cooperation.)
      a. Any children born here to illegals are citizens by birth
      b. Any minor children brought here illegally can apply for naturalization after reaching the age of 18 and after waiting for the normally prescribed period of time
      c. Any illegal who volunteers for military service, completes that service, and is honorably discharged will be granted citizenship upon discharge from the military
      d. All individuals who have been using illegal ID’s and SSN will surrender such information upon registration so that records can be properly corrected. Their SS accounts will start at zero from the registration date. Failure to surrender such documents or continued use of same will be grounds for criminal prosecution and future deportation
      e. Any individual with a criminal background will be deported immediately

      I fail to see why this would have to wait? If we work at #2 above, why can’t we work on this as well? They aren’t going to be deported in that year you’ve set up, so get the programs rolling to legalize these people now. I also disagree that anyone 18 or older who came here illegally can’t attain citizenship – what is the point in this? If they meet the eligibility requirements then let them eventually obtain citizenship if they desire to be a citizen. You’re setting up a discriminatory system right from the start to do otherwise.

      4) Any individual who entered this country after the date this legislation was introduced in Congress will be deported but may apply for reentry after one year via clause 2 above (this is to stop any magnet effect)
      5) Any individual who registers and voluntarily leaves the country for 1 year may reenter under clause 2 above. (Note Clause 2 is the path to citizenship.)

      How would this work if the individual(s) have children here who are citizens? Are the children to be denied their rights because they have no one here to care for them? Why 1 year? Why not 6 months, or 30 days, or something? I don’t see the point in this – it could end up costing more than it saves potentially. How would this work if they come forward and immediately volunteer for military service?

      6) After the voluntary phase, any employer who employs illegals (now defined as anyone who did not come forward voluntarily or who subsequently entered the country after the borders were sealed) will be fined or imprisoned. The fine would be no less than 3x the salary paid to any and all illegals so hired.

      What system will be in place that guarantees that a potential employee is legal? While I have no problem for punishing employers for employing illegals, there must be a good faith standard that says the employer followed all the rules to determine eligibility of an employee, yet the employee beat the system and is an illegal worker, but it isn’t the fault of the employer. There is the E-Verify system (I have no idea how good/bad that system is) and yet California now prohibits businesses from utilizing E-Verify to determine legal employment eligibility. So, how do you reconcile that type of problem?

      7) Any illegal immigrant apprehended crossing our border after the closure date will be identified and a criminal background check will be run. If the individual has a criminal background, it will be treated as a felony entry into the US and the individual will be incarcerated for a period of not less than 6 months before being deported. If the individual does not have a criminal background, they will be deported but instructed on how to enter legally. A second illegal entry by that individual will result in a misdemeanor 90d jail sentence and any legal future entry will be blocked. Subsequent illegal entries will be criminal (felony) in nature with an escalating penalty.

      How can one imprison anyone for a period of time arbitrarily? Have we forgotten the Bill of Rights, which are applicable to all persons, not just all citizens. Any provisions implemented must be done so within the framework of the US Constitution.

      Again, I believe easing the entry policies/procedures will alleviate a large part of the problem of people entering illegally, yet that too will require that we first revisit and specify what prior behavior is disqualifying for entry first. Prior illegal attempts to enter the country – to me – don’t rise to the level of permanent denial, no matter how many times they tried or did so.

      8: Once the voluntary phase is closed, any illegal apprehended by law enforcement beyond the border region will be deported without the right to reenter. All levels of law enforcement (local, state, and federal) will be authorized to detain any illegal who is stopped for just cause and questioned for possible violations of the law.

      See my comments to #7, and I have no problem with any level of law enforcement to detain – after a just stop – anyone determined to be here illegally (though as a civil offense, not necessarily as a criminal offense).

      9) Illegals (again defined after the voluntary registration period) will not be eligible for free medical care, schooling, or welfare. Use of same without paying will be considered a crime.

      I understand what you are aiming for, but I need to think on this some because of some negative aspects this could potentially have on the safety of society.

      10) Any individual who is voluntarily registered but then commits a crime (felony) within 5 years of that registration date will serve whatever punishment is meted out by the courts and then will be deported without right of reentry. After 5 years, any registrant convicted of a crime will be treated as any other legal US resident.

      So, we are saying there is no such thing as paying their debt to society? We shall further penalize them because we call them criminal? Be assured that I believe our criminal justice system requires major overhaul too. I just see us creating another shadow class of residents.

      11) All registrants must physically report in to INS once a year for the first 5 years.
      Border security and immigration is constitutionally a federal matter. As such they need to take the lead. Since many of the things the federal government does are not constitutional, I would use savings from eliminating those programs to secure the border. DOE and a few other departments come to mind. As D13 has noted, it can be done. We are being invaded by 1M individuals per year. The feds need to take this seriously and apply the appropriate manpower and technology. The increase quotas and fast track entry method should take most of the pressure off. Increased education of the proper entry method will require some advertising as will staffing for the increased flow of legal immigrants.

      And what happens if they fail to report? Prison? Deportation with restrictions on return? If they are here legally why do we need to track them? I don’t see the point in this requirement.

      As noted above, we are spending $113B/yr now on illegals. Some of that spending will continue with the newly registered now legal residents. My guess that the increased revenue collection and the savings will more than offset the increased border security costs. Also if we can keep the criminals out, our jail populations will go down. Some of those in jail now ended up there because they were in the underground society and had no investment in legal status in the this country. Being legal will reduce future criminal activity.

      I can generally agree here with what you’ve said.

      Yes, the federal government needs to take the lead and be accountable for their actions – not just on immigration either. But, at the same time States will have to be accepting of the decisions, ;laws, rules, regulations the federal government enacts and comply with them in all aspects – not just the aspects that the States agree with.

      I am open to a thorough discussion of this proposal. What puzzles me is if I can see a way through this, why can’t the politicians. Of course the answer is they do not want a solution as it would cost them votes and more importantly power.

      The politicians can, but you are right – they don’t want to for political purposes.

      I emphasized the last two comments because the items I was replying to were not numbered and I didn’t want my answer confused with your comment. 🙂

      • aaaaaaaaaaaak, I found an oops on my part.

        I don’t see why the government should need 30 days to determine a person’s eligibility to enter the USA. With the proper support system in place (which exists now in a fragmented local/state/national set of systems) scanning a fingerprint at the border and checking for a record electronically wouldn’t work (an AFIS system – Automated Fingerprint Identification System) to speed this process up to minutes and hours – and prints don’t lie right? In the department I worked for when we suspected someone was giving us a false identity we did just that. It really took the wind out of their sales quickly too.

        Change that “wouldn’t” to “would.”

        I musta gotten hold of DCU’s defective keyboards…………….

      • Re: 30d waiting period. I do not know how long this period should be. I took a guess that it would take 30d to confirm information on and individual and to do the rudimentary background check. D13 thinks this is not feasible since the Mexican records are not electronic nor in good order. In addition more than just Mexican nationals are crossing the border. I do not think it is practical to have someone show up at an entry point be it Corpus Christy or Newark and get same day clearance. The period for giving the applicant a yes or no answer should be relatively short. And yes it could and preferably all be done at a consulate or embassy long before the applicant enters the border region. The applicant needs to do his homework as well, it is not just good enough to appear at the border.

        The reason for delaying registration until the border is certified secure is political. The right will cry amnesty and as a result no agreement to solve the problem will be found. To stop the amnesty blockade, I chose to delay registration and to make the adult illegal immigrants pay for crossing the border by giving up the right to citizenship. Those who were brought here as minors can apply for and receive citizenship. The adults can earn it by a hitch in the military or by voluntary deportation and reentry. I set the voluntary exile period of one year is arbitrary. It could be short. Instead of paying a fine as some have proposed, I chose to make the penalty for illegal entry a timeout. As for families, the parents can take turns executing the voluntary deportation if citizenship is that important to them. There are many immigrants in the past who never applied for and received citizenship so non-citizen status is not that unusual.

        RE: Employers — I too do not know much about e-verify. It probably would need to be strengthened. I was not aware that CA had outlawed it but then that does not surprise me with the dunces we have in Sacramento. There is a reason why we are broke and have double digit unemployment. Employers do need to be penalized for hiring illegals. The penalty should be connected to the savings/salaries they paid. That is, any benefit they received should be forfeited three fold or more. Executives at these companies should be personally liable, i.e. subject to personal fines and imprisonment. No hiding behind the corporate veil.

        Re: Illegals crossing after closure – I do not support suspension of constitutional rights. Any incarcerations would be at the order of judge after a hearing. One caviate would be that there peers are foreign nationals so jury trials could be dispensed with. If the crosser has criminal intent, i.e., is a smuggler or slaver, then this should be a full blown criminal trial. If a migrating worker, I would deny him the very thing he came for. Thus at least on season of field work. Note, on the first attempt, the individual will be finger printed and in our legal records. They should also be clearly instructed that if caught again they will serve time and will loose the right to legally enter the country including as a visitor. After that ignorance of our laws can not be claimed and any attempts to enter will be considered criminal activity. I am not for giving someone infinite tries to cheat our laws. Learn the lesson the first time or loose those rights. We do not want people here who ignore our laws.

        RE: 5 year propationary period – This is a continuation of trying to weed out the criminals that crossed the border illegally and took advantage of the registration effort. Some of them will not have a criminal record prior to registration hence will not be identified. I do not think it is unreasonable to ask someone to live within the law for five years before becoming a permanent resident. Five years is a relatively short period of time. Also note that I specified conviction not arrest so constitutional protections are in place.

        I hope this clarifies some of my thinking on the issue. I tried to organize it to deflate some of the demogogic arguements floating around on the topic.

        I did not go into the mechanics of how we secure the border. It would probably be a combination of technology, fences and boots on the ground. I have more faith in the latter. It will also require full cooperation between federal, state, local and property owners to implement. Nanny states like CA will need to be brought on board as well. We need to enforce our immigration laws nation wide. No sanctuary cities.

        I certainly do not have all the answers. But do appreciate the unemotional discussion. It would be nice if the politicians, media, and media big mouths could do the same. Like most problems, it can be solved with the correct amount of resolve.

  8. Obviously I don’t agree with the title-but that isn’t the point-I was struck by the final question. Anyone who believes that a woman should have the right to choose-based on the development timeline given-at what point would you draw the line? I would only add one developmental step at week 5 -the heart starts to beat. I hope you guys will answer-don’t really want to debate-just would like to know how new information about the development of the fetus has effected your opinions.

    Abortion Forever?
    Pro-choice and pro-life absolutists say fetal development doesn’t matter. They’re wrong.

    By William Saletan|Posted Thursday, Dec. 1, 2011, at 9:10 AM ET

    Photograph by David McNew/Getty Images.

    A month ago, I debated late-term abortion with Ann Furedi, the chief executive of BPAS (the British Pregnancy Advisory Service), at the Battle of Ideas in London. This week, Spiked published a transcript of Furedi’s remarks, prompting outcries from pro-lifers. I’ve been asked what I said in the debate and what I think of Furedi’s view. Furedi opposes any legal time limit on abortion because she thinks the moral significance of fetal development is subjective throughout pregnancy. She’s wrong.

    In her published remarks, Furedi says there’s no “reason to think that doctors [or] women are abusing the current situation,” since “the number of women who request late abortions is very small,” and “there is no evidence that the number of women requesting late abortions is increasing.” On this, we agree. Late-term abortion isn’t a broad or growing social problem. It isn’t where I’d prefer to focus my energy on reproductive matters. I’d rather talk about contraception. But the debate organizers wanted this topic. And even if the percentage of abortions performed at late stages is low (5 percent occur after 16 weeks, 1.3 percent occur after 21 weeks), that’s still thousands of cases (32,000 after 16 weeks, 8,000 after 21 weeks). We can do better.

    Furedi refers to a handout I distributed before the debate. It’s a time line of fetal development. I compiled it from four sources: the U.S. National Institutes of Health, the U.K. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the Mayo Clinic, and a 2009 Pediatric Research article by Hugo Lagercrantz and Jeanne-Pierre Changeux: “The Emergence of Human Consciousness: From Fetal to Neonatal Life.” Here’s the time line by week of gestation:

    3. Brain, spinal cord, and heart begin to develop.
    4-5. Brain develops into five areas. Cranial nerves visible. Eye and ear structures begin to form.
    6. Nerve terminals and fibers are present deep in skin.
    7. All essential organs have begun to form.
    8. Nerve fibers grow into spinal cord. Signals from tissue stimulation reach spinal cord.
    9-12. Fetus can make a fist. Face is well-formed. Liver produces red blood cells.
    12. Connections from thalamus to cortex develop.
    13. Internal organs develop nerve terminals that can detect surgical tissue damage.
    13-16. Fetus begins to make active movements and sucking motions.
    14. Eyes begin to face forward and slowly move. Ultrasound detects coordinated movements.
    16. Brain responses to low-frequency noise can be recorded.
    18. Fetus withdraws from a needle. It launches a midbrain-generated stress response to needle punctures. This confirms that signals about tissue damage are reaching the midbrain.
    19. Withdrawal reflexes and other nociceptive reactions can be recorded.
    20. Increase in cortisol, beta-endorphin, noradrenaline when a needle invades the abdomen.
    21. Rapid eye movements begin.
    22-23. Fetus shows habituation to stimuli, reacts to first occurrence but not multiple repetitions.
    23. Startle reflex develops. Some fetuses respond to familiar sounds, such as mother’s voice, with movement.
    24. Cortex begins to process sensory input, including tissue damage. Air sacs form in lungs.
    25-28. Accelerated brain construction. Respiratory development makes gas exchange possible.
    26. Auditory cortex begins to respond to sound. Coordinated behavioral responses include facial expressions. Some motions look like scratching, smiling, crying, sucking.
    28. Visually evoked responses and spontaneous brain activity of cortical origin are recorded.
    29. Clear behavioral responses to smell can be recorded in infants born at this age.
    29-30. Pathways mediating pain perception become functional.
    30. Fetus practices breathing.
    33. fMRI shows cortical activation in response to sound.
    34. Accelerated brain development. EEG rhythm of the two hemispheres is synchronized.
    35. Organs are ready to function on their own.

    Furedi says this time line shows “there isn’t any profound point at which you can say there is a difference between one kind of fetus and another.” In other words, because the fetus develops new tissues and capacities each week, there’s no particular week at which it’s logical to draw a line. You might draw such a line, but that would just be your opinion. As Furedi puts it, “any definition of late abortion is arbitrary and subjective.” Therefore, the person whose subjective view should prevail is the pregnant woman:

    There are some women who would feel that 11 weeks is too late for them, or that 10 weeks is too late for them, because of their personal circumstances. There are other women who, faced with the decision quite late in their pregnancy, will feel that they can no longer bear to carry a child to term.

    How late do such feelings warrant a right to abortion? All the way to birth. In our debate, I asked Furedi about the woman in Philadelphia who began a termination procedure at 29 weeks, aborted the abortion because she objected to the clinic’s method of tissue disposal, and gave birth to a child who is now perfectly healthy. Furedi refused to proscribe such an abortion. “There is no evidence to suggest that we need to restrict later abortions in any way, by enforcing legal time limits,” she argues:
    Advertisement

    “The only time at which I am prepared to say that there is a difference in terms of the fetus is at the point of viability at 24 weeks. Because I think then we can say there is something which, in public opinion, represents a visceral stepping over the line. But my only reason for saying this is to do with public policy and what would be publicly acceptable—it is not that I personally think there is a particular difference at 24 weeks.”

    In Furedi’s remarks about women, I saw compassion. But in what she has said and written about human life in the womb (“Is there anything qualitatively different about a fetus at, say, 28 weeks that gives it a morally different status to a fetus at 18 weeks or even eight weeks?”), we have a chilling portrait of subjectivism run amok. No stage of fetal development is meaningful in a way that merits interference in the right to abortion. Spinal cord formation? That’s subjective. Brain construction? Subjective. Coordinated movement? Subjective. Distinctive response to the mother’s voice? Subjective. Pain perception? Spontaneous cortical activity? Viable lungs? It’s all subjective.

    If, as Furedi says, viability makes no particular difference, then why stop at birth? In our debate, I pointed out that the neural development trajectory outlined in “The Emergence of Human Consciousness: From Fetal to Neonatal Life” doesn’t end at birth. It runs through the first three years of life. If a child’s ability to survive on its own makes no difference, and if neural development adds no binding significance to the fetus’s original dispensability, then who are you to impose your values on Susan Smith, Andrea Yates, or Marilyn Lemak? If a woman feels that eight, 18, or 28 weeks after birth isn’t too late for her, shouldn’t we trust her judgment?

    This is the madness pro-lifers warned us about. If you don’t draw a line at conception, they argue, there’s no stopping point. Furedi agrees with them: “I accept that abortion stops a beating heart and I accept that abortion ends a potential human life, even in the very earliest weeks of pregnancy. So if we think it’s a morally wrong or morally coarsening thing to do, then I think we should oppose abortion right from the very earliest weeks.” On this fundamental question, pro-choice and pro-life absolutists are allies. They want to flatten the gestational time line. Either you outlaw abortion from conception, as the personhood movement proposes, or you must tolerate it without end.

    The alternative to this binary dystopia is to take seriously the differences between an eight-, 18-, and 28-week fetus. Those differences are no more subjective than evolution or global warming. And they matter, because the capacities that make a newborn more significant than a zygote—cognition, interaction, viability—don’t materialize overnight. They develop over many weeks. At some point, they make abortion too much like infanticide. If you don’t want to end up in Furedi’s world, you’ll have to decide when that point is. Not just for you, but for anybody.

    http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2011/12/late_term_abortion_and_fetal_development_my_debate_with_ann_furedi_.2.html

    • Buck the Wala says:

      I’ve always liked reading Saletan’s articles on this topic – I find he brings a pragmatism that is often lacking in these debates.

      You asked where I would draw the line — as I’ve always said: at viability.

      • When in your opinion does viability start? Per the information given.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          Definition:

          Viability (of a fetus): having reached such a stage of development as to be capable of living, under normal conditions, outside the uterus.

          • Okay, Mr. Attorney 🙂 Nevermind.

          • I find this definition interesting-what exactly are normal conditions?

            • Buck the Wala says:

              Normal conditions would imply an ability to survive without artificial means.

              NOTE: I am not saying that I do not or would not support a line of viability that includes the use of artificial means to keep the fetus alive. But you asked for a definition of viability and, to me, viability would need to imply an ability to survive on one’s own.

              • Actually, I didn’t ask for a definition of viability. I asked when YOU think a fetus has reached that point based on the developmental guideline given. But if you use viability, with the caveat, when the fetus can survive on it’s own without a support line-I think you may have just entered Furedi’s world.

                But if you mean with a support line-than there is a week of development-where you believe that starts. The SC said it was 24 weeks-but a lot of time has passed. Do you think the information should change the number of weeks? Or not. I don’t expect you to be a expert, just your opinion. That’s all I’m asking. What week?

              • Buck the Wala says:

                No the information as to development does not change the underlying concern over viability.

                This may seem heartless, but in this debate, I could care less when the heart begins to beat or when the brain and other organs begin to develop — I will still return to the question of viability. I can’t tell you where I think a fetus has reached that point — this is a factual line of inquiry based on medical science: can the fetus survive on its own or can’t it?

                I guess I do align with Furedi in the sense that she and I agree that viability makes sense from a pragmatic public policy/support standpoint. Where we part ways is that I do believe there to be a difference between viability and non-viability; she does not.

              • I’m really trying to understand-so if the SC came out and said-you can have an abortion anytime before birth-you would agree or not.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Birth goes beyond the point of viability. So I would not agree with that conclusion.

              • VH…he would not agree.

              • So we are back to the original question-when does viability start. So obviously, you are willing to just let the experts tell you when it is okay and when it is not. You don’t have a personal opinion. Or you just don’t want to say-you know Buck-you didn’t have to respond to the question at all-if you didn’t want to answer. 🙂

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Correct good sir!

                I hear Mathius is busy making a mockery of all you stand for up above. How you holding up?

              • I will say,most of the data that I have seen from the world reports to here…..viability is somewhere between 20-24 weeks on a normal basis.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                VH, you misunderstand — I do have an opinion: viability.

                But I am not a doctor. I cannot stand here and tell you when I ‘think’ viability occurs. I have provided a definition of viability. So you tell me, when is that point?

              • Per your definition- I can’t answer that question-I’m still not sure what medical interference is allowed, in the normal conditions part of the definition. Maybe at birth.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                As I said, I’m torn on the medical interference issue.

                Forgetting medical interference for a moment, given my definition of viability, at what week do you believe viability to have been met? If you can’t answer that question, then it seems you would be ok with my inability to answer it as well.

              • So per the information-you accept- to make this decision-we may be aborting fetuses a month too early. So shouldn’t the right to an abortion be moved to 19 weeks or 20.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                As the colonel pointed out, most research points to somewhere between 20-24 weeks. It is virtually impossible to draw a perfect line given different circumstances, medical issues, complications, etc. This is why I would support the line of viability as opposed to a bring line rule of X number of weeks.

                Caveat: along with an exception for the life of the mother.

              • Buck-you do not have an opinion-you have a word, a theory, a definition-which you cannot really define, because you cannot identify when such viability is reached.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Viability is my opinion as to when the line should be drawn. I can’t be much clearer than that and am not sure what you are looking for here. As I’ve said, I am not a doctor and I am not willing to say viability is attained at X weeks so no abortions after that! What I am comfortable saying…what my opinion is….is that the line should be drawn at the point of viability. I’m ok with leaving a bit of wiggle room here for different circumstances.

                Again, not sure how much clearer I can be on this.

              • No, Buck-I am not okay with your not being able to answer the question based on my not answering it-It’s not an equal comparison. I do not support abortion-I do not believe ending a pregnancy based on development or viability. You do. You should be able to answer that question-based on development-before you support the aborting of a fetus. Or you are simply supporting “choose” with has nothing to do with viability.

              • Mathius™ says:

                I am not willing to say viability is attained at X weeks so no abortions after that

                I just thought I’d add that different fetuses/feti are, well, different. They develop differently and are “viable” at different times. Plenty of pre-mature newborns die at the same age where other pre-mature newborns live. So to say Week X is the cutoff over-simplifies, I would think.

                I’m not a doctor, either, though, so don’t ask me to put a number in the place of that X.

              • Oh boy-that would be “Choice”

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Let’s try this again.

                Your question (paraphrased): Buck, when do you believe we should draw the line for abortion based on the provided developmental stage time line?

                My answer (paraphrased): VH, I don’t believe the line should be based on any single stage in the provided developmental stage; I believe in drawing that line as to viability, a term which I have provided a definition for.

                Sound good?

              • Maybe I’m nuts-but when you say you cannot fill in the X-you are saying it is okay to abort a baby that is viable.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                VH, not sure where you are getting that from at all. I’ve been very clear on saying that I support drawing the line at the point of viability. I refuse to fill in the X simply because doing so fails to address my point.

              • Mathius™ says:

                Buck, what language are you speaking? It looks like English to me, but maybe it’s some code language which only certain people can understand?

                V.H., NO. He is saying that once a FETUS (not baby, fe-tus) is viable (defined by Buck as being able to survive outside the womb), then it is no longer ok to abort. He is declining to give a MEDICAL opinion of which week this line is crossed because they did not cover this topic at his LAW SCHOOL.

              • Wiggle room means you are willing to abort a viable baby-which means viability isn’t the line you are using. If viability was the line-you would insist that there be no wiggle room. If the medical and scientific answer is that some babies can survive at 20 weeks-you would insist 19 weeks be the line.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                VH, NO!! Wiggle room does not mean it is ok to abort a viable fetus. Wiggle room means I am unwilling to make a bright line rule of X weeks because viability is not date-certain.

              • I’m not sure why we have so much trouble communicating 🙂 But I’m gonna try one more time-before I give up 🙂 Saying viability without being able to define the word in a way which ALLOWS a practical application-is useless. Neither of you, will even agree with the so-called -experts definitions but you will support abortion-based on I don’t KNOW.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                :::SIGH:::

                Yes, I said viability. And yes, I defined the term in a way that can be applied practically based on medical standards and practices. The law should be changed merely to read “Abortion is legal until said fetus has attained viability”. Leave it to the doctors to determine whether a particular fetus has reached this point.

              • Mathius™ says:

                Right, and you don’t know either. So until there is an answer or a solid consensus amongst people who, you know, went to medical school, Buck and I are unable to provide a “useful” line. We simply aren’t qualified to draw this line. As I pointed out, it’s different for different fetuses, too. So if I said week 26, that would be equally meaningless. The answer is, fetus-specific, whenever the fetus is able to survive outside the womb.

                I don’t support abortion, by the way, I support a woman’s right not to have something inside her body which she doesn’t want there which makes her nauseous, gain wait, lose nutrients, expose her to medical complications, gives her aches and pains, gives her weird cravings, and results in a baby which is a MASSIVE responsibility and which she is (generally) genetically predisposed to be strongly attached to, such that it’s extremely difficult to give up. I support a woman’s right to avoid this issue by means of separating a parasite from her uterus until the point at which that fetus cross the line into having human rights (my litmus test is different from Buck’s).

                Now, because I don’t know where that line is, I (personally, just me) err on the side of extreme caution. I would say, me, personally, that it’s safe to say that a fetus the size of a kumquat is not mentally developed enough to be sentient in a “human” way (hell, it still has a tail and fur!). But because I DO NOT KNOW, I cannot impose my OPINION on other people.

              • Mathius,

                Re: Abortion et al

                Any argument based on “viability” will not and should never be entertained. This leads to disastrous consequences where mere judgements on what may or may not be viable leads to “standard of living” and the horrors associated with mass slaughter.

                Further, within the same arena, “human mind” arguments. It has been found that people comatose may have cognitive functions – so, determining the right to kill an innocent person simply because you believe he has no mind is evil.

                The solution is simple, and merely needs consistency in its application.

                Either you judge “birth” as the start of human life or you judge conception as the start of human life. Then, merely be consistent.

              • You have got to be kidding! Read your definition of viability-you even had to qualify your definition when you wrote it.

                And don’t “sign” at me- Hee Hee-if you had just chosen a week-I wouldn’t have said another word-except thanks for the honest answer.

              • Okay, you err on the side of a woman’s “rights” grrrrrrrrr!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If I agreed with abortion, Which I Don’t, I would err on the side of life. Thanks for the honest answer. 🙂 But please be aware that your answer puts you in Furedi’s World.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                VH, if I had chosen a week that would not have been an honest answer.

              • Well, after a long conversation, one in which I suppose we both felt like we were pulling teeth-I have decided that you don’t belong in Furedi’s world. I know you are so relieved 🙂

                But the law hasn’t been changed-it has the X filled in and at some point you will have to make a decision based on the information you have-of when viability starts or as the article said-you too will support Furedi.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Sorry, VH, but I don’t have to do any such thing.

                Yes, the law now has an X filled in; that doesn’t mean I support having that X there — I support changing the law to change the “X-weeks” to “viability”.

            • @ VH…..I am a viability person myself…..sig other does not agree and we leave the subject alone. 🙂

              • Then I ask you 🙂 at what week of development -does viability begin?

                It is probably best if one wants peace in the family-not to discuss that which you will never agree on. 🙂

  9. USWeapon,

    A couple thoughts:

    1. What makes your conclusions more valid than those from the study? 😉 *

    2. Did any of us “Lefties” say we agreed with this study – or thought it was valid?

    3. Did any of the comments from us “Lefties” sound like we took this study serious?

    4. Did you really think you needed to spend time debunking this study?

    Come on, you have to let us “Lefties” have a little fun once in a while too!!

    * Please note this is just a JOKE!!

  10. Well I have to head off to work soon. I will pick this up again tonight. At least the debate is started.

  11. @ VH….I answered that…between 20-24 weeks according to the data that I have seen considering normal development and birth cycles.

  12. Mathius

    Your words are well stated. Too bad you don’t actually believe, or support fully, the words you write.

    “America is not yours. You do not own it. You one small piece of it – your house. The rest belongs to whoever owns the respective pieces. The public land is public. The private land is private. And you have no right to tell someone that they cannot have a private interaction which does not harm you or violate your rights.

    You are imagining that you have a right over my land – you do not. That’s why my name, not yours, is on the deed. And if I wanted to sell it to a Mexican, I should be able to. And if he wants to buy it, he should be able to. And if he wants to live in his house which he just purchased, he should be able to. And if someone wants to hire him, they should be able to. And if he wants to accept the job, he should be able to. (did you notice how none of these interactions involve you? So why are you sticking your nose in it?).”

    Such an eloquent defense of freedom and liberty. Now apply that same principle to all the other things you think Govt has the right to do. Doesn’t quite square up, does it!

    • BOOYA!

    • Mathius™ says:

      JAC, I do fully support what I wrote.

      My opinion is that government’s place is to intervene in interactions between individuals or entities and NON VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATORY third parties. That is, if you own a factory and it is poisoning my land, the government could get involved (ergo EPA). If I’m a private citizen who wants to shoot heroine, that’s no one’s business but mine (ergo no DEA). If, however, once on heroine, I rob a liquor store, the government should get involved (because the liquor store didn’t agree to be robbed) (ergo justice dept and police). Etc.

      This can be extrapolated into other areas. It’s hard to square, it’s true, with some things. Easier for others. Perhaps you could give me an example of where I do not fully support this view so I can see if I can clarify this further?

      • Mathius

        So you won’t object to me moving next door and leaving a few junk cars sit in the yard.

        You won’t complain when I let the grass die and the weeds grow.

        Why do you care if I rob a store. It didn’t affect YOU. It didn’t infringe upon YOUR rights. Shouldn’t the liquor story just pay to have a Guard?

        So you will Support repeal of Obama Care, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc, etc.? All of these require confiscation of my “property” to fund programs that I do not support and which are NOT needed to protect MY Rights. There existence in fact infringes upon my rights. They authorize others to infringe upon my rights, and I have no defense but to leave the country or become a “criminal”.

        You won’t support Govt taking MY property to build a highway that I do not want? How is my not wanting a highway affecting your Rights??

        Matt, I know you support what you wrote. My point is that you Don’t live up to what you say you support. You start rationalizing all the exceptions. Just as most of us do. Most of us try to live with these contradictions, hoping they work out. Some have greater contradictions than others.

        Each contradiction is like a small crack in a glass ceiling. You might get by with a few small ones. But they have a tendency to grow, eventually they run together and the ceiling will collapse.

        • Mathius™ says:

          So you won’t object to me moving next door and leaving a few junk cars sit in the yard. Of course I would object. But I don’t have any right to do anything about it.

          You won’t complain when I let the grass die and the weeds grow. Of course I’ll complain. But it’s your grass, not mine. I have no right to go on your property and do anything about it (I might offer to take care of it for free if it annoys me enough, but even that would still be subject to your approval).

          So you will Support repeal of Obama Care, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc, etc.? All of these require confiscation of my “property” to fund programs that I do not support and which are NOT needed to protect MY Rights. I don’t really know enough about ObamaCare to opine, so let’s skip that one. Medicare/caid… I don’t know. A (flimsy) case could be made that a “socialized” cost to everyone in order to provide a safety net for the few is necessary for the security and well-being of the entire society (ie, prevents raiding bands of starving poor/elderly, for example). To that end, if we were to accept that, then it’s government involvement in an interaction between the raiding horde and me (a non voluntary participatory third party). Obviously, I’m being a little flippant here. I don’t, actually, think that (as is) SS or MC are strictly moral or, for that matter, well implemented. I, being the bleeding heart liberal, think we (society) have a moral obligation to help those who CANNOT help themselves – not just those who are down on their luck or are old (nothing stops a 90 year old from working as a telemarketer, for example, just because they can’t walk anymore, so why am I paying for them?).

          So, now that we’ve clarified my position, how do we square the circle, and the answer is I can’t really. The two are in conflict. I know it, you know it. So maybe the answer is to devise a SS (as I see it) in place of the gov’s version and just really make an effort to pass the collection plate. But I just don’t see that working. Oh well. In the end, it comes down to the lesser of two evils (letting the truly helpless die or stealing to pay for them) – some people would suggest the former isn’t actually evil (since you are not committing the killing yourself), but I see failure to act as evil. Does this make sense?

          I have no defense but to leave the country or become a “criminal”. That’s true, and unfortunate.

          You won’t support Govt taking MY property to build a highway that I do not want? How is my not wanting a highway affecting your Rights?? I suppose I should expand on my concept of government’s place. It belongs in interactions between individuals and non voluntary participatory third parties AND certain public works which are not effectively handled by the free market.

          In hind site, this fixes the issue with SS if you consider taking care of the needy to be a “public work.” This would also include, for example, limited national defense.

          You start rationalizing all the exceptions. Just as most of us do. Yup. I recognize two competing sources of moral premises – Greater Good (whatever that is) and Freedom. With regards to immigration, I do not see how/where Greater Good would trump the freedom of human beings to engage in private interactions based on some idea of national identity.

          Each contradiction is like a small crack in a glass ceiling. You might get by with a few small ones. But they have a tendency to grow, eventually they run together and the ceiling will collapse. Perhaps. DPM and I have been working on this for a while – I’ll let you know if/when the ceiling caves in.

          • Mathius

            So the minute you came up against your principle, you modified IT instead of modifying your behavior. This modification (your concept of govt’s place) then created a rationalization for the very things you previously said violated the base principle. And this is how we destroy ourselves.

            So lets back up. Yesterday I offered a solution to Soc Sec, etc that would solve your contradiction. It could be expanded to a completely “voluntary” system to make it conform to the “freedom” principle.

            “With regards to immigration, I do not see how/where Greater Good would trump the freedom of human beings to engage in private interactions based on some idea of national identity. ” REALLY?

            OK, the millions that just immigrated under your view now have access to the welfare system you just rationalized previously, thus ADVERSELY affecting the GREATER GOOD. Namely the solvency of the Nation State and the ability of the existing citizens to access those programs.

            Once you allow the concept of Greater Good into the roots it rots the entire tree.

            • Mathius™ says:

              Thus affecting the greater good of ME. The Greater Good (capital G) does not end at national boundaries and subsets of people you pick and choose. The Greatest Good, is the good of all humanity. And this is served best by allowing people to “free-market style” reallocate human capital.

              You, essentially, are trying to use central planning to obtain a better result of resource allocation. You excuse this because it’s not water or power or farm equipment, but that doesn’t change the fact that people are resources.

              (did anyone else just hear BF’s head spin around to see who wrote that?)

            • JAC,

              So the minute you came up against your principle, you modified IT instead of modifying your behavior. This modification (your concept of govt’s place) then created a rationalization for the very things you previously said violated the base principle. And this is how we destroy ourselves.

              Exactly.

              This, I believe, it the greatest single human hurdle to our true greatness as a species – the inability to hold to principles instead of pragmatism.

              The toughest thing a person can do, is to do the right thing no matter the personal (short term) cost, or short term gain.

              Because the long term consequences -which tend to be far in the future, thus less observable and f much more unknown – hold the far more powerful outcomes – outcomes that change a life permanently and/or alter society.

              The tradeoff of inflicting long term evil of massive impact for short term gain of little impact – simply because one can realize the gains immediately and delay our pain.

              • Mathius™ says:

                I don’t think I “modified” anything though – I feel I’ve been pretty consistent all along that I have two conflicting premises and that I try to balance them. Whether you agree with the premises or not (I know you don’t) is irrelevant. I resent the implication that I have been inconsistent with my principles. I’ve always said that “freedom” wins some arguments and “greater good” wins others. This is one of those examples won by “freedom.”

                Also, nice of you to finally join us now that I’ve spent the entire day arguing this by myself. Could have used some (verbose) assistance.

              • Mathius,

                I resent the implication that I have been inconsistent with my principles. I’ve always said that “freedom” wins some arguments and “greater good” wins others.

                No, sir.
                You don’t even understand what you are actually doing.

                You do not have “two” premises in conflict

                You have even a more basic premise or principle that you are using to judge the situation and then based on THAT premise, you chose either freedom or “greater good”

                That root premise can be roughly described as:

                Whatever appears in my benefit right now, that is what I chose”
                … and is probably the most typical basic and simplistic premise of most people, which is why most people are utterly stuck in a huge mess.

  13. @ Buck…….naaah….Mathius and I have a fundamental disagreement. He is wrong and I am right….(Colonel’s are always right)…..****

    Actually, I like hearing from all of you…..but Mathius has a philosophical stance…(ie. imaginary lines, legalizing everything…..) while philosophically, he might be correct in one sense….in a perfect world, it would probably work..but in reality, it will not. For example, he used the elimination of prohibition as an example of eliminating organized crime in the alcohol business…..it would not work in the drug or prostitution or gun running business for reasons I will explain later today. But, he can be saved.

    **** At least WE think so. After all, we are one step away from General.

    • Mathius™ says:

      My alter ego is an Admiral and that trumps colonel.

      I look forward to your explanation of why this would not work.

      • I now see where your problem is….a common misconception that Navy trumps Army……..maybe on the football field with all the powder puff rules today………..But I will acquiesce to the fact that a Navy Admiral does trump an Army Colonel….******

        ****** I have to say that. The Navy always gives us a ride when it is time to fight.

        • Dread Pirate Mathius says:

          I’m sorry.. where did you get the idea that I’m an admiral in the navy?

          I am an admiral, all right, and a Dread Pirate, too! But I am not aligned with any government.

          • However, an Admiral indicates a Naval officer………where as a dread pirate indicates an individual that reports to no one but himself (and a can of RB) and has no allegiance to anything other than himself (and a can of RB….maybe a wench or two…..a nifty Jack Sparrow hat…..a Jack Roberts Cutlass)…..so which is it Bucko?

            • Dread Pirate Mathius says:

              I am the Admiral of the Pirate Fleet – a coalition of freely associating pirates who elected me their leader and gave me a nifty Jack Sparrow hat as a token of their esteem.

              Mostly, we tie up the ships into a flotilla off Laguna Madre and sit around drinking grog, playing cards, and chatting up the pretty wenches.

              Y’AAARRRRGGGGH!

  14. Just heard a local lady on talk radio who supports the OWS movement. To the extent that she and others of her “group” are traveling to Washington D.C. to demonstrate to Congress that it needs to take action to create jobs and living wages.

    I must admit that at this very moment I feel anger at this person as well as a sense of hopelessness. Anger because she represents such a large number of people like her, and because they have political clout. Hopelessness, for the same reasons. So let me share some of her comments/points. Paraphrasing of course, as I did not have a recorder.

    Her: ALL of the millionaires only pay 3% in federal income tax. The host asked where she got this number.
    Her: I heard it in the various TV and radio shows.
    Host: Do you realize that the real number, per the IRS, is that the top 1% pay a little over 30% of ALL federal income tax?
    Her: That is simply not true. I got my numbers from several media outlets.
    Host: Do you realize, according to the IRS, that the lowest 40% income group who file returns pay ZERO federal income tax?
    Her: You can try and twist my words anyway you want but it won’t change the facts. I am talking about the percentage I pay compared to millionaires. They only pay 3%.
    Host: According to the Govt’s own numbers, the effective tax rate for ALL millionaires is about 20%.
    Her: Stop trying to twist my words into your lies about what millionaires pay.

    Her: We are going to D.C. to demand Congress pass the Jobs bill and start creating jobs that pay a living wage.
    Host: So you are going to lobby for passage of the President’s plan?
    Her: This is not about the President. It is about getting jobs with a living wage, like we used to have in this country.
    Host: But you said you want the Jobs Bill passed. That is the President’s bill, right? Or is it another bill.
    Her: Stop trying to make this political.

    Her: I had to pay 40% tax on my income last year and the top 1% don’t have that much tax.
    Host: Why did you pay so much?
    Her: Well I cashed in my 401 K and with the tax and penalties it came to 40%. I used the money to pay down the mortgage on my house.
    Host: You know if a millionaire did the same thing they would also have to pay the tax and penalty.
    Her: They don’t pay taxes. And I paid into that account my entire life. Why should I have to pay taxes to get my money back??? NO SHIT. SHE ACTUALLY SAID THIS.
    Host: Well at least you paid down your debt.
    Her: When I did this I asked the bank if I paid off half my mortgage if they would reduce the interest rate on the balance. They said NO. This isn’t “fair”. Why should I have to pay the same rate if I pay off half the mortgage?
    Host: But you went ahead and paid off half?
    Her: Yes! And now I don’t have enough to live on. We don’t have jobs with living wages in this country anymore.

    OK, I think you get the gist of the discussion. Now I have to assume this person watches FOX News almost exclusively.

    OH, I almost forgot the punch line. When discussing her “group” going to D.C. with the Occupy Portland group, the host was sharp enough to ask an innocuous question.

    Host: So the folks in your group are going to D.C., which I think is the correct thing to do, how are you paying for this trip? Are you taking up donations or is each person paying their own way?

    Her: No. SEIU is paying for ALL OF US to make the trip. They are covering ALL OF THE COSTS of the trip.

  15. DisposableCarbonUnit says:

    In reference to the discussion on the “viability” of a fetus, I think people are confusing terms.

    Some are using “life” and “viability” interchangeably when, in reality, they refer to different biologic events.

    Both terms refer to the stage of complexity and interdependence of the cells of an organism, but the terms refer to different stages of complexity and interdependence.

    A thought experiment……

    Sample A: Fusion of a sperm cell and an egg cell (a zygote)

    Sample B: A fully functioning human adult

    Now, what determines “human” life? Depending on your religious or philosophical education, some may say that life begins at this stage for Sample A. Biologically it is debateable.

    The experiment…..

    Take Sample A and Sample B, freeze in liquid nitrogen for 24 hours. Then thaw Sample A and B and provide appropriate conditions for metabolism to occur.

    Result: Sample A has almost 100% viability while Sample B has 0% viability as an organism.

    Now add a days’ growth to Sample A and subtract a days’ growth from Sample B. Repeat the experiment. If this is repeated over and over again you reach a level of complexity in Sample A that viability approaches 0% as in Sample B. “Life” for humans begins at that point where the freeze-thaw effect on the organism makes it non-viable. This requires a certain level of complexity (how many cells? Too unethical of an experiment to actually conduct.), and a “high division of cellular labour” or interdependence to achieve. If the cells of the organism can perform enough vital functions to autonomously replicate, do we consider that human “life”? Or do we call it human “life” when they specialize their cellular functions enough that they are now dependent upon the other cells for the biological materials necessary for their metabolism and replication?

    “Viability” is a higher level of complexity and interdependence where the specialization of the cells in different parts of the organism allow the growth of the whole organism from the sum of the parts. “Viability” is only achieved, without intervention, when all physiological parts have FULLY developed their specialized functions and support the organism as a whole. We have the capability, today, to intervene before this stage to support the organism until final maturity of the specialized parts. When this stage is achieved is arbitrarily defined by the quality of medicine. Viability could be defined differently depending on whether you are in Des Moines or Darfur.

    Just thought I would add a little complexity to the discussion.

    • Ummmm, I think you may have made it a little too complex for me 🙂 Will have to think about this for awhile.

    • Mathius™ says:

      And for those of us who don’t rely on “viability” but on having a “human mind”…? What are your thoughts on this?

      Surely a zygote does not have a “human mind” whereas a baby can reasonably be said to. So where do the two meet, in your professional opinion?

      • DisposableCarbonUnit says:

        ::DCU channelling his best BF impression::

        How then would you describe an anencephalic baby in your world; possibly not human?

        “Human mind” is too vague a descriptor. There are members of my family that may qualify as human, but they sure as hell have no “mind”.

        Your “human mind” definition is open to too many interpretations.

        • Mathius™ says:

          Caribou Unit,

          Don’t channel him.. it’s not good for you sanity.

          The problem I have is that if the right to life is isolated to humans, then the right to life must be rooted in something intrinsic to HUMANS but no other animals. The only real difference between us and other animals is in our brains. I just can’t escape this logic.

          If we have special rights, it is because we are special. We are special because of our special minds. Ergo, we have special rights because of our special minds.

          So even though I don’t know how do define this or draw the line, it is, inevitably, to me, the point at which a fetus or child (or teenager) gains “human rights.”

          Your question about an anencephalic baby is a good one. I would clarify that it’s not, strictly speaking fair to say it’s not “human”, but I do think it’s probably hard to avoid the conclusion that it does not have “human rights.” If my logic is right, then something which is “biologically human” but has no higher brain function does not have that special something which confers human rights.

          I don’t like that conclusion one bit. Not one iota. But just because you don’t like where you logic takes you does not mean you should abandon your logic.

          Conversely, if Mr. Ed. were to break his leg, you couldn’t put him down. He is capable of higher thought (and hilarious hijinks), so he does have that special something which confers the set of rights (otherwise known as human rights), inclusive of which is the right to not be killed.

          • DisposableCarbonUnit says:

            Human rights are an artificial construct of humans.

            That’s why you can deny BF his human rights 😉 !

            Why do humans think they are so special? It’s rather bizarre.

            Humans are nothing more than the most efficient DNA delivery vehicle on the planet.

            • Mathius™ says:

              I agree human rights are an artificial construct. Your point?

              I don’t think BF is human. He has “Artificial Intelligence Rights” which includes the right to sing Daisy and lock people out of the pod bay doors.

              I don’t think humans are all that special.

              Humans are nothing more than the most efficient DNA delivery vehicle on the planet. Depends on how you define this, no? I never had a pet rabbit, but I hear they’re far more efficient at DNA delivery..

              vehicle on the planet. And what about OFF the planet? I hear there’s a SUFA-ite living on Pluto – is there a reason you exclude him from your sample?

              • DisposableCarbonUnit says:

                Most efficient DNA delivery vehicle refers to our ability to protect the integrity of our genome.

                Our whole being is designed to protect our DNA and pass it on. Bunnies are more reproductive but do not protect their genomes as we do.

              • Mathius™ says:

                But having more offspring protects your genome,no? So, for example, a fish which lays 10,000,000 eggs a year is doing a very effective job of delivering its dna – even if 99.99% die, it’s genes will survive to the next generation.

                I guess I’m unclear what you mean “protect their genomes”?

              • DisposableCarbonUnit says:

                I am referring to the ability to shield one’s DNA from possible mutations.

                Just as “correlation does not imply causation”, “propagation dies not imply protection”

              • Mathius,

                I agree human rights are an artificial construct. Your point?

                Wrong.
                True Human Rights derive directly from nature, and obey Natural Law

                There does exist Artificial Human Rights, and are purely artificial and arbitrary. The existence of these does not invalidate the former.

              • Mathius™ says:

                Well now…

                True Human Rights derive directly from nature, and obey Natural Law

                Can you please arrive at “true human rights,” starting from first principles in Natural Law? Please be sure to demonstrate why I can morally kill and eat a cow, but not a human.

              • Mathius,

                Cow vs Human.

                We are talking about human rights, not cow rights.

                We are talking about rights.
                What morals have to do with this, I do not know.

                Thus your question is nonsensical if we are talking about human rights.

              • Mathius,

                Ignoring your nonsensical sentence of your post, I will address this for the 15,304th time….

                Can you please arrive at “true human rights,” starting from first principles in Natural Law?

                Natural Law: “What I do to you, give others the right to do to me” – know as the Gold Rule, also stated:

                ….in the positive:
                “Do to others as you would have other do to you”

                ….and, in the negative:
                “What you don’t want done to you, don’t do to others”

                This Natural Law manifests two, equal but opposite, principles:

                (1) For me not to be imposed upon, I cannot impose upon others
                and
                (2) I’ll do whatever I want to you, because I don’t care what you do or can do back to me.

                Item #1: Leads to “human RIGHT”, freedom and civilization.

                Item #2: Leads to “Might is Right”, tyranny and barbarism.

              • Mathius™ says:

                Ok, let’s try it again.

                Why can I own a cow as property and have the RIGHT to eat it, whereas I cannot own a person and have the RIGHT to eat him/her?

                We’re talking about human rights, and I get that they may be different from “cow rights,” but what I am trying to figure out is how you determine which rights belong in each basket. From Natural Law, you arrive at a set of rights which you ascribe to humans, yet you do not ascribe them to cows. So you place, for example, the right to own property, in the “human rights” basket – why? how? – but you do not place it in the “cow rights” basket – why not? How did you arrive at this?

                Better?

              • Mathius,

                Why can I own a cow as property and have the RIGHT to eat it, whereas I cannot own a person and have the RIGHT to eat him/her?

                Your first question was “what natural law do human rights come from?”
                So, based on this followup, you understand the answer.

                Now this is a different question – which is the DISCOVERY and then APPLICATION of Human rights.

                Do you understand so far?

              • Mathius,

                but what I am trying to figure out is how you determine which rights belong in each basket.

                You put eggs in an egg carton, and bacon in the bacon carton. So to determine which “basket” a right goes into, you must first determine what right you think you are talking about.

                From Natural Law, you arrive at a set of rights which you ascribe to humans, yet you do not ascribe them to cows.

                Because I deal and dialogue with humans and not with cows, so I have no idea about what cows thin, Dr. Dolittle.

                So you place, for example, the right to own property, in the “human rights” basket – why?

                Because I am human.

                how?

                The “Right” to own property is not a “right” in its own regard. It does not exist alone – but a manifestation of a human right.
                Property exists because there are human rights.

                When a person says “I have a right to my property” they are really saying “By exercising my human rights, I have property that is mine”.

                – but you do not place it in the “cow rights” basket – why not?

                Because I am human and not a cow.

                I don’t give a damn about what cow rights cows think they have. They have told me nothing, one way or the other.

                How did you arrive at this?

                By looking in the mirror, thinking and knowing I am human and not a cow.

                Better?

                Hmmm.
                More wondering why you think you are cow…..

              • ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!

            • Buck the Wala says:

              No, you can deny BF his ‘human rights’ because he is a robot. An extremely intelligent robot, but still a robot.

  16. Drop a bunch of these in the halls of congress!

    http://video.foxnews.com/v/1305106015001/snakes-released-in-taxmans-office

    • Kathy

      Come on my dear. No need to do that.

      THEY already occupy the place.

      • No, actually CarbonUnit has simplified the abortionists argument.

        Viability is a judgement and is NOT OBJECTIVE – hence, when applied to life and death of humans, becomes very dangerous in the hands of the likes Progressives of Buck and Mathius.

        Their inability to hold to any definition as principle -thereby allowing them to change the definitions of anything to suit their nefarious purposes- will eventually lead to “viability” being the justification to slaughter millions of people. Historical examples are numerous – but fear not, Buck et al will poo-poo these examples as “historical barbarism” and pretend they no longer apply today. Of course, this merely acknowledges such people as horrifically naive on top of their evil pragmatic beliefs.

        • DisposableCarbonUnit says:

          Alas, ’tis true dear pirate.

          When does “life” begin, is the more objective, yet equally dangerous, question.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          Actually viability is immensely objective — can the fetus survive, on its own, outside of the womb? Yes or No?

          • DisposableCarbonUnit says:

            With or wothour intervention?

          • DisposableCarbonUnit says:

            I mean with or without intervention. (I have to stop buying defective keyboards)

            Quid pro quo counsellor, how do you deal with an anencephalic baby?

            • Buck the Wala says:

              With or without intervention — good question; I lean towards with but do not have the answer. In that sense I concede that ‘viability’ has some subjective quality to it, but that can be gotten around to reach an objective definition.

              Anencephalic baby? I am applying ‘viability’ only to arguments on abortion. Nothing more, nothing less.

              • DisposableCarbonUnit says:

                Anencephalic babies were anencephalic fetuses.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Given ‘with or without intervention’ more (ableit brief) thought — I come down on ‘with intervention’. To me, the whole point of having viability as the line is whether or not the fetus can survive on its own outside of the womb. If medical science continues to advance to make this point sooner, we should embrace that technology.

              • Mathius™ says:

                Anencephalic babies were anencephalic fetuses. And when they were, they were not viable.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                This is true, but besides the point for purposes of our debate over abortion. I am limiting my thoughts to whether or not, and until what time, should abortion be allowed.

              • DisposableCarbonUnit says:

                @Mathius, of course they were viable, they just couldn’t think like you.

                @Buck, what if medical science is able to intervene at week 12, or 8, or 6? There goes your whole abortion is OK arguement.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                So be it.

                But then, and here’s the kicker, do we allow the woman to force an ‘extraction’ (not an abortion) and give up the fetus allowing it to survive by such medical advances?

              • DisposableCarbonUnit says:

                Not really my call, or my problem.

              • Mathius™ says:

                In what way were they viable? Because there’s a minuscule slight possibility that maybe it could live?

                Per wikipedia

                There is no cure or standard treatment for anencephaly and the prognosis for patients is death. Most anencephalic fetuses do not survive birth, accounting for 55% of non-aborted cases. If the infant is not stillborn, then he or she will usually die within a few hours or days after birth from cardiorespiratory arrest.[2][11]

                I recognize that wikipedia is not always 100% scientifically accurate, but I think this line hits the mark best:

                In almost all cases, anencephalic infants are not aggressively resuscitated because there is no chance of the infant ever achieving a conscious existence.

              • DisposableCarbonUnit says:

                Why almost all? Who makes that decision and why?

              • DisposableCarbonUnit says:

                @Buck: We have those “extractions” today, except I think they are called adoptions.

              • Mathius™ says:

                Who makes those decisions: Parents and doctors.

                Why make that decision: “Because there is no chance of the infant ever achieving a conscious existence.”

              • You are talking about these decisions being made before the infant is born-so, if you guys know, when during the fetuses development can they make this diagnosis and how accurate is it?

              • Buck

                Good lord man………”In that sense I concede that ‘viability’ has some subjective quality to it, but that can be gotten around to reach an objective definition.”

                Guess I shouldn’t be surprised by that but it caused me to choke on my coffee when I saw it.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                That’s what I’m aiming for JAC!!

  17. The new unemployment numbers are a lot worse than the headlines indicate. The news media is breathlessly reporting today that 120,000 jobs were created in November. But with the working age population increasing by about 160,000 people each month, job creation isn’t even keeping up with the number of people entering the work force. So how is it possible for the unemployment rate to fall from 9.0 to 8.6 percent?

    The explanation is actually pretty simple. People are only counted as unemployed as long as they are actively looking for work. It is good news when the number to falls if it means that Americans are getting new jobs. It is not so good if the number falls because people are simply giving up looking for work.

    In November, the numbers could hardly have been worse — 487,000 people simply gave up looking for work and left the labor force. That is the 6th worst report since the recession started 48 months ago. Even more startling, 5 of those 6 worse reports have occurred since the “recovery” supposedly started in June 2009 (See this link here).

    Having people giving up looking for work in such massive numbers probably isn’t too surprising. The average number of weeks that the unemployed are looking for work has reached record lengths – almost twice the previous record set during the Reagan administration. And things have only gotten worse: the longest job searches weren’t during the recession – the longest searches for jobs were taking place during 2011, two years into the “recovery.”

    By the end of the recession in June 2009, 27 percent of the unemployed searched for work for over six months. In November, that stood at almost 43 percent.

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/12/02/what-new-unemployment-numbers-are-telling-us/#ixzz1fPAHGL3z

  18. This is great:

    Saudis fear there will be ‘no more virgins’ and people will turn gay if female drive ban is lifted

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2068810/Saudis-fear-virgins-people-turn-gay-female-drive-ban-lifted.html#ixzz1fPJu5f7S

  19. Tis the season ya’ll…I love these guys…I’m out too

  20. For any of you who might want to experience what it’s like to be part of a WINNING team!!

    http://www.packers.com/news-and-events/article-1/Packers-Stock-Sale-to-Begin-December-6/2e8bc358-31bb-4acf-8ce7-c97c9f260af1

    PS – it’s really more of a donation than a stock purchase!

  21. Booooo! Romney-Gingrich, may well, ruin his chances of winning by talking too much-but at least he is telling us what he thinks -his ego, I suspect will make him work very hard to make the economy better-his pride won’t allow him to do any less. But Romney-is so worried about hurting his chances-I find it makes me not want to vote for him.

    Romney Declines Lincoln-Douglas Debate Against Gingrich

    By Erin McPike – December 2, 2011

    With the Republican presidential primary appearing to have narrowed into a two-man contest, Human Events and Red State moved quickly to lock down a date for a Lincoln-Douglas-style debate between Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich.

    The two organizations went so far this past Monday as to firm up the Annenberg Theater at the Newseum in Washington as the venue on Dec. 19 after another debate originally scheduled that day was canceled. For its part, the Newseum was excited to host the pre-primary forum.

    There was just one problem. While Gingrich was ready to take his place on the stage, the Romney campaign politely declined in a series of mostly e-mail exchanges.

    As Joe Guerriero, publisher of Human Events and Red State, put it to RCP: “Newt was all over it, and the Romney camp basically said no. It wasn’t a harsh no, but it was a no.”

    A Gingrich spokesman confirmed to RCP that the candidate was interested and accepted the invitation, but a Romney spokeswoman didn’t return a request for comment.

    Guerriero explained that the impetus for the debate was this: Romney has long been presumed to be the nominee. But with Gingrich surging in the polls, why shouldn’t the Republican base get a chance to see the two top candidates go toe-to-toe?

    “No disrespect to any of the other candidates,” Guerriero said, but given the state of the country, the economy, and the race to date, if Romney is to be the nominee, “he needs to go against the best debater with the deepest understanding of policy both domestic and foreign, and that appears to be Newt Gingrich.”

    It’s no secret that Gingrich likes debates and has performed well in them, but Romney has had his share of solid performances too, and Guerriero and his colleagues believe Romney would stand to benefit from a two-person format featuring his toughest opponent to prepare him for debates against President Obama if he does win the GOP nomination.

    He continued, “It looks like Newt’s made a real run at this, and the Romney camp is trying to run out the clock, and we don’t think that’s necessarily a wise strategy.” Instead, he said, the base should be able to see the top candidates answer the tough questions that these conservative publications don’t believe are being asked.

    Going forward, Guerriero said, they have asked the candidates if they would agree to such a debate after the first few primary contests. Gingrich, he said, “is itching to do it,” but the Romney campaign “has been more circumspect.”

    They hope to get one on the calendar soon, he said, but for now it won’t be for the date they had planned on prior to the Iowa caucuses. Guerriero said he realized the debate might not be as big as the debates that television networks can produce, but he asserted, “We want them onstage together.”

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/12/02/romney_declines_lincoln-douglas_debate_against_gingrich_112265.html

    • Boooooooo! Romney can’t even handle Brett Baeir(sp) without pouting. He’d lose to Newt , he knows it.

  22. If Cain drops out or not-I really wish the media would keep up with these women, especially this last one-and let us know if she suddenly has a financial windfall. I would also like to know if the illegal woman who was a house keeper for…………can’t remember her name, she ran in the last election, and was accused of knowing she was illegal and unfair payment-I would like to know what happened to her.

    All these allegations hurt politicians running for office but somehow most of them are just forgotten, once they do there damage.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      What do you think of Cain’s response to these allegations? Not very presidential if you ask me.

      • Be specific-If you don’t like him, think he’s unpresidential or whatever other reason you want to use-your choice-but if one is going to accuse him of a 13 year affair-there should be a lot of proof-so where is it-I want details before I ruin a man’s reputation and his dreams. The allegations of harassment-either come forward-with all the information or shut up. The ” we will destroy you with part of the story” while “claiming the high ground” of protecting those who are making the allegations-just doesn’t work for me.

  23. Mathius™ says:

    When a person says “I have a right to my property” they are really saying “By exercising my human rights, I have property that is mine”.

    What “human right”? Name it. You have a plural there – human rights (note the S) – enumerate these rights.

    Right A
    Right B
    Right C

    Then, “Because I am human and not a cow.” is circular logic. I have human rights because I am a human I do not have cow rights because I am not a cow. Yes, very good. This is true.

    WHY?

    What “Natural Law(s)” lead(s) to Right A, and how? “By looking in the mirror, thinking and knowing I am human and not a cow.” Does not count as “logic.” If you asked someone why they believe taxation is not theft and they said “by looking in the mirror, thinking and knowing that it is not theft,” you would laugh them out of the room. What is your “thinking” step? How does looking in the mirror help? Do you even have a reflection?

    A therefore B therefore C

    Not: A … something mirror gazing and ambiguous thinking … therefore C

    What is A, exactly?
    What is the logic of B (again, not “by thinking”)
    What is C, exactly?

  24. Mathius,

    Understanding that I am dealing with an irrational guy who has a hard time with natural law of physics (ie: thermodynamics) – I dread having to even attempt to deal with something far more intellectual with this person when the guy has a problem with reality to start with….

    …opps, Mathius… didn’t see you standing there….

    What “human right”? Name it.

    Free from imposition of others
    (or, biblically, “free will”)

    You have a plural there – human rights (note the S) – enumerate these rights.

    Actually, I don’t — if you would actually care to note.

    However, what typically happens (and is, paradoxically, completely accurate) is that certain manifestations of the right from imposition creates other “rights”. Because they are direct manifestations, and free from impurities, they are generally attributed the same status of “Rights”.

    So, right of free speech, belief, liberty, pursuit of happiness ….. etc. etc. all derive from the same core.

    Then, “Because I am human and not a cow.” is circular logic. I have human rights because I am a human I do not have cow rights because I am not a cow. Yes, very good. This is true.

    WHY?

    Because this is self-evident, I am not a cow

    What “Natural Law(s)” lead(s) to Right A, and how?

    Explained above, over 15 thousand times.

    What part is so difficult for you to grasp?
    (Opps, forgot I was talking to the guy who has a hard time determining he wasn’t a cow)

    • 😦

      • Why unhappy, V.H.?

        • I don’t know-I think you were being mean -and I think it’s sad that some people equate humans to just a brain and uses logic in place of emotion-instead of logic with emotion. I think it is the combination of both which makes us human-not just being smarter than the animals. It’s our ability to distinguish between right and wrong-which makes us higher on the scale than animals-without that ability-our being smarter would simply make us more dangerous-not better. It’s that ability to feel and care, whether it’s about animals or unborn babies or the other persons rights, which makes human life more valuable than the animals-logic alone is usually just inhumane.

          • V.H.
            | hear you – however – let’s get some points shiny and clear.

            “Logic and emotion” is not the same as “Reason and logic”.

            I am not interested in “emotions” when it comes to applications that have LARGE implications – emotion is just fine in a tight little group, because those that aren’t interested in that COMPLETELY irrational exercise can leave to participate in another completely irrational exercise somewhere else.

            But when it is applied LARGELY, the escape routes and opportunities for alternatives begin to disappear, and it turns into TYRANNY.

            So when we are talking about human rights – a dialogue of breadth as large as the entire human race, past present and future, we better damn well not be doing it emotionally.

            • Maybe I’m using the wrong words-but we have the ability to determine right from wrong BF-and it comes from being able to put ourselves in the shoes of another. I understand the Golden Rule because I have the ability to feel and hurt, so I understand how my messing with him makes him feel and hurt. By logic-to hell with how the other guy feels, to hell with his rights-I will do what is best for me-period.

              • V.H.

                Maybe I’m using the wrong words-but we have the ability to determine right from wrong BF-and it comes from being able to put ourselves in the shoes of another.

                I agree – that is the Natural Law.

                That Law, however, creates TWO equal and opposite manifestations.

                You are a person that thinks:
                “If I hurt you, you will hurt me. If you hurt me, I may try to hurt you. If we both try not to hurt the other, will may avoiding hurting ourselves”.

                This is pretty advanced thinking, something cows do not do.

                HOWEVER, this pretty advanced thinking ALSO PRODUCES THIS:

                “If I hurt you, you will hurt me. But I am bigger and stronger, so you don’t hurt me as much as I can hurt you. So, go ahead and try getting back at me, but I’m going to hurt you bad!”

                Both are very logical – and both derive from natural law.

                But you can only pick one path or the other – they are exclusive.

                Both are very logical – but logic from a violent premise or logical from a non-violent premise ends up with two -very different- destinations.

              • Okay, I agree with that-Please understand with I say emotions-I do no mean emotional reactions-I mean the effect the ability to feel has on our ability to reason. Does that make anymore sense??

              • Well, I’m either getting tired or someone switched my key board too.

    • 🙂 Sorry V..I rarely disagree with you..I dont think ever.

      Matt deserves it. First because I think he’s pulling BFs chain. Second he smart enough to know NOT to pull BFs chain lest it snaps and hits himself in the face, Third, I love seeing a more personal, fun side of BF!

      • It doesn’t really matter-Matt’s big enough to take care of his self-but I don’t think he’s pulling BF’s chain 🙂

        • V.H.

          Matt has a hard enough time with his own chain-pulling to figure out which chain is mine.

        • You may be right. But BF has given Matt plenty of patience and I’m not saying they have to agree,but every man has a breaking point..I think BF is pretty close today and uses (fun) sarcasm instead of cursing. I’m just glad it’s not at me. 🙂

          • I sometimes have a problem getting out of Mom mode-I still tend to say I have to go to the potty and my youngest is 22 🙂

          • V.H.

            I apologize if I’ve appeared to cross the line with Mathius.

            Mathius is an incredibly intelligent man and he tests me very well, and often.

            I do not get frustrated or upset when he disagrees with me.

            Often, he has a point of view that is incredibly profound, and I learn something from him – like I do from many others here as well (which is why I stick around SUFA … it is a two-way street of learning)

            However, I get very frustrated with him … he has a magnificent grasp on some of the most complex concepts, and yet…. such pitiful grasp on some of the most basic.

            When he frets and fusses around the basic stuff, I am so disappointed. To me, it is a huge waste of his incredible intellect.

            But I feel he does that because he is still mired in the mud of outcomes. He knows he is being an idiot – but “not being an idiot” suddenly would terminate his excuse for his acceptance of certain outcomes.

            He does not want those outcomes to jump out of his ethical reach.
            He still wants them – but without confusion, he cannot justify them by reason.

            He is not stupid – we all know that.

            He wants what he wants.
            He does not want what he does not want.

            For somethings, those things conflict.

            Thus, he (IMO) purposely adds confusion as his strategy.

            His strategy carries no merit with me (nor with JAC nor USWep nor Peter).

            My ridicule is an attempt that his strategy should carry no merit with you or anyone else.

            • Wow BF…..very nice compliments to Mathius. Someday I may get to a simple “well done” with BF, but IMO I ain’t as smart as Mathius, BF, JAC, and several others.

              • Plainly,

                My failure to include a long list does not exclude the unacknowledged from the real list.

                I apologize that my lack of inclusion creates the assumption of exclusion. It does not. It merely means my fingers are tired.

              • Plainly,

                …and, oh yeah, you are not as irrational as Mathius appears to be on most basic concepts – thus you avoid my frustrations to a greater degree.

                I did not want to appear to be “dissing” Mathius without reason.
                So I had to justify my complaints by exampling his wasted talents.

                If I do not highlight your wasted talents in a similar manner will mean:

                (1) you are not wasting them to the same degree as Mathius
                (2) you have no talent to waste.

                I do not think Item (2) applies to your case.

              • No sir, by no means did I think such – any more than my list was all inclusive.

                I was simply measuring myself – in my opinion – to you and others and believe there is a lot I need to learn yet to improve my wisdom on many things.

              • plainly

                I simply don’t think that is true.

                You just haven’t had time to read and study the same things. But given your posts, and those of many here, I see no shortage of “smart” at SUFA.

              • BF and JAC,

                Thank you both for your kind words. I am normally very critical of myself – which keeps me searching and never saying I know all the things I need to in order to build a better mouse trap, if that makes sense to you gentlemen?

            • Well look-you don’t feel you need to apologize to me and I’ll do my best to stay our of Mom mode. 🙂 As far as the rest-I will think on it 🙂

            • But I feel he does that because he is still mired in the mud of outcomes. He knows he is being an idiot – but “not being an idiot” suddenly would terminate his excuse for his acceptance of certain outcomes.

              It’s not because I’m trying to work top-down, it’s precisely because I’m trying to work ground-up.

              If I were to accept your premise, then I would need a solid way to build your framework starting at a universal (non-human-centric) law (you’ve defined the golden rule at this), then a way to bring that up the line to “human rights” (which must be directly derived from it), while still having clarification as to why it applies to humans but not cross-species or amongst other species (human/cow or cow/cow).

              I’m not being flippant or dense, I’m just not seeing the full logic structure, and your repeated instance that you are not a cow and are, in fact, a human (all evidence to the contrary – we all know you are an AI) does not explain this. “I have human rights because I am human” does not explain why you assign certain rights to that “human rights” bucket, nor why the proscription against certain behavior to other humans applies only to human. Again, since I don’t see the words “human” or “cow” or “species” in your Natural Law, I do not see how or why you are able to draw a distinction with regards to their rights baskets.

              • Mathius

                It’s not because I’m trying to work top-down, it’s precisely because I’m trying to work ground-up.

                You cannot work ground-up, because you have no grounding from which to work from – that is my point.

                You cannot get your head around fundamental laws of the Universe. You not not believe white cannot be black. You are stuck here, and any other “understanding” you believe you have is irrational – thus, you go into these irrational worm holes thinking you are being profound when all you are is incredibly ridiculous.

                Until you find your grounding, you will have a seriously impossible task of understanding anything.

                , while still having clarification as to why it applies to humans but not cross-species or amongst other species (human/cow or cow/cow).

                Because is called “HUMAN” rights, not cow/human rights or anything else of the sort.

                It is “human on human” rightful action that is being discussed, and introducing cows into this is irrational as it has nothing to do with cows.

                If we are talking about the rain is Spain, and I keep bringing up “well, what about the rocks on Pluto?” you would find me rather bizarre and irrational.

                This is how I find you – rather bizarre and irrational.

                Until you get a grasp on the fundamentals, your mucking about in anything more complex is -bluntly- stupid.

                This is my greatest complaint about you, good Mathius.

                You believe increasing the complexity of things you do not understand will somehow help you in understanding simple things

                You do this with the dialogue around abortion – you can’t even get the simple cases, but want to leap into the very complex cases believing if you understand the complex ones, it will give you insight into the easy ones.

                You are ass-backwards in the way you seek understanding.

              • Mathius,

                Again, since I don’t see the words “human” or “cow” or “species” in your Natural Law, I do not see how or why you are able to draw a distinction with regards to their rights baskets.

                No, you don’t because it is unnecessary.

                But time for a test – because unless you pass this test, it is pointless to move forward.

                What is the “Natural Law” that I have offered in this dialogue?

              • What is the “Natural Law” that I have offered in this dialogue?

                “What I do to you, I give others the right to do to me.”

                you don’t because it isn’t necessary.

                If it isn’t necessary, how are you getting from not mentioning humans at all to “it’s different for humans and non-humans”?

              • Mathius

                “What I do to you, I give others the right to do to me.”

                you don’t because it isn’t necessary.

                If it isn’t necessary, how are you getting from not mentioning humans at all to “it’s different for humans and non-humans”?

                Apply the law as you wish, and offer what you think is the outcome.

  25. A Puritan Descendant says:

    Here are a few simple thoughts of mine.

    Money, paper or electronic. When created out of thin air of worthless paper/electronic digits it has no ‘real’ worth. When this worthless money is actually used as currency, or being used in trade, prices of products will tend to rise, and/or cause temporary product shortages.

    If worthless money is given to select people, it ends up being a simple transfer of wealth from everyone to the person(s) receiving the benefit of worthless money. (So this ‘worthless’ money is Not worthless to the ‘select’ people).

    If on the other hand, money is kept at a stable quantity and production rises then product prices will tend to drop. (If production falls prices will tend to rise)

    I understand the appeal of a Gold standard, but I don’t see a real need for it. So long as currency is kept at reasonable levels and not created out of thin air to give to people who do not create/produce anything to give value to this created money.

    Please add/correct or take it in any direction you wish to go. I will check back later. PS: I sometimes watch FoxNews 😉

    • Puritan,

      Money, paper or electronic. When created out of thin air of worthless paper/electronic digits it has no ‘real’ worth.

      So, if I send you a check of this “worthless” money, you will merely toss it in the garbage like you would junk mail.

      Well, of course not!

      So it has WORTH and VALUE

      Do not try to think objects have any intrinsic value. Nothing, including people, have intrinsic value

      VALUE IS SUBJECTIVE and wholly contained in the eye of the beholder.

      Things that become money are merely objectives that have a lot of beholding eyes.

      • Or eyes that want to be holding.

      • It’s too late to discuss this tonight so I’m just gonna ask file an objection and ask a question. There is an intrinsic value to man please explain why man has rights just by being-but no intrinsic value.

        I get individuals value other individuals subjectively. But no intrinsic value?

        • V.H.

          There is an intrinsic value to man please explain why man has rights just by being-but no intrinsic value.

          I get individuals value other individuals subjectively. But no intrinsic value?

          So here is the thinking:

          If a man (like me) can value others subjectively, why cannot I subjectively value him to be “zero”?

          Why does my subjective value require to be greater than zero?

          Should I value John Wayne Gracy greater than zero? Or Hitler? Or Mao?

          • A Puritan Descendant says:

            I like to think everyone has ‘something’ to contribute, thus intrinsic value. Your 3 examples have me wondering, but we must have learned something from them……

          • V.H.

            So, with those considerations, and applying them to John Gacy:

            Does my subjective value of his worth increase or decrease his human rights?

            • PS: Question is also applies to Puritan..

            • A Puritan Descendant says:

              No, your subjective value of his worth has no effect on his human rights.

              Now back to ‘money’. If money has a set quantity, and products have a set quantity, does not money in this case have an intrinsic value as a whole?
              We as a whole, would lower that intrinsic value if more money was printed without an increase in products/wealth to support it. Get my drift?

              • A Puritan Descendant says:

                ……assuming money is the trade medium

              • Puritan

                assuming money is the trade medium

                By definitions. MONEY is the trade medium – so your statement is a contradiction.

                What you may mean is a “currency” no longer becomes money and loses its trade.

              • Puritan

                Now back to ‘money’. If money has a set quantity, and products have a set quantity, does not money in this case have an intrinsic value as a whole?
                We as a whole, would lower that intrinsic value if more money was printed without an increase in products/wealth to support it.

                So let us walk, not run through this understanding.

                Money is an economic good

                Therefore, Money obeys all the laws of economics – and there are no special laws of economics that exist just for money.

                No commodity has an intrinic value

                Repeat until it becomes a part of your soul:

                All value is determined by individuals

                You may believe “this thing is valuable” holds no merit to me… … to me it could be without any value at all.

                So your theory of the manufacture of money is no different an understanding of supply and demand of ANY OTHER COMMODITY IN THE MARKET PLACE.

                If the law applies to apples, it applies to money.

                If the law applies to money, it applies to apples.

  26. I injected myself into the BF vs. Mathius discussion on rights above. Wanted to move it down here for easier review.

    “Mathius

    I know you were talking to BF, but here is my “simple” answer to your question.

    The Natural law that leads to “human” rights.

    “Man as a living thing has a right to pursue his own existence. To live for his own sake”

    On reflection my answer may be to long. So let me try again.

    “Man has a right to live.”

    All other rights flow from this basic Natural Law in conjunction with the “Nature of Man”.

    • JAC,

      I cannot agree because nature does not agree.

      We die, so no right to live exists (by my definitions).

      I see “we have a right to live as we desire’

      • Great!

        Do cows have a “right to live as they desire”?

        Cows will actively avoid being killed, so it seems clear they desire not to be turned into delicious medium rare steaks.

        So did I violate a “cow rights” tonight for dinner?

        • Mathius

          Great!

          Do cows have a “right to live as they desire”?

          I don’t know – never asked them, and they have never responded.

          So, Dr. Dolittle, what have you heard from speaking to cows?

          Cows will actively avoid being killed, so it seems clear they desire not to be turned into delicious medium rare steaks.

          How do you know? You have had a an in depth conversation with them regarding their understanding of value?
          Please – entertain me on your dialogue with cows.

          • It involved a great deal of mooing. I won’t go into it here, but I will tell you that they told me, unequivocally, that they do not like to be killed and eaten.

            Given this, do you think they have a “cow right” not to be eaten?

            And are we humans being evil in choosing to eat them anyway?

            • Mathius,

              It involved a great deal of mooing. I won’t go into it here, but I will tell you that they told me, unequivocally, that they do not like to be killed and eaten.

              That is not at all what I have heard from cows.

              Given that your statement about talking to cows comes from a man who has desperate trouble understanding Universal Law, I’ll not take even a sliver of a quark credibility to your claims.

              Given this, do you think they have a “cow right” not to be eaten?

              I have no idea, as I have not ever held a conversation with cows.

              Whether or not they do or do not has absolutely no relative case to humans.

              And are we humans being evil in choosing to eat them anyway?

              Is a shark evil for eating a cow?

      • DisposableCarbonUnit says:

        I re-iterate, human rights are ideological concepts made up by humans for dealing with other humans. Nature and/or the universe couldn’t care less about humans, they are just another group of biological organisms.

        We are no more specialized, or important, than other species. Selfishly, humans believe they are.

        • DCarbon,

          Correct – the UNIVERSE has NO JUDGEMENT.

          Whether you are a rock or a person, you fall off the cliff at the same velocity.

          Therefore, do not make UNIVERSAL judgements where they do not apply

        • Carbon,

          I re-iterate, human rights are ideological concepts made up by humans for dealing with other humans.

          No, they are consequences of real natural laws that deal with other humans.

          Nature and/or the universe couldn’t care less about humans,

          True.

          But nature doesn’t care about rocks, yet rocks fall at exactly the same rate of gravity as you do.

          “care” does not measure.

          Natural Law does not care.

        • Carbon

          Would you equally claim that the desire for sex by humans is an “ideological concept” or a desire based on a natural law?

          • Comparing sex and human rights is not valid. Sex is a biological desire. Human rights are an intellectual concept made up in our minds for the benefit of society – think “Greater Good”! 😉

            Go back 1000 years. Sexual desire was the same. Human rights were not.

            Natural Law would tell me to kill you if it benefits me.

            Human rights would tell me this is wrong and I shouldn’t do it.

            • Todd,

              Comparing sex and human rights is not valid

              .

              You make a common mistake in believing “human rights” is the natural law.

              As I have, 15,000 times or more, pointed out human rights derives FROM natural law — like babies derive from sex.

              Sex is a biological desire.

              Exactly. Where does that “desire” come from?

              Does it come from your “intellect”? … that you intellectual desire sex?

              No.

              Human rights are an intellectual concept made up in our minds for the benefit of society – think “Greater Good”! 😉

              No.

              They derive directly from a manifestation of natural law.

              Go back 1000 years. Sexual desire was the same. Human rights were not.

              Yes, human rights “WERE!”

              You argue because a 2,000 years ago people did not understand “the law of gravity” that it therefore did not exist 2,000 years ago.

              Natural Law would tell me to kill you if it benefits me.

              Yes, that is one manifestation as I already described – called the “Might is Right”

              I also showed that it leads to barbarism and anti-civilization, and eventually, self-destructive.
              Because its eventuality is terrible does not alter it’s natural manifestation, no more than the rather negative impact of falling off a cliff negates the natural law of gravity.

              Human rights would tell me this is wrong and I shouldn’t do it.

              No, it does not tell you that at all.
              You confuse “morals” with “rights”.

              I can be perfectly in my rights and do you wrong.
              Do you understand this, Todd, because it is fundamental to understanding what a right is.

              • Todd,
                “Be in my rights and do you wrong”

                Example:
                I have food, but you are starving.

                It is my right to deny you my property, even if it results in your death

                Do you understand this?
                You would argue my action is immoral, and probably I would agree.

                But I would say it is my right to do so and you have no right to force me to do otherwise.
                Indeed, your force would be the breach of rights and the evil, whereas my act of denial would merely be immoral to most people.

                Note carefully, morals has not and does not play even a small part here in deciding the rightful actions

                Morals do not supersede rights

              • Human rights don’t derive from natural law.

                Human rights is something we made up. It’s one of those societal constructs that helps us all get along.

                It’s nothing like “the law of gravity”. That’s science. It’s part of the universe.

                And property ownership is not a natural law. It’s another one of those things we made up that helps us all get along.

              • Todd,

                Human rights don’t derive from natural law.

                Of course it does, as I have already explained above.

                Human rights is something we made up. It’s one of those societal constructs that helps us all get along.

                It is a societal construct, but no man “invented” it – like no man “invented” freedom.

                It’s nothing like “the law of gravity”. That’s science. It’s part of the universe.

                Correct, it is not gravity.
                Incorrect, it is a science and it is a part of the universe since mankind is part of the universe.

                What part of the universe do you believe man is not part of ?????

                And property ownership is not a natural law.

                You do have a hard time reading and comprehending sometimes.

                I did not say it was a natural law.

                I said it derives from natural law.

                It appears you do not understand the difference between “being” and “derived from”

                It’s another one of those things we made up that helps us all get along.

                As does understanding gravity – it helps us get along too.

                Just because it is useful does not make it “not a natural law”, Todd.

          • DisposableCarbonUnit says:

            The desire for sex is a matter of biochemistry, nothing more.

            It is referred to as a biological imperative.

            • Carbon,

              It is fundamental

              • DisposableCarbonUnit says:

                Sex is fundamental.
                Desire for sex is a series of biochemical reactions that are a result of interactions of various products derived from DNA sequences.

                Sex is just a complex form of cellular/organismal reproduction methodology.

                Fun as all hell though 🙂

              • Mathius™ says:

                To quote Shakespeare: “Love is a lust of the blood and a permission of the will. Fun as hell though :)”

      • BF

        I said “live” NOT “life”.

        • BF

          I think you also overlooked your own statement in disagreeing with my point.

          Rights are subject to the laws of the Universe. Thus, I have a right to live, but it goes without saying that my right to live is conditional on “nature”. This includes the nature of humans and the nature of the non human.

          So while I may have a right to live, other factors could trump my life itself. Like a giant asteroid. Which by the way would pretty much destroy my right to property.

        • JAC,

          We do not have a right to life either. The Universe does not provide such a thing.

          You confound two different concepts regarding your asteroid theory.

          Human rights applies to human by humans. Asteroids are not part of the set called “human”, as neither are cows.

          Asteroids do not alter a single human right – if an asteroid destroys your house, it did not violate your human right – it is still your house (albeit destroyed). No man violated your rights.

          Do not fall into Mathius incomprehensible trap of confusion. Human rights is about humans upon humans. No other thing or specie need be applied.

          • BF

            I am not falling into anything. You seem to be completely misunderstanding what it is I am saying.

            I did not say we have a right to life and my point was I did not use the word “live” to be synonymous with “life”.

            I used it in context of “pursuing our existence within the context of our nature as a human”.

            We have a right to exist…….because we exist.

            This right does not go away if humans become extinct. But my existence ceases. Thus the laws of the universe prevail but our CORE rights as humans derive from those same laws.

            As you have said, the other rights we normally think of derive from this core and deal more with our relationships with other humans. But they are discovered by evaluating whether they are consistent with that core right, that being the pursuit of perpetuating our existence”

            • JAC

              We have a right to exist…….because we exist.

              We have a right to exercise our own will.

              Even biblically this is shown: the gift God gave men and not even to angels was free will

  27. @ T Ray

    Policing the Texas border is going to be a little different than policing the entire border. Different terrain and different dynamics. There will be a lot of people who disagree with me, but policing the borders should, in my opinion, be a state issue. The Feds can issue guidelines but the State should be able to handle the issue because only the state knows how to fix and control its own border. Texas is proving this as we speak. The Feds simply get in the way. But, on to the points made by T Ray

    1) Secure the border (criminal activity along the border is a separate issue but this should also help reduce that as well).

    D13: Agree,,,,securing the border is the number one thing to do. It matters not what Natural Law is or what anyone feels is an “imaginary line”. The reality is that the line is there and there are laws that control that line. Thus, we deal with the reality until it changes. We are not talking about change at this point. Like a wound, stop the flow of blood.

    2) Simultaneous with securing the border, increase immigration quotas but with a significantly reduced lag time between application and entry. It should take no more than 30d to determine the true identity and criminal status of any applicant. All applicants entering the US using the proper procedures will ultimately be on the path to citizenship via the normal waiting period and rules.

    D13: The issue with this idea is not that it cannot be done…the issue is Mexico has no electronic ability to do this. I know this for certainty. There is no computer data base available at any border crossing to check immigrant status such as birth place nor criminal convictions or activity. Hence, the time involved in checking these out via land line are also next to impossible. Experience has shown that it takes 60 days or longer to just check out ONE individual. It is not on the US side…..it is a lack of cooperation and technical ability from Mexico. Thus your idea, while idealistic, is not practical. Not yet, anyway.

    3) After the border has been certified secure (defined by an 80% reduction in illegal entry), then a one year voluntary period of registration for all illegals in this country begins. All must step forward and be identified. If free of any criminal activity, they will be granted green cards but any individuals who came here illegally after turning 18 will not be eligible for citizenship. (Thus no instant new voting block for either party. This is the punishment for illegal entry. I would not require fines or other remuneration. We want full cooperation.)
    a. Any children born here to illegals are citizens by birth
    b. Any minor children brought here illegally can apply for naturalization after reaching the age of 18 and after waiting for the normally prescribed period of time
    c. Any illegal who volunteers for military service, completes that service, and is honorably discharged will be granted citizenship upon discharge from the military
    d. All individuals who have been using illegal ID’s and SSN will surrender such information upon registration so that records can be properly corrected. Their SS accounts will start at zero from the registration date. Failure to surrender such documents or continued use of same will be grounds for criminal prosecution and future deportation
    e. Any individual with a criminal background will be deported immediately.

    D13: As I stated, we have stopped most worker immigrant crossings in Texas…down over 70 Percent and increasing. It is easy to stop the immigrant worker. It is not easy to stop the drugs, guns, and human trafficking. (Human trafficking to be described later) but this point has merit. I cannot and will never agree to the anchor baby status. I see item A as being a larger draw than any other issue out there and cannot support it. Item B seems appropriate for those already here. Item C would be amended to include at the term of enlistment. Item D seems reasonable. Item E needs to be strengthened to include a much more stringent penalty if reentry occurs after deportation. Minimum sentence 20 years.

    (4)Any individual who entered this country after the date this legislation was introduced in Congress will be deported but may apply for reentry after one year via clause 2 above (this is to stop any magnet effect).

    D13: I will assume that this is restricted to those already here. To that extent, I can agree.

    (5) Any individual who registers and voluntarily leaves the country for 1 year may reenter under clause 2 above. (Note Clause 2 is the path to citizenship.)

    D13: Reasonable

    6) After the voluntary phase, any employer who employs illegals (now defined as anyone who did not come forward voluntarily or who subsequently entered the country after the borders were sealed) will be fined or imprisoned. The fine would be no less than 3x the salary paid to any and all illegals so hired.

    D13: A tentative ok to this. I would make the penalty much stronger and eliminate his right to franchise in any state in addition to your recommendation.

    7) Any illegal immigrant apprehended crossing our border after the closure date will be identified and a criminal background check will be run. If the individual has a criminal background, it will be treated as a felony entry into the US and the individual will be incarcerated for a period of not less than 6 months before being deported. If the individual does not have a criminal background, they will be deported but instructed on how to enter legally. A second illegal entry by that individual will result in a misdemeanor 90d jail sentence and any legal future entry will be blocked. Subsequent illegal entries will be criminal (felony) in nature with an escalating penalty.

    D13: Reasonable at this time.

    8) Once the voluntary phase is closed, any illegal apprehended by law enforcement beyond the border region will be deported without the right to reenter. All levels of law enforcement (local, state, and federal) will be authorized to detain any illegal who is stopped for just cause and questioned for possible violations of the law.

    D13: Can agree here as well.

    9) Illegals (again defined after the voluntary registration period) will not be eligible for free medical care, schooling, or welfare. Use of same without paying will be considered a crime.

    D13: I think that our laws would need to be amended here. Hospitals cannot turn anyone down in the emergency room. However, I think that medical services can be paid for, not by taxes, but by liens and garnishment of wages if refusal or inability to pay. There should be no free services for ANYONE.

    10) Any individual who is voluntarily registered but then commits a crime (felony) within 5 years of that registration date will serve whatever punishment is meted out by the courts and then will be deported without right of reentry. After 5 years, any registrant convicted of a crime will be treated as any other legal US resident.

    D13: Ok……reasonable.

    11) All registrants must physically report in to INS once a year for the first 5 years.

    D13: For what reason?

    Now, Mathius came forward with some ideas of legalizing everything using prohibition as an example. Legalization of all drugs will not stop the drug trafficking across the border. You are assuming that the “free market” will step in, like alcohol, and take over and I submit that it can never fill the void. Demand would increase over what it is now and there will be fighting over that supply. Where corn fields now exist, you will not see marijuana fields, you will still see corn. You would have to federally regulate it so deeply, the profit in the free market will disappear. If you release all federal rules and let free market reign, it will be controlled by organized crime…. Violently….. only it will be more so in the US than it is now. The drug market is greater than alcohol one hundred fold or greater.

    Guns…..that will never quit. Gun running is as large as drugs now and they are already legal.

    Prostitution is where I am defining human trafficking…..not the coyotes bringing a bunch of workers across. Prostitution is on the rise and eliminating the controls over that will not stem the flow NOR will it stem the trafficking. The prostitutes that are brought over now are under 18…..we are finding that 80% of the prostitutes brought over are in that age bracket and it is increasing in number. I am not into child pornography or child prostitution and, despite the free will thinkers, these are KIDNAPPED girls. The greatest influx now coming from Ukraine and Russia through Mexico….they are brought over as “waitresses” and forced into stripping and prostitution once here. It is the bullshit demand that we have in the United States.

    Mathius also stated, and wants to see, PROOF of terrorists. You will not see proof, friend MAthius, as it will never be printed. I do not care if you choose to believe me or not but they are here and they are here through the Southern border….not Canada. We know the exact location of two Hezbollah training camps at this very moment in Mexico….operating under the protection of the Mexican Government. Obama knows it, Holder knows it, Napolipoopoo knows it….the entire administration knows it. I know it, the Army knows it, the MSM knows it, and now you know it. You will not see it printed and you will see nothing to stop it. These training camps are training cartel members AND terrorists to the tune of 60-75 every 6 months. I am on record and have stated…this administration does not care and these camps were not here UNTIL Obama-mama was elected.

    • Evening Colonel, hope all is well in Texas? I figured to pass along some thoughts to your comments.

      There will be a lot of people who disagree with me, but policing the borders should, in my opinion, be a state issue. The Feds can issue guidelines but the State should be able to handle the issue because only the state knows how to fix and control its own border.

      My question would be then, is each state enacting the legislation of the requirements for entry into the US through the national border of their particular state? I ask because you say the feds should issue guidelines.

      1) Secure the border (criminal activity along the border is a separate issue but this should also help reduce that as well).
      D13: Agree,,,,securing the border is the number one thing to do. It matters not what Natural Law is or what anyone feels is an “imaginary line”. The reality is that the line is there and there are laws that control that line. Thus, we deal with the reality until it changes. We are not talking about change at this point. Like a wound, stop the flow of blood.

      I don’t see how so many people can stick to this “do it first” and expect to either effective reform immigration to ease the problem or meet their stated goal. Granted Colonel that Texas may be stemming the flow across the Texas border, but you really aren’t accomplishing more than shifting the areas used to cross to other states (which I get that you don’t care about that as long as it isn’t Texas). That means the border will never be secured to your goals because you can’t force other states to operate to the standard in Texas – so, no reform will ever come in any coherent manner.

      2) Simultaneous with securing the border, increase immigration quotas but with a significantly reduced lag time between application and entry. It should take no more than 30d to determine the true identity and criminal status of any applicant. All applicants entering the US using the proper procedures will ultimately be on the path to citizenship via the normal waiting period and rules.
      D13: The issue with this idea is not that it cannot be done…the issue is Mexico has no electronic ability to do this. I know this for certainty. There is no computer data base available at any border crossing to check immigrant status such as birth place nor criminal convictions or activity. Hence, the time involved in checking these out via land line are also next to impossible. Experience has shown that it takes 60 days or longer to just check out ONE individual. It is not on the US side…..it is a lack of cooperation and technical ability from Mexico. Thus your idea, while idealistic, is not practical. Not yet, anyway.

      Why do we care what Mexico’s records contain? Even if one had a record in Mexico, do you completely trust the validity of that record? How about those in Iran, Syria, North Korea, China, Somalia? Do you trust all those nations records? It would be US records that should matter only.

      3) After the border has been certified secure (defined by an 80% reduction in illegal entry), then a one year voluntary period of registration for all illegals in this country begins. All must step forward and be identified. If free of any criminal activity, they will be granted green cards but any individuals who came here illegally after turning 18 will not be eligible for citizenship. (Thus no instant new voting block for either party. This is the punishment for illegal entry. I would not require fines or other remuneration. We want full cooperation.)
      a. Any children born here to illegals are citizens by birth
      b. Any minor children brought here illegally can apply for naturalization after reaching the age of 18 and after waiting for the normally prescribed period of time
      c. Any illegal who volunteers for military service, completes that service, and is honorably discharged will be granted citizenship upon discharge from the military
      d. All individuals who have been using illegal ID’s and SSN will surrender such information upon registration so that records can be properly corrected. Their SS accounts will start at zero from the registration date. Failure to surrender such documents or continued use of same will be grounds for criminal prosecution and future deportation
      e. Any individual with a criminal background will be deported immediately.
      D13: As I stated, we have stopped most worker immigrant crossings in Texas…down over 70 Percent and increasing. It is easy to stop the immigrant worker. It is not easy to stop the drugs, guns, and human trafficking. (Human trafficking to be described later) but this point has merit. I cannot and will never agree to the anchor baby status. I see item A as being a larger draw than any other issue out there and cannot support it. Item B seems appropriate for those already here. Item C would be amended to include at the term of enlistment. Item D seems reasonable. Item E needs to be strengthened to include a much more stringent penalty if reentry occurs after deportation. Minimum sen tence 20 years.

      So then how close are you to declaring the Texas border secure? As to anchor baby status, unless the 14th Amendment is changed you are stuck with it. A child born on US soil grants that status, so that draw will continue exist for now. Is this a reason to hold up reform?
      20 years? Whose paying that bill, the individual state right? They’ll be housed in the state’s prisons too I hope, as I don’t want to be paying for more prisons to hold them under this circumstance.

      6) After the voluntary phase, any employer who employs illegals (now defined as anyone who did not come forward voluntarily or who subsequently entered the country after the borders were sealed) will be fined or imprisoned. The fine would be no less than 3x the salary paid to any and all illegals so hired.
      D13: A tentative ok to this. I would make the penalty much stronger and eliminate his right to franchise in any state in addition to your recommendation.

      No state would have the authority to legislate what a person can, or can’t do, in another state. Since the feds only issue guidelines then the feds wouldn’t be involved in sanctions either. That puts this idea in the impracticable category.

      9) Illegals (again defined after the voluntary registration period) will not be eligible for free medical care, schooling, or welfare. Use of same without paying will be considered a crime.
      D13: I think that our laws would need to be amended here. Hospitals cannot turn anyone down in the emergency room. However, I think that medical services can be paid for, not by taxes, but by liens and garnishment of wages if refusal or inability to pay. There should be no free services for ANYONE.

      There is the ability for any provider to seek forced payment of what is owed. A civil court tort action can easily result in liens/garnishments. In the main many hospitals write off noncollectable accounts, gain tax breaks on those losses. Medicare and Medicaid payments do need reform – but that is a whole separate issue for the most part.

      The rest of the comment covering drugs, guns, human trafficking, and terrorists are arguments for a separate discussion. I don’t not fully accept either premise (yours, or what you subscribe to Mathius) is completely valid.

      • Ah, sorry – one more thing on the 20 year sentence. Since I am not clear from the earlier discussion on whether Texas provides a jury trial before locking up some illegal for 90 days, I need to ask – do these individual get due process under the Constitution before they get locked up for that term, or is it automatic upon capture?

      • Good Morning, LOI.

        A couple of things. It does matter to me about the clearing of individuals in the US…..A criminal coming from Mexico or wherever should not get a one, two, three strike chance in the US. He should NOT get the chance to come to bat. Mexico simply does not have the technology employed at the border. A first time immigrant will have no record in the US and does not get a free pass on this, in my book.

        The Texas border is not secure at all. I simply said, the so called innocent migrant worker crossing is dropping like a stone because the of the stricter controls. And, do I care that they are moving towards another easier to cross state…..yes, sir, I do care. Perhaps the other states should adopt stricter standards or go broke. As to the implementation of a uniform set of laws, I will agree with you that the Feds should set and control the standards….but it is not being done. NOTHING is being done. ICE does not even arrest any longer. Federal immigration does nothing unless it falls in their lap. Meanwhile…..it gets worse….so as a state, we have no choice. That is why the state guard is being implemented. It is not under the control of the Feds…it is under control of the State. That is why we are using our own money and not federal money. It is working. We have set a standard….Arizona and California would do good to follow it. New Mexico already does. You say that reform can not come in any coherent manner…..you mean like now. There is no reform and there is going to be no reform from the Feds.

        As to anchor baby status….I know that it is a Constitutional thing. CHANGE it. Take it away and that slows the tide.

        Your whole premise, as I read it, applies to Federal control. I do not care what California wants to do with its control of corporations in California…corporations are leaving now in droves. In Texas, I would support complete removal of franchises that employ illegal immigrants, aliens, workers…whatever you wish to call them form whatever country they come from….it is a state issue on this as well and is gaining momentum in Texas. You would be surprised the impact that my now 2300 strong veterans group is doing by posting on public sites the companies that hire illegals. You would be surprised at how the groups of illegals is dwindling at the Home Depots and Lowes sites when we take pictures and post them on public sites. You would be surprised at the effect that is now happening with the BBB (Better Business Bureau) when we file complaint after complaint and it starts to have an effect on ratings. There are things that we, as individuals, can do. You would be further surprised that in Irving, Texas and Farmers Branch, Texas that the removal of low income housing and the tearing down of sanctuary apartments has lowered the crime by over 50% in two years. I call that improvement. Texas is taking on HUD and the Fair Housing Act and winning. The price we pay……less Federal money but you know what? We do not care. The savings in Irving are being put into parks and rebuilding blighted areas into property tax revenue areas. So do not try to tell me it does not work….we are proof that it does. And, I do not care what the bleeding hearts want to scream about….we have improved our standard of living and making it a safer place and, YES, it can be proved that the greatest elimination of crime DID come from eliminating these areas. Fort Worth is considering a similar thing. Once the bigger cities do this, we hope it takes off. That will also reduce drug demand.

        As to whether you subscribe to the drugs or prostitution and guns on the border. I invite you to come on down. You look at the age of the human trafficking and the border and their country of origin and then let us talk. You look at the depravity of their transport. Go ask the people of Arizona why they cannot go to the Federal Park on the border without seeing signs, printed with tax money, that describes how dangerous it is to go to a park because of the drugs and the Feds ALLOW it.

        I do not know the answer…..but we have a starting place. Maybe…..just maybe……someone will say..hey, maybe Texas has it right. In the meantime, we will clean up our neighborhoods…our corporations….etc. The left does not like it….the anarchists should love it because it is individuals protecting their own areas and the far right will not like it. I do not know what classification I personally fall in…..but this is Texas justice. It is taking individuals, like myself, to start these things…..despite being audited for the third year in a row by the IRS…myself and the families of the Vets that are my leaders. It is retaliation, pure and simple, but we do not care. Bring it on.

        Reform can take place, sir…..but how do you get it with a Liberal element that cares more about non citizens than they do citizens and you have a conservative far right that is no better. But reform will not take place until the locals, first, have to start it on their own….and we are.

        Oh, almost forgot, the ones that are held here, go before a judge, not a jury. If the judge determines that there is sufficient evidence to hold them, then the jury is empowered.

        • A couple of things. It does matter to me about the clearing of individuals in the US…..A criminal coming from Mexico or wherever should not get a one, two, three strike chance in the US. He should NOT get the chance to come to bat. Mexico simply does not have the technology employed at the border. A first time immigrant will have no record in the US and does not get a free pass on this, in my book.

          I return to my question Colonel, do you trust Mexico’s criminal records? Do we trust Iran’s, North Korea’s, China’s, Syria’s, Somalia’s, etc.? The moment you say no to the trustworthiness of any country’s records is the moment you admit to creating an unjust program.

          The Texas border is not secure at all. I simply said, the so called innocent migrant worker crossing is dropping like a stone because the of the stricter controls. And, do I care that they are moving towards another easier to cross state…..yes, sir, I do care. Perhaps the other states should adopt stricter standards or go broke. As to the implementation of a uniform set of laws, I will agree with you that the Feds should set and control the standards….but it is not being done. NOTHING is being done. ICE does not even arrest any longer. Federal immigration does nothing unless it falls in their lap.

          We both know that if we can’t get the feds to act uniformly, we’ll never get each individual state to do so. I agree that the feds fail in border and immigration enforcement that they have as a responsibility to accomplish since they institute the laws for immigration. But, I have a curiosity question. What would you (and Texas) say if tomorrow Congress passed and O signed into law that there would be NO border restrictions and anyone could enter as they pleased – would Texas comply?

          Meanwhile…..it gets worse….so as a state, we have no choice. That is why the state guard is being implemented. It is not under the control of the Feds…it is under control of the State. That is why we are using our own money and not federal money. It is working. We have set a standard….Arizona and California would do good to follow it. New Mexico already does. You say that reform can not come in any coherent manner…..you mean like now. There is no reform and there is going to be no reform from the Feds.

          The likelihood of any coherent reform – at any level – is very small (see, we can agree on stuff). It is politically expedient to keep the issue unsettled,

          As to anchor baby status….I know that it is a Constitutional thing. CHANGE it. Take it away and that slows the tide.
          Your whole premise, as I read it, applies to Federal control. I do not care what California wants to do with its control of corporations in California…corporations are leaving now in droves. In Texas, I would support complete removal of franchises that employ illegal immigrants, aliens, workers…whatever you wish to call them form whatever country they come from….it is a state issue on this as well and is gaining momentum in Texas.

          Agree, it is a state issue. If Texas wants to run them out of business, that certainly is the right of the state to do.
          You would be surprised the impact that my now 2300 strong veterans group is doing by posting on public sites the companies that hire illegals. You would be surprised at how the groups of illegals is dwindling at the Home Depots and Lowes sites when we take pictures and post them on public sites. You would be surprised at the effect that is now happening with the BBB (Better Business Bureau) when we file complaint after complaint and it starts to have an effect on ratings. There are things that we, as individuals, can do. You would be further surprised that in Irving, Texas and Farmers Branch, Texas that the removal of low income housing and the tearing down of sanctuary apartments has lowered the crime by over 50% in two years. I call that improvement. Texas is taking on HUD and the Fair Housing Act and winning. The price we pay……less Federal money but you know what? We do not care. The savings in Irving are being put into parks and rebuilding blighted areas into property tax revenue areas. So do not try to tell me it does not work….we are proof that it does. And, I do not care what the bleeding hearts want to scream about….we have improved our standard of living and making it a safer place and, YES, it can be proved that the greatest elimination of crime DID come from eliminating these areas. Fort Worth is considering a similar thing. Once the bigger cities do this, we hope it takes off. That will also reduce drug demand.

          No, I wouldn’t be surprised at all. Now, I doubt you’ve reduced drug demand, but it sounds like you’ve removed the supplier side environment. While that is great and people have improved life when crime is reduced, the problem still exists and will not be solved in the current programs we use. Of course those who work in corrections will be happy to be employed with the continued long term imprisonment of users and dealers (along with the other criminal elements). Sounds like a good start on a portion of the problem – but it isn’t solved sir.

          As to whether you subscribe to the drugs or prostitution and guns on the border. I invite you to come on down. You look at the age of the human trafficking and the border and their country of origin and then let us talk. You look at the depravity of their transport. Go ask the people of Arizona why they cannot go to the Federal Park on the border without seeing signs, printed with tax money, that describes how dangerous it is to go to a park because of the drugs and the Feds ALLOW it.

          I don’t need to come down to see it myself Colonel, I don’t dispute that these problems exist and need attention. These too are not simple and easy issue to solve. I applaud the efforts of Texas in dealing with these crimes and their victims

          I do not know the answer…..but we have a starting place. Maybe…..just maybe……someone will say..hey, maybe Texas has it right. In the meantime, we will clean up our neighborhoods…our corporations….etc. The left does not like it….the anarchists should love it because it is individuals protecting their own areas and the far right will not like it. I do not know what classification I personally fall in…..but this is Texas justice. It is taking individuals, like myself, to start these things…..despite being audited for the third year in a row by the IRS…myself and the families of the Vets that are my leaders. It is retaliation, pure and simple, but we do not care. Bring it on.
          Reform can take place, sir…..but how do you get it with a Liberal element that cares more about non citizens than they do citizens and you have a conservative far right that is no better. But reform will not take place until the locals, first, have to start it on their own….and we are.

          I agree, reform can take place sir. Yet, while the Liberals are a part of the problem affecting the lack of reform – they are not the only ones sir.

          Oh, almost forgot, the ones that are held here, go before a judge, not a jury. If the judge determines that there is sufficient evidence to hold them, then the jury is empowered.

          As it should be.

    • Colonel, thank you very much for your insightful comments. I suspected the criminal information system in Mexico was deficient but had no first or second hand information. So it seems that part of the initial phase needs some rethinking on how to implement in a practical fashion. The purpose of the liberlized entry was to encourage immigrants to come through the front door. I do not know enough about our current laws to know if someone enters, applies for and gets a green card if criminal activity is a legitimate reason for removal of the green card and deportation. So maybe the inital 5 years after entry needs to be propationary. Anyway this needs some work.

      I think border security needs to be a cooperative venture between the feds, state and local. The feds are currently failing because the politicians want them to fail. They, both parties, are making hay over the continued gridlock and debate. It is as I said the other day resolve. Currently we have a lack of it.

      The magnet issue: As stated above, I like the concept that anyone born on our soil is American but I see that is becoming an increasingly big problem. There are whole apartment houses in SoCal that cater to pregnant Chinese women who come here just to obrain citizenship for their offspring. As Plainly stated, any changes here require a constitutional amendment. (Maybe O can just sign an executive order to get around that pesky antiquated document!) One solution might be to issue the child a US birth certificate which clearly notes the immigration status of the mother (illegal or visitor). Such children may claim citizenship upon reaching the age of 18 but at no time could they be used as justification for entry of the parents into the US or their continued stay in country. Such entry must be justified by normal means.

      With respect to incarceration of individuals who illegally enter the country — I am willing to give a first time entrant a pass, teach him the right way and throw him back. The next time, he should be denied what he came for. Many of these are migrant workers who come for seasonal work. I would deny them that season. Incareration must follow existing US laws with a trial before a judge. He has no peers since they are all foreign nationals. So it will be just a judge. Repeated entries will meet with ever escalating penalties since after the first time it has now become a criminal entry. Ignorance can no longer be claimed. Again drug and human smugglers are outside this system and should be treated as criminals from the start. This is for those apprehended in the border region which will need definition. Illegals outside of that region are to be deported as stated without the right to reenter since it would be impossible to determine the actual date of entry. Subsequent reentries are criminal and subject the individual to jail time.

      The annual reporting for the first five years comes from childhood memories. I can remember in the ’50s and ealry ’60s TV adds that required all aliens to fill out a card at the PO and mail it to INS. I believe that was to update addressed and other contact information. Modern database systems may make that unnecessary.

      On the human trafficing situation, are the anitslave laws being applied? I would think this should be called slavery. Since that is such a hot button in this country, it might increase awareness and bring some much needed public attention to the problem. I also would have no trouble going after the purchasers of the services rendered by these slaves.

      On the drug issue, I have long been of the opinion that the only way to solve the problem is to attack it from the money side. This means legalization but then I think about the kids and say no way. D13, you are correct about the criminal element trying to control any legal grows in the states. CA has legalized medical pot but incidence of private pot gardens being stripped by criminals is growing along with the associated violence. Also medical pot is being used as an excuse to produce recreational (illegal) pot. It is becoming an increasing large crime problem throughout CA and even here in my redneck rural county.

      Well the kids just arrived for the weekend so so long for now. (No time to proof read so please excuse any mistakes.)

      • T-Ray,

        The magnet issue: As stated above, I like the concept that anyone born on our soil is American but I see that is becoming an increasingly big problem. There are whole apartment houses in SoCal that cater to pregnant Chinese women who come here just to obrain citizenship for their offspring. As Plainly stated, any changes here require a constitutional amendment. (Maybe O can just sign an executive order to get around that pesky antiquated document!) One solution might be to issue the child a US birth certificate which clearly notes the immigration status of the mother (illegal or visitor). Such children may claim citizenship upon reaching the age of 18 but at no time could they be used as justification for entry of the parents into the US or their continued stay in country. Such entry must be justified by normal means.

        With respect to incarceration of individuals who illegally enter the country — I am willing to give a first time entrant a pass, teach him the right way and throw him back. The next time, he should be denied what he came for. Many of these are migrant workers who come for seasonal work. I would deny them that season. Incareration must follow existing US laws with a trial before a judge. He has no peers since they are all foreign nationals. So it will be just a judge. Repeated entries will meet with ever escalating penalties since after the first time it has now become a criminal entry. Ignorance can no longer be claimed.

        But, I ask you – really – do we want to fill up prisons with border crossers? What damage have they done to society by just crossing the border? To me it makes about as much sense as locking up a repetitive jay walker. At some point they end up with a life sentence (one would presume stiffer sentences for subsequent crossings) for walking over the border. I could see and appreciate the argument that this would be cruel and unusual punishment.

        Again drug and human smugglers are outside this system and should be treated as criminals from the start.

        Agreed

        This is for those apprehended in the border region which will need definition. Illegals outside of that region are to be deported as stated without the right to reenter since it would be impossible to determine the actual date of entry. Subsequent reentries are criminal and subject the individual to jail time.
        The annual reporting for the first five years comes from childhood memories. I can remember in the ’50s and ealry ’60s TV adds that required all aliens to fill out a card at the PO and mail it to INS. I believe that was to update addressed and other contact information. Modern database systems may make that unnecessary.

        Yes, I remember that too, but I think it makes no sense today really.

        On the human trafficing situation, are the anitslave laws being applied? I would think this should be called slavery. Since that is such a hot button in this country, it might increase awareness and bring some much needed public attention to the problem. I also would have no trouble going after the purchasers of the services rendered by these slaves.
        On the drug issue, I have long been of the opinion that the only way to solve the problem is to attack it from the money side. This means legalization but then I think about the kids and say no way. D13, you are correct about the criminal element trying to control any legal grows in the states. CA has legalized medical pot but incidence of private pot gardens being stripped by criminals is growing along with the associated violence. Also medical pot is being used as an excuse to produce recreational (illegal) pot. It is becoming an increasing large crime problem throughout CA and even here in my redneck rural county.

        We have the legal medical marijuana industry here in Colorado too. My thinking reflects yours. It does continue to highlight the way drug laws should be the province of the states, not the feds. The war on drugs is a bust, has been for a long time, and needs to be buried. States need to handle the issues in their states.

        Well the kids just arrived for the weekend so so long for now. (No time to proof read so please excuse any mistakes.)

        Enjoy them and have a great weekend!

        • Plainly, RE: prisons, I would not house the illegal immigrant worker the criminal prison population. We should be dealing with non-vilent boarder crossers. I would house them in compounds similar to the WWII interment camp but build of better quality material. Sheriff Joe’s tent city is a little too harse but some of his ideas are useable. English radio but no TV, simple but nutrious foods,. etc. They should be treated humanly. Since at this point they are already multiple offenders of our immigration laws, then instructing them in the proper immigration procedures and English would not be helpful. If they do have the right to return, then I would make these courses manditory. They cross the border because they expect some future reward (jobs, etc.) for doing so. This is a risk-reward thing. There is a risk of capture but if all we do is through them back, there is no down side except a temporary delay in the reward. Probability says they will eventually succeed. If the risk is loss of what they came for, at least a season o rmore of wages, then the equation has changed and following the proper procedure may be more attractive. I think in this case, the punishment fits the crime.

          Re: Annaual registration – In todays database world, this may be archaic and unnecessary. However, it does serve as a reminder that they are here on probation and someone is watching. After 5 years the requirement goes away so it is not that onerous.

          Re: Medical pot – first I think the FDA should allow medicinal pot and provide it through drug stores. Recreational pot is something I still have doubts about and mostly because of children. Federal efforts on drug trafficing should be limited to borders and interstate commerce.

          • T-Ray,

            What would be the penalty for them not notifying? Are they now persona non grata and out on their butts? I kinda see it as why bother, since if they get into trouble of some kind they’re immigrant status is going to become known quickly.

            Re: Medical pot – first I think the FDA should allow medicinal pot and provide it through drug stores. Recreational pot is something I still have doubts about and mostly because of children. Federal efforts on drug trafficing should be limited to borders and interstate commerce.

            There is already an FDA approved prescription drug Marinol, a THC based pill that provides relief from nausea and loss of appetite in terminal conditions such as AIDS and for patients undergoing chemotherapy. It just doesn’t give them the “high” they’re looking for though. So the whole medicinal pot for a painful back, my aching legs or any other condition is – IMHO – a farce.

          • T-Ray,

            Continuing on the prison issue. The US has a burgeoning jail and prison system already busting at the seams. Now we should build even more facilities and incarcerate large numbers of non-violent offenders too. Even if the standard is a step above the idea of the internment camps, with current case law of the courts having set as standards for incarceration, the costs will be no small amount. As states and a nation we are having a tough budgetary time and hard choices are being made in the area of jails/prisons, so costs are going to be an important factor in carrying out such a program.

            Is this the best we can come up with for improving the circumstances and costs of illegal immigrants in the US?

      • One piece I forgot to cover:

        Many of these are migrant workers who come for seasonal work. I would deny them that season. Incareration must follow existing US laws with a trial before a judge. He has no peers since they are all foreign nationals.

        I don’t believe that a “jury of your peers” calls for 12 people of the same socioeconomic status as the defendant. That would be like saying a jury must be exclusively composed of people matching the defendants race, religion,national origin, etc. Maybe someone like Buck could better clarify the term itself??

        Regardless, we must follow the 5th and 6th Amendments of the US Constitution.

        • By all means the Constitution needs to be followed. However, if everyone requests a jury trial then it becomes very expensive and cumbersome. Maybe we could empanel a single jury to hear multiple cases in one day rather than a unique jury for each defendent. Hopefully the more liberlized entry method will reduce the illegal flow and this will become more manageable.

          • As I would hope that reformed/easier entry requirements would do this too. But, alas, it would be difficult to improve the jury system in just one area like this. It has to be an equal standard whether we personally like it or not, therefore an illegal immigrant must be treated the same as any criminal defendant.

  28. Puritan

    No, your subjective value of his worth has no effect on his human rights.

    Yaaa!!!!!

    WhooHooo!

    Puritan wins the coveted Black Flag Gold Star (talk about a paradox!)!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    YES!

    My subjective value! holds NO MEASURE!

    Human rights applies to ALL HUMANS, including Hitler and John Gacy _ NO EXCEPTIONS (including the unborn).

    Puritan, it is among my deepest sadness that the People do not understand that, which to you you know as completely natural….

  29. Natural Law: “What I do to you, give others the right to do to me”

    OK.. now explain why the “you” in question applies expressly to humans and not other animals.

    Specifically if I eat “you” (referring to a cow), why does this not give other you’s (referring to Black Flag) the right to eat me?

    • Mathius,

      Because I am human and not a cow.

      • If you were a cow, I would be very impressed with your ability to type so well with you hooves.

        That doesn’t answer the question. If the natural law is “what I do to you gives other the right to do to me,” then where do you see the word “human” in that law? Or “cow”? Or “same species”? If you can draw the distinction between species, why not races of humans, why not geographical groups, why not political groups, why not family groups? There has to be a logical step where you are going from point A to point C. The law, as you’ve defined it, says “others” – nothing about humans, so why do you think that these only apply to humans acting on (or being acted on by) other humans?

        What I (Mathius) do to “you” (eating the cow), why does this not give “others” (referring to, you know, “others”) the right to eat me? Why does “others” in this context only refer to other cows and now “all others.” Does my steak-eating give cows the right to eat me, since they are cows (I ate them, so I gave them the right to eat me)? What has given me the right to eat them, since they have not first eaten any humans (they have not eaten humans, therefore they have not given humans the right to eat them)?

        A piece of the puzzle is missing.

        • Mathy,

          That doesn’t answer the question. If the natural law is “what I do to you gives other the right to do to me,” then where do you see the word “human” in that law? Or “cow”? Or “same species”?

          Apply the natural law as you wish – tell me the what you calculate may be the outcome.

          • OK, well if that is the law – the whole law – then I have to consider that it makes no distinction between types of entities action or being acted upon – simply that they are entities and that they do act or are acted upon.

            As such, you could derive that in order to be free, I must let others to be free (perfectly logical), but this definition of “others” would necessarily include ALL others, not just other humans – to that end, I could not impose-by-force on anything at all (since every other entity is an “other”). It would definitionally be evil to act upon anything (plant, animal, AI, slime mold) in a way in which it has not permitted you to do by, itself, perpetrating that same action against another.

            ……..

            So…. cows murder grass, so cows give others (all others) the right to murder them… but I murder cows, so I give others (all others) the right to murder me…

            Otherwise, I’ve drawn boundaries on the concept of “other” which is not stated, or even implied, in your statement of the natural law.

            • Mathius,

              OK, well if that is the law – the whole law – then I have to consider that it makes no distinction between types of entities action or being acted upon – simply that they are entities and that they do act or are acted upon.

              As such, you could derive that in order to be free, I must let others to be free (perfectly logical), but this definition of “others” would necessarily include ALL others, not just other humans – to that end, I could not impose-by-force on anything at all (since every other entity is an “other”). It would definitionally be evil to act upon anything (plant, animal, AI, slime mold) in a way in which it has not permitted you to do by, itself, perpetrating that same action against another.

              ……..

              So…. cows murder grass, so cows give others (all others) the right to murder them… but I murder cows, so I give others (all others) the right to murder me…

              Otherwise, I’ve drawn boundaries on the concept of “other” which is not stated, or even implied, in your statement of the natural law.

              Fail.

              I asked you to apply the law, not give me a bunch of garbage based on how you apply my derivations of the law

              Try again.

              I asked:
              “Apply the law and tell me what you think the outcome will be”

              I did not ask:
              “Apply the law how BF does and give me your opinion on his outcomes”

              • Can you explain your assignment again?

                You gave me your definition of natural law and I followed it to the logical conclusion that we should all be ultra-vegans or else we give each other the right to murder us. Your outcomes are perfectly sound within this framework (I may be looking at your derivations, but they are mine too based on this definition of natural law – if I accept your definition, this derivation is where I also would find myself). However, you seem to be drawing an arbitrary line between human actors and non-human actors which I cannot support within this framework – there is nothing in there to support a difference between cow and human rights, so that is where I would part ways with you – hence, MY DERIVATION as opposed to my opinion of your outcomes.

                So either my logic is flawed (it’s not), or you’re missing an essential piece of the premise, or we’re evil for eating meat (I hope not!).

              • Mathius

                Can you explain your assignment again?

                (1)Accurately articulate the natural law in question
                (2)Apply the law -not with your opinion of my application but specifically in a manner that you believe.
                (3)Do it slowly, because you have a tendency to got A to B to C to J to K to D to F to Q to Z arguments, and end up in left field.

  30. By the way, Anita and V.H., I don’t feel that Flag was being overly harsh at all… a bit obtuse, perhaps.. 😉

    At least, not today.. other times, he goes overboard. But I’m sure he’s working on his issues with a highly qualified anger-management therapist.

  31. For Mathius who has not seen it:

    Preface [T-Ray] – There is much wrong with this but there is some truth it it as well . A web search will find many counter arguments.

    You have two families: “Joe Legal” and “Jose Illegal.” Both families have two parents, two children, and live in California . . .
    Joe Legal works in construction, has a Social Security Number and makes $25.00 per hour with taxes deducted.

    Jose Illegal also works in construction, has NO Social Security Number, and gets paid $15.00 cash “under the table”.
    Ready? Now pay attention . . .

    Joe Legal: $25.00 per hour x 40 hours = $1000 per week, or $52,000 per year. Now take 30% away for state and federal tax; Joe Legal now has $31,231.

    Jose Illegal: $15.00 per hour x 40 hours = $600 per week, or $31,200 per year. Jose Illegal pays no taxes. Jose Illegal now has $31,200.

    Joe Legal pays medical and dental insurance with limited coverage for his family at $600 per month, or $7,200 per year. Joe Legal now has $24,031.

    Jose Illegal has full medical and dental coverage through the state and local clinics and emergency hospitals at a cost of $0 per year. Jose Illegal still has $31,200.

    Joe Legal makes too much money and is not eligible for food stamps or welfare. Joe Legal pays $500 per month for food, or $6,000 per year. Joe Legal now has $18,031.

    Jose Illegal has no documented income and is eligible for food stamps, WIC and welfare. Jose Illegal still has $31,200.

    Joe Legal pays rent of $1,200 per month, or $14,400 per year. Joe Legal now has $9,631.

    Jose Illegal receives a $500 per month Federal Rent Subsidy. Jose Illegal pays out that $500 per month, or $6,000 per year. Jose Illegal still has $31,200.

    Joe Legal pays $200 per month, or $2,400 for car insurance. Some of that is uninsured motorist insurance. Joe Legal now has $7,231.

    Jose Illegal says, “We don’t need no stinkin’ insurance!” and still has $31,200.

    Joe Legal has to make his $7,231 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline, etc.

    Jose Illegal has to make his $31,200 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline, and what he sends out of the country every month.

    Joe Legal now works overtime on Saturdays or gets a part time job after work.

    Jose Illegal has nights and weekends off to enjoy with his family.

    Joe Legal’s and Jose Illegal’s children both attend the same elementary school. Joe Legal pays for his children’s lunches while Jose Illegal’s children get a government sponsored lunch. Jose Illegal’s children have an after school ESL program. Joe Legal’s children go home.
    Now, when they reach college age, Joe Legal’s kids may not get into a state school and may not qualify for scholarships, grants or other tuition help, even though Joe has been paying for state schools through his taxes, while Jose Illegal’s kids “go to the head of the class” because they are a minority.

    Joe Legal and Jose Illegal both enjoy the same police and fire services, but Joe paid for them and Jose did not pay.
    You get the picture?

    • T-Ray,

      So, because a man steals from #1 man and not #2 man, you argue the problem is the fault of #2 man, and not a problem of theft at all…..

      Very strange ideas you have.

      • Flag, why do you think that I believe this? I mentioned the email above and Matt said he had not seen it. So I posted it. I prefaced it with the caveat that people should google the counter arguments and that it certainly is a distorted view with a few nuggets of truth. I know your position is that all taxes are theft. However, they are a reality and according to Franklin a certainty in this life. Why then is it unfair to expect all in society to live by the same rules? Yes, we need to correct the welfare system in this country. Yes, we need government to return to the Constitution and get out of peoples lives. But one of the prime fundamentals of this country is that all men will be treated equally. It would be great if it was all happiness and no misery but if misery is necessary, then it too should be shared equally. (I think you should know me well enough that I do not mean that the same way the OWS crowd means it.)

        • T-Ray

          . I know your position is that all taxes are theft. However, they are a reality and according to Franklin a certainty in this life.

          .
          Death is certain.
          Crime is certain.
          Disease and pestilence is certain.

          Because it is certain does not mean it is good, nor necessary.

          .
          Why then is it unfair to expect all in society to live by the same rules?

          .

          Because most of these rules are evil.

          If you does not deal with the underlying evil of it, nothing good can replace it.

          Instead what happens is more evil is justified to cure the consequences of the previous evil, and the cycle of destruction begins to speed up and tighten right into some form of collapse.

          .
          But one of the prime fundamentals of this country is that all men will be treated equally.

          .

          Equally creating slaves is no salvation.

          • Slavery can be seen from different vantages points. Are not the ones outside the system making a slave of me since they are demanding and getting resource for which they do not contributed? Also in the struggle to reduce the evil you speak of, will those not under the evil assist those subject to it? I doubt it since they are directly benefitting by being free of the evil. The only way to defeat the evil is by being united. Unless you consider collapse as a mechanism for defeating it. But then we either get a tribal society with all its petty tribal warfare such as the ME and other locals or we get a form of government much worse than what we have.

            • T-Ray

              Slavery can be seen from different vantages points.

              Sure it can.
              It is often considered a good thing to slave owners, and bad thing to slaves.

              Are not the ones outside the system making a slave of me since they are demanding and getting resource for which they do not contributed?

              They are doing absolutely nothing to you and that is the point!

              You are purposely blaming a man who is doing nothing to you.

              It is the GOVERNMENT who takes from you, not this man. Yet, you blame the man who may receive a part of the theft as the one who is stealing from you.

              You are blaming the man who may by TV from an ad on Craigslist by the thief as the one who is the thief – INDEED, you support the thief!!!

              • The cost to our governments (all levels) for the presence of illegal immigrants has been estimated to be $113B/yr. Spread over 330M residence of the US, results in an individual cost to every American of $342. For my household of two that is $684. So yes illegal immigration impacts every single resident of this country.

                A. The illegal crosses our border in the dead of night to avoid detection
                B. The illegal purchases forged documents to obtain work
                C. The illegal lies to any potential employer about his work status
                D. The illegal enters a business (ER), requests services, then leaves without paying
                E. The illegal receives cash payment for labor that is not taxed or recorded by government
                F. The illegal comes across the border to birth babies here for the sole purpose of creating a US citizen hence an anchor. Once established in this country, more anchor babies are created
                G. The illegal applies for welfare services and often gets that service because of his non-reported income
                H. The children of the illegal feel like second class citizens since their parents are always in the shadows so they act out by joining gangs and conducting other criminal activity thus increasing our policing costs and jail populations. Same for young illegals that come here.
                I. The illegal drives on our roads without driver’s licenses or insurance thus forcing legals to buy uninsured motorist protection (another expense out of my pocket). When stopped by authorities, they are frequently released since ICE will not do anything so why waste the officer’s time. Dare I suggest that legals are treated differently if stopped without a license or insurance?
                This list could go on. I could add the unemployed construction worker who is drawing unemployment because some illegal has taken his job. That’s a double hit in that we are paying someone not to work while the illegal is working and not paying taxes. All of these activities listed above are either illegal or dishonest. I don’t think this is the kind of society that we want here. Allowing this to grow will ultimately destroy our society and culture. All of the activities above are done intentionally by the illegal. He knows he is breaking the law. He knows he is cheating the system.

                Yes Flag, government does serve as the middle man with the gun taking from me to give to them. But they lie, cheat, and break the law to get it. That makes me a slave. Simultaneously, their illegal status puts them in a position to be made slaves by unscrupulous employers. When confronted with unhealthy, hazardous, or unfair labor practices, they do not have the recourse to go to the authorities without jeopardizing their immigration status. The same goes when they are victims of crime.

                So BF, I take it your solution is to continue the bifurcated society since it does not impact you. Your sense of justice baffles me. My proposal above was to find a way to stop the bifurcation and to bring all out into the open. Obviously, the criminal element will not cooperate, but that is another issue. We are a nation of laws, when we treat one class of individuals differently, either harsher or by ignoring them, we destroy a fundamental part of who we are. Ultimately we will destroy our society as a result.

                Our welfare system and overreaching, overspending government are separate issues that need to be dealt with as well. We can deal with them better if we are a united country with a single society and culture.

                If we allow the bifurcation to continue, we also increase the risk of Aztlan becoming a real movement beyond its current minor status. At our current pace I give it about 40 years before a separatist movement will petition the UN for a vote to split off the southwest and form a new country with Mexico. The result will be bloodshed.

              • T-Ray

                The cost to our governments (all levels) for the presence of illegal immigrants has been estimated to be $113B/yr.

                The cost to your mafia -all levels- for the presence of competing orange juice salesmen who aren’t paying into the protection racket is estimated to be $113M/yr.

                Spread over 330M residence of the US, results in an individual cost to every American of $342.

                Spread over the 3,300 residences in and around their “territory”, results in requiring the Mafia to rise the “cost” of its “protection racket” by $300.

                For my household of two that is $684. So yes illegal immigration impacts every single resident of this country.

                So, for your house of two, that is $600 more you gotta pay into the protection racket, cause the orange juice guys are avoiding the mob.

                ….

                With a simple, valid, substitution, you can see how utterly ridiculous it is to blame the orange juice salesman as the reason you are forced to pay “protection” money to the mob.

              • T-Ray

                So BF, I take it your solution is to continue the bifurcated society since it does not impact you.

                Of course it impacts me.

                I do not believe the short term discomfort is so costly that it must be mitigated by attacking human rights.

                Your sense of justice baffles me.

                Justice is completely in the eye of the beholder, so it is baffling – because not everyone likes the color black, nor red, nor green, nor blue, nor….

                So I do not measure your sense of justice to be any more valid then mine, though different.

                So I do not USE your sense of justice to determine my right, nor apply my sense of justice to determine your right, either.

                We are a nation of laws

                (1)No, we are not. We are a nation of people.
                (2)It is not “Law” that is a question, but “What Law” is the question.

                when we treat one class of individuals differently

                “Law” is used to treat different classes differently!

                Ultimately we will destroy our society as a result.

                You destroy society by attacking its foundations – and civilized society has its foundation built on Rights and Freedom – not a mess of arbitrary laws that attack Rights and Freedom

                Get your foundations right, T-Ray.

      • Mathius™ says:

        So, because a man steals from #1 man and not #2 man, you argue the problem is the fault of #2 man, and not a problem of theft at all….. I hate agreeing with you…

        Also, can I just throw out the stupidity of this whole line of reasoning? You select arbitrary wages to plug into your formula (25 vs 15), but that could just as easily be 25 vs 10 or 25 vs 5, now the whole math shifts, doesn’t it?

        Meanwhile, I know that “illegals” line up at a deli near my house every single Saturday and Sunday – there are dozens of them just waiting for any odd job you can offer, and they aren’t picky about what it is or how much you pay. So no, they aren’t sitting at home with their families while “Joe Legal” has to pick up extra shifts.

        God, what BS.. no wonder this country has such a schizoid immigration policy.

  32. I am unsure why the left is obsessed with Fox News. I suppose it just goes to them fearing and disliking any message that doesn’t support their side of the story.

    Being left of left, I have to agree 100% with USW (it happens from time to time) … maybe it’s just my experience fighting with so-called liberal blogs, but I do find an incredible amount of whining about Fox vs. MSNBC, et al there more than anywhere else. They (the news outlets) each have their own agenda, none of them left enough for me to take very serious. CBS, ABC, NBC, et al protect the Democratic Party unless they can’t. Same goes for Fox regarding the GOP, unless they can’t.

    Viewership is another factor, but I seriously doubt those who watch FOX are any more misinformed (pre-watching a newscast) than those who watch MSNBC. Most people go to their choice of news misinformation with pre-conceived prejudices and expecations. I experience that as a writer who dares to speak his politics on a blog (it is seriously frowned upon due to the wheels of capitalism — bottom line sales numbers publishers are owned by), but if you’re not in it for the money and you find a publisher who isn’t a slave to the numbers game (they do exist), you get to speak your mind. Some potential readers will stray from authors who state their positions; some won’t. I figure we have one life to live and to hide behind sales figures is not really living very free, economically advantageous or not.

    Frankly, I’d vote for Plainly to provide the news. I trust that fella big time.

  33. SACRAMENTO, Calif.-Nearly 1 million undocumented immigrants could live and work openly in California with little or no fear of deportation under an initiative unveiled Friday by a state legislator and others.

    Assemblyman Felipe Fuentes, a Democrat, is helping spearhead the measure, called the California Opportunity and Prosperity Act.

    The proposal was filed Friday with the state Attorney General’s Office, marking a first step toward a drive to collect the 504,760 voter signatures needed to qualify for the ballot.

    Fuentes called the measure a “moderate, common-sense approach” necessitated by the federal government’s inability to pass comprehensive immigration reform.

    “I hope this shows Washington, D.C., that if they fail to act, California will take the lead on this critical issue,” Fuentes said in a written statement.

    Supporters say the initiative could generate up to $325 million in new tax revenue from undocumented workers that could assist education, public safety and other state programs.

    Regardless whether Californians would support such a measure, implementation would depend upon the federal government agreeing not to prosecute participants.

    Assemblyman Tim Donnelly, a Republican, blasted the proposal as an attempt to sidestep immigration law. He predicted that it wouldn’t have a “snowball’s chance in hell” of winning voter approval.

    “There’s a proper process for coming to this country,” Donnelly said. “Why don’t you respect that?”

    The proposed initiative would apply to illegal immigrants who have lived in California for four years, have no felony convictions, are not suspected terrorists, pay a fee to administer the program, and can speak English or are learning it.

    Read more: http://azstarnet.com/article_48fae88f-aedc-59ee-b117-d97c19d9fb94.html#ixzz1fUzKw5A5

    • Main problem-they are doing nothing to fix the problem-not even the problem just in California-No mention of what they are going to do about the people who haven’t been here 4 years-nothing about how they are going to stop the flow of new illegals-and nothing to limit citizenship.
      The english part is just funny-everyone will be learning it. 🙂 And somehow the absence of any measures to do anything other than give a million people the right to stay-Just makes me figure-most everyone will have been here 4 years-even the people who cross the border today.

      • I am uncertain why they want this to be a ballot issue. The Dems have complete control of the state government and could pass this by a simple majority vote. If it goes the way of all previous immigration ballot issues, it will be defeated. There have been attempts in the past to limit the impact of illegal immigration that did pass a public vote. However, virtually everyone of those ballot measures were nullified by the courts. If this passes and is challenged in state court, it probably would be upheld. If the feds challenge it, it could be overturned but a fed challenge will require a change in the WH.

        The sad part is this will only increase the flow of illegals into CA making the economics here worse.

        Another step towards Aztlan.

    • SK Trynosky Sr says:

      I don’t know anymore about California. Are they interested in secession? Or perhaps they would like to reacquaint themselves with Mexico City as their Central Government. Perhaps they should go with the proviso that we build a wall around the state to prevent them from escaping.

      • SK, google Aztlan and reconquista. It is a movement to separate the American SW and either form a new country or merge it with Mexico. In polls 58% of Mexicans (in Mexico) view the American SW as rigthly their property. Hence when moving here they are just relocating in Norte Mexico. That view is not as popular among Americans of Mexican descent.

    • This highlights perfectly the idea that each state having its own immigration standards will not work. It is the polar opposite of what Texas is doing.

      I wonder what the comments would be should this actually ease the fiscal problems in the costs of illegal immigration in California? Obviously only time will tell, but it will be interesting to see the end result.

  34. Puritan,

    Now back to ‘money’. If money has a set quantity, and products have a set quantity, does not money in this case have an intrinsic value as a whole?

    So your concept of money here, if I can phrase it for you, is that money in an economy represents the value of the goods in the economy – so that one needs to “print” a dollar for every “dollar” of value of products or services in the economy — this is what you are saying here, right?

    I grow an apple that is worth a $1, so a $1 needs to be printed so to trade for that dollar.

    Ok, so how does that work according to your theory?

    Why is the apple worth a $1? Who set the price?
    In your theory, the price is set by the guy who prints the dollar – since he is the one in charge of printing the equal amount of value in dollars.
    But why does he set the price of the apple and not the apple grower?
    How does he know the apple is “worth” a dollar and not two dollars? Or 50c?

    You are close to the economic camp called “Monetarists” – also know as the Chicago School of Economics – who argue that money has no value and represents its worth based on something else. They often select “gold”, but have advocates that state “any commodity or service could back the money”.

    They argue that using some commodity at a price established as a constant baseline – say, a bucket of wheat. If the price of the wheat doubles, the monetarists argue that twice as much money should be printed and made available (how they make it available is another essay). If the price goes down, they remove money out of the market – “burn it”. Thus, the amount of money fluctuates up and down so to maintain a fixed price of some good.

    But can you see some basic assumptions here that do not hold up very well?

    Why do you pick a certain commodity (or basket of commodities and services) as a constant? What makes them more of an economic measure of society than any other?

    Why does the supply and demand laws not apply to that set of “constants”? If suddenly a drought happens, and no wheat is grown, and prices rise…. why do you double the money supply? How does doubling the money supply grow more wheat? Why does a crop failure (in this example) -which causes a increase in the money supply – which will cause inflation on the WHOLE economy, raising prices for all goods balance the economic conditions? So because there is a crisis in wheat suddenly there is a crisis in everything?

    (You can replace wheat with any other economic good or mix of goods, and ask the same question … I am only using wheat as an example that is easy to understand).

    • A Puritan Descendant says:

      “So your concept of money here, if I can phrase it for you, is that money in an economy represents the value of the goods in the economy – so that one needs to “print” a dollar for every “dollar” of value of products or services in the economy — this is what you are saying here, right?”

      No, No, No! LOL
      Give me a bit and i will try to respond better.

    • A Puritan Descendant says:

      Ok, First, this is what i said again >

      >Now back to ‘money’. If money has a set quantity, and products have a set quantity, does not money in this case have an intrinsic value as a whole?
      We as a whole, would lower that intrinsic value if more money was printed without an increase in products/wealth to support it. Get my drift?

      “So your concept of money here, if I can phrase it for you, is that money in an economy represents the value of the goods in the economy – so that one needs to “print” a dollar for every “dollar” of value of products or services in the economy — this is what you are saying here, right? I grow an apple that is worth a $1, so a $1 needs to be printed so to trade for that dollar.”

      No that is not what I am saying. Money in currency does represent the value of the goods put into trade, but no money needs to printed at all. Printing more dollars merely ends up raising the price of a stable quantity of products.
      If money in currency is kept stable, and production of products increases then prices for products will tend to drop as this change is absorbed into the market place. (same quantity of dollars chasing more goods).

      No. I say the free market of all products put into trade gives a set quantity of dollars it’s ‘intrinsic’ value. (intrinsic is probably not the best word to use here.)

      “They argue that using some commodity at a price established as a constant baseline – say, a bucket of wheat. If the price of the wheat doubles, the monetarists argue that twice as much money should be printed and made available (how they make it available is another essay). If the price goes down, they remove money out of the market – “burn it”. Thus, the amount of money fluctuates up and down so to maintain a fixed price of some good.”

      This is new to me and sounds half ass backwards. Will think on it somemore later,.

      Ok the rest of your post now does not apply.
      Please let me know if you understand me better or if I still confuse you. Damn! You are so smart a guy and if you don’t understnad me, maybe no one does and I should refrain from posting! 🙂 maybe I have no clue how to articulate my meanings.

      And thanks for the Black Flag Gold Star!!! I will proudly plant it over my house!

      • A Puritan Descendant says:

        oops I left this out > ““any commodity or service could back the money””. before this>
        No. I say the free market of all products put into trade gives a set quantity of dollars it’s ‘intrinsic’ value. (intrinsic is probably not the best word to use here.)

      • Puritan,
        Because of multiple concepts presented, I’ve sliced up your post into discrete dialogues:
        Part 1

        No that is not what I am saying. Money in currency does represent the value of the goods put into trade, but no money needs to printed at all.
        .

        So let’s stop here and review.

        But how do you know what the value of goods put into trade is, when all value is subjective to the individual?. Did you send out a questionnaire with the available quantities of all the goods and services in an economy to the people and asked them to rank and price them?
        And even if you did, would that really tell you anything, since consumption and production of new goods changes the value of the goods.

        So, let’s simplify our economy to one item – an apple.

        How much money represents the value of this one apple?

        • A Puritan Descendant says:

          I think the rest of my posts will tend to answer this. But….. I am only saying that the free market as a whole will tend to determine price levels. This consisting of millions of free individuals tending to set prices or value of goods in the marketplace. If a product is overpriced as determined by individuals/consumers, the producer may lower his price or discontinue production of the product. On the other hand a producer can continue to raise prices of his product(s) if demand is there.

          • Puritan

            I am only saying that the free market as a whole will tend to determine price levels.

            How does it do this?

            How does the market place set the price I sell my service

            This consisting of millions of free individuals tending to set prices or value of goods in the marketplace.

            Yes, there is.

            Value and price are not the same thing.
            Agree or disagree?

            If a product is overpriced as determined by individuals/consumers, the producer may lower his price or discontinue production of the product. On the other hand a producer can continue to raise prices of his product(s) if demand is there.

            What special determination by an individual determines if a price is too high for a certain good?
            When does a buyer think a price is too low for a certain good and pays more for it then the asking price?
            When does a producer think his prices is too low and raises his price?

            • A Puritan Descendant says:

              “Value and price are not the same thing.
              Agree or disagree?”

              Agreed. But….. prices will tend to represent value if left to the free market place to work it out.
              If a product is overpriced as determined by individuals/consumers, the producer may lower his price or discontinue production of the product. On the other hand a producer can continue to raise prices of his product(s) if demand is there.

              “What special determination by an individual determines if a price is too high for a certain good?”

              I cannot speak for any individual. it is simply up to the individual to determine for himself.

              “When does a buyer think a price is too low for a certain good and pays more for it then the asking price?”
              What fool does that? 🙂

              “When does a producer think his prices is too low and raises his price?”
              While I can’t speak for any producer, I would assume he would raise his price when demand is great. If he can sell all he produces at one price, he would probably be wise to raise his price, at least until demand drops.

              • Puritan

                Agreed. But….. prices will tend to represent value if left to the free market place to work it out.

                Why?

                If I am able to sell my product at “X”, why would I sell at “less than X” at a different time in the future?

                On the other hand a producer can continue to raise prices of his product(s) if demand is there.

                Apple sells an iPad every 5 seconds.
                Did Apple raise its prices?

                “What special determination by an individual determines if a price is too high for a certain good?”

                I cannot speak for any individual. it is simply up to the individual to determine for himself.

                Correct.

                So if value is determined by individuals, how can their be a “market value”?

                “When does a buyer think a price is too low for a certain good and pays more for it then the asking price?”
                What fool does that? 🙂

                Correct. He does not – why? Because the greater the difference between his value and the price he pays improves the deal for him
                And the same for the producer – in reverse.

                “When does a producer think his prices is too low and raises his price?”
                While I can’t speak for any producer, I would assume he would raise his price when demand is great.

                Apple did not.
                Msoft did not.
                Walmart does not.
                …. as far as I can tell, the great majority do not…. why not?

                If he can sell all he produces at one price, he would probably be wise to raise his price, at least until demand drops.

                Yet, I am hard pressed to find such examples.

                But this the examples I do find.

                Apple stated they would be a short supply of iPads on the release day – but the supplies would fill in in about 2 weeks later.
                The price the sold the first iPad is the same price they sold an iPad two weeks later.
                Why did they not raise their prices if demand was so high?

                BUT… a bunch of street-smart entrapeneurs got early in line – a day or more before and camped out.
                They bought dozens of iPads at a time – walked outside, and resold them at 100/200% market up.
                People paid. Why?

                Another example:
                Bon Jovi announces a concert. Ticketmaster sells tickets. A scalper buys up hundreds of tickets at Ticketmaster and resells them at 100% or higher market up.
                Why does Ticketmaster NOT price the tickets 100% higher in the first place?
                Why do people buy the scalper’s tickets?

      • Puritan

        Part 2

        Printing more dollars merely ends up raising the price of a stable quantity of products

        So how did you move from “value” (as in Part 1) into “prices” here?

        How is value and prices linked?

        Why does printing more dollars raise prices?

        If money in currency is kept stable, and production of products increases then prices for products will tend to drop as this change is absorbed into the market place. (same quantity of dollars chasing more goods).

        No. I say the free market of all products put into trade gives a set quantity of dollars it’s ‘intrinsic’ value. (intrinsic is probably not the best word to use here.)

        It isn’t at all.
        Intrinsic means a value in of itself, independent of a person’s own subjective value of that thing.

        So, what is the value of a dollar, based on your description here.

        then free trade will constantly redetermine pricing levels. NOT some clown in a suit!

        Back to question 1, what is the difference – to you – between “price” and “value”?

        • A Puritan Descendant says:

          “”Part 2
          Printing more dollars merely ends up raising the price of a stable quantity of products
          So how did you move from “value” (as in Part 1) into “prices” here?
          How is value and prices linked?
          Why does printing more dollars raise prices?””

          Prices set by producers represents, as best it can, the value of products in the marketplace. Printing more dollars (given a set quantity of products) lowers the value of ALL dollars because more dollars are chasing the same quantity of goods.

          i said > [If money in currency is kept stable, and production of products increases then prices for products will tend to drop as this change is absorbed into the market place. (same quantity of dollars chasing more goods).

          No. I say the free market of all products put into trade gives a set quantity of dollars it’s ‘intrinsic’ value. (intrinsic is probably not the best word to use here.)]
          “It isn’t at all.
          Intrinsic means a value in of itself, independent of a person’s own subjective value of that thing.
          So, what is the value of a dollar, based on your description here.”

          Ok, I accept your definition of intrinsic.
          The value of a dollar is determined by all individuals in the free market place. Individualy but also as a whole. Producers will set prices based on the freemarket place. Individuals are free to reach their own dollar value determinations, but producers are also free to set prices, (representing his idea of value) as they wish, which would likely be the market demands for his product(s) as a whole.

          “Back to question 1, what is the difference – to you – between “price” and “value”?”
          Price is what the producer thinks will serve him/her best (which is likely close to the products true freemarket value). If I as a consumer agree that the price represents the products true value to me, I am free to buy the product. If I think I am being gouged, I am free to walk away. (Unless it is a over priced and mandated health insurance product 😦 )

          • A Puritan Descendant

            Prices set by producers represents, as best it can, the value of products in the marketplace.

            How does a producer know what I would value his product at?

            In other words, how do I know what value you place on any particular good (pretending we are totally anonymous to each other)? (Answer: you can’t – it is impossible).

            The only thing a producer knows is how what value he places on his own products.

            Printing more dollars (given a set quantity of products) lowers the value of ALL dollars because more dollars are chasing the same quantity of goods.

            How can you determine my value change when you don’t know what value I held in the first place?

            The value of a dollar is determined by all individuals in the free market place. Individualy but also as a whole.

            How is something that is completely individual (values) can be determined by a whole (opposite of individuals)?

            Producers will set prices based on the freemarket place. Individuals are free to reach their own dollar value determinations, but producers are also free to set prices, (representing his idea of value) as they wish, which would likely be the market demands for his product(s) as a whole.

            What is a “price”? – as you said, what the producer values his own product. Why is his value on his product determined by what the market thinks?

            Are your values determined by other people’s thinking?

            Price is what the producer thinks will serve him/her best (which is likely close to the products true freemarket value)

            It is what the producer values his own product – which is not at all what the true free market values it – it is what the producer is willing to take for his good – any thing less, he declines the deal – it is matters not one wit what the market place says.

            This is why a producer will stop producing. The value of his product is higher then the value seen by the consumer, thus, he will decline the deal – and cease production.

            . If I as a consumer agree that the price represents the products true value to me, I am free to buy the product.

            Actually, no, you don’t.

            You do not trade for something that is at your value at all!!

            Such a trade would be pointless – the trade would NOT improve you at all. You would give up as much of what you value to for something of the same value – it ends up as a “wash”, so why would you do it?

            It would be like exchange a $5 bill for a $5 bill

            You only trade for something that is of GREATER value then what you give up – and at the end of the trade, both parties end up with something they valued MORE then what they had before the trade.

            • A Puritan Descendant says:

              “The only thing a producer knows is how what value he places on his own products.”

              I sold products for far less than what I thought the value should be in the freemarket, simply to get into the marketplace. (In reality the products were of no use to me other than to be sold into the marketplace). I determined their approximate market value simply by seeing what other producers of the same product were able to price and make sales.

              I said [Printing more dollars (given a set quantity of products) lowers the value of ALL dollars because more dollars are chasing the same quantity of goods.]

              How can you determine my value change when you don’t know what value I held in the first place?

              I am not sure your meaning here. I don’t really care what value you as an individual put on my product(s). I only care what value the market puts on my products (unless you are the only game in town). If I can sell all I produce in a reasonable amount of time, then I have to assume my price represents the market value of my product and might be able to increase my price. If demand drops then maybe I need to lower my price or close up shop if I cannot make a living.

              I said [The value of a dollar is determined by all individuals in the free market place. Individualy but also as a whole].

              “How is something that is completely individual (values) can be determined by a whole (opposite of individuals)?”

              Taken together into the marketplace value can be closely determined. Again, I am not really concerned with each individual (unless one individual is my whole market). All individuals as a whole is what I am interested in as purchasers of my products. (See above too)

              I said [Producers will set prices based on the freemarket place. Individuals are free to reach their own dollar value determinations, but producers are also free to set prices, (representing his idea of value) as they wish, which would likely be the market demands for his product(s) as a whole.]

              What is a “price”? – as you said, what the producer values his own product. Why is his value on his product determined by what the market thinks?

              Are your values determined by other people’s thinking?

              Actually, in the marketplace if I value my product for more than what consumers value my product for, and price accordingly, I will likely go out of business. (unless I can force then to buy my product). Or maybe I have a business where I only need a few consumers to agree with my value of my product. ( Sell my Mansion to the one person in the world who agrees with my value/price.) Now individuals are more important.

              I said [Price is what the producer thinks will serve him/her best (which is likely close to the products true freemarket value)]

              “It is what the producer values his own product – which is not at all what the true free market values it – it is what the producer is willing to take for his good – any thing less, he declines the deal – it is matters not one wit what the market place says.
              This is why a producer will stop producing. The value of his product is higher then the value seen by the consumer, thus, he will decline the deal – and cease production.”

              He may do as you say. But how often is a producer going to ‘value’ his own product for more than what the freemarket is willing to pay? He may also value it high if his costs are high, but then he might never continue into the marketplace because he already knows his product is doomed.

              I said [If I as a consumer agree that the price represents the products true value to me, I am free to buy the product.]

              “Actually, no, you don’t.
              You do not trade for something that is at your value at all!!
              Such a trade would be pointless – the trade would NOT improve you at all. You would give up as much of what you value to for something of the same value – it ends up as a “wash”, so why would you do it?
              It would be like exchange a $5 bill for a $5 bill
              You only trade for something that is of GREATER value then what you give up – and at the end of the trade, both parties end up with something they valued MORE then what they had before the trade.”

              Ok, I will pay $4.99. 🙂

              • Puritan

                “The only thing a producer knows is how what value he places on his own products.”

                I sold products for far less than what I thought the value should be in the freemarket, simply to get into the marketplace.

                But you never executed a trade where you gave more value then you would get back.

                (In reality the products were of no use to me other than to be sold into the marketplace).

                Exactly. Your value of these products was very low.

                I determined their approximate market value simply by seeing what other producers of the same product were able to price and make sales.

                No doubt -….. you guessed — a perfectly valid entrepreneurial thing to do.

                I said [Printing more dollars (given a set quantity of products) lowers the value of ALL dollars because more dollars are chasing the same quantity of goods.]

                But why should that happen?
                How do the dollars know there is too many of them?
                How do the goods know there are too many dollars?
                How do the consumers know there are too many dollars?
                How do the producers know there are too many dollars?

                Taken together into the marketplace value can be closely determined.

                How?

                Actually, in the marketplace if I value my product for more than what consumers value my product for, and price accordingly, I will likely go out of business.

                Exactly.

                He may do as you say. But how often is a producer going to ‘value’ his own product for more than what the freemarket is willing to pay?

                95.5% of the time, in fact.

                Vastly much more products never get sold compared to those that do get sold

                We do not see this – because we buy only products that get sold …. right? A sale means it was sold.
                So we have a huge deficiency in our point of view – we only see the things we buy, and the products we buy – we do not see the things we do not buy nor the products that are not sold.

                He may also value it high if his costs are high, but then he might never continue into the marketplace because he already knows his product is doomed.

                Does he value his product higher because his costs are high?
                No, the costs have nothing to do with value.

                If you buy a Ferrari for $10, does that mean the Ferrari is worth – to you – just $10?? Probably not.

                Cost of his inputs do not create value in his product.
                What truly happens is that inputs that he values highly gives his product high value to him.

                Thus, when he replaces the hand-stitched leather seat with the cheaper plastic for the car, he values the car less with the cheaper seat because he valued the leather more then the plastic.

                If he replaced the expensive graphite hood with a cheaper brushed aluminum, he may value the car higher, because he values the brushed aluminum look better then the graphite hood. His costs do NOT determine the value.

                In other words, look at it the other way around. When he pays low dollars for something means he is unwilling to pay high dollars for it – which generally means he does not value it as high – which means he is also willing to part with it at a lower cost.

                In more words, it is not the costs that directly determine his price value – it merely is that those things he tends to buy cheap those things he does not value, and thus, changes the price for his product.

              • A Puritan Descendant says:

                “How”

                Example: I want to sell a 1957 Belair. I can compare on-line. It might take a while but I can come to some idea as to what to expect to get for the car. if it is to low for what I value the car then I will not sell or i will wait until someone agrees with my value of the car and buys it.
                Or i want to sell nursery trees, i see what others are charging in areas like mine….. on and on.

                There may be a difference between how much I value something and how much the marketplace may value the same thing. If I need to sell a lot of these ‘things’ into the marketplace then I need to know how much the marketplace as a whole values my ‘thing’ I have to sell. If I only have one of these things (1957 chevy) I may be able to afford to wait it out with a higher price reflecting my value of the car.

                I say [He may do as you say. But how often is a producer going to ‘value’ his own product for more than what the freemarket is willing to pay?]

                “95.5% of the time, in fact.
                Vastly much more products never get sold compared to those that do get sold
                We do not see this – because we buy only products that get sold …. right? A sale means it was sold.
                So we have a huge deficiency in our point of view – we only see the things we buy, and the products we buy – we do not see the things we do not buy nor the products that are not sold.”

                Agreed! I thought about it afterward and realised my error.
                As for the last of your post, i will absorb it later.

              • A Puritan Descendant says:

                Oooops missed the copy/paste on all this >

                I said [Printing more dollars (given a set quantity of products) lowers the value of ALL dollars because more dollars are chasing the same quantity of goods.]

                “But why should that happen?
                How do the dollars know there is too many of them?
                How do the goods know there are too many dollars?
                How do the consumers know there are too many dollars?
                How do the producers know there are too many dollars?”

                Ok, how do I explain?……. because I know this to be true? :-). Ok I try again…….
                All I can say at this point is that a freemarket will work it out over time, it just seems self evident to me. If producers see an increase in sales from the increase in dollars they will likely raise prices. However, if more production of new products happened at the same time as those newly printed dollars this inflation effect would likely not be seen. The new dollars would somewhere else to chase too. (maybe someone else can explain it better?)
                I said [Taken together into the marketplace value can be closely determined.]

              • Puritan,

                “How”
                Example: I want to sell a 1957 Belair. I can compare on-line. It might take a while but I can come to some idea as to what to expect to get for the car. if it is to low for what I value the car then I will not sell or i will wait until someone agrees with my value of the car and buys it.
                Or i want to sell nursery trees, i see what others are charging in areas like mine….. on and on.

                You are merely describing a technique, but not explaining the “how” or the “why”.

                You are like asking Gretz how he scored goals … response “I shoot the puck”.

                No, that does not solve the problem.

                Let me help you understand yourself:

                You have a Belair that you no longer value as high as something else you want.

                So you want to trade the Belair for that something else. Why else would you want to sell it?
                (PS: I do not need to know what this something else is for me to know this – the fact you are selling something means you want something else, and that this new want is GREATER then the want of the Belair – or you wouldn’t be selling).

                Your value for the Belair is very low.
                The thing you want you value very high.

                You develop a strategy – you want to sell your low value Belair at a price that is near the cost of the thing you really want!
                Good strategy, I’d say – let someone else’s value for your goods buy the thing you value of other people’s goods!

                But do not confuse a strategy to be something fundamental in economic theory – there are many other strategies here.

                So your value of your Belair is way down here – the value of the new thing is way up here, but you want to price your Belair as close to your value of the new thing.

                To see how much you “can get away with” in closing that gap, you did research on what generally other people appear to value their Belair’s – and reviewed this information from all different areas, locations, geography and styles. You find there are collectors, looking for specific Belair’s — and will pay an exorbitant price – and kids looking for the first car, whose choices of a car is far less defined – and unwilling to pay much.

                With all that info – you make an informed guess, making tradeoffs between closing your value gap and the time you will have to wait in making that trade. Your time preference here matters – a bird in hand is better than 10 in a bush.

                But what you will not do is sell that Belair at a price LOWER than what you value it – even if you value it low, it is not zero.

  35. A Puritan Descendant says:

    This ‘intrinsic’ value of a dollar in currency I speak of (yes, intrinsic may not be the best choice of words). is changable as conditions change (quantity of money or products…)

    The free trade market will tend to establish a stable price for products over time IF quantities of money and products were to remain stable. However, the market is always changing so the free market will always be in adjustment. But this free market based on freemen followed by capital production and then free trade will constantly redetermine pricing levels. NOT some clown in a suit!

  36. I suppose we could fix the border issue in the country by the feds seizing a 10 mile wide stretch along the border (using eminent domain) and clear it of all human habitation (all towns and cities will have to be demolished and the residents will have to leave). We could then bring home the military and put all of them on duty securing/patrolling this zone with shoot to kill orders on anyone found in the zone.

    Bet you could stop them illegals then once and for all.

    All in favor of this plan…..comment with “aye”

  37. A Puritan Descendant says:

    BF, do I get another “Black Flag Gold Star” 🙂 Or should I give you back the first one? 😦 🙂

    • NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO..I’ve never seen one given out. Keep it. It’s BLACK GOLD! 🙂

    • Puritan,

      You are doing fine.
      Do not get frustrated as your economic theories get flushed out.
      You are hypothesizing about how you think “the world works” – and as tests are applied, and you find yourr theory is wanting, you go back, think again, and hypothesize again.

      You will not get the right answer the first time out – guaranteed.

      It took Mises 20 years, and he didn’t get it all right either.
      It took Hayek 25 years to fix some of Mises work, and he didn’t get it all right either.
      It took Rothbard 30 years to fix Mises and Hayak’s work, and though he got a whole lot of it really really close to right, I do not think he got it all right either…..and so on.

      But you have a few good premises (and a few lousy ones 🙂 ) but you’re off to a better start then, say, Keynes 😉

      • A Puritan Descendant says:

        I responded to your last post. only took me an hour and I have a headache now. later gotta run, and it has been fun! 😉

  38. Ain’t that a bitch! Good game Bucky! Go get em………

  39. BF

    BF: “We have a right to exercise our own will. Even biblically this is shown: the gift God gave men and not even to angels was free will”

    True

    BECAUSE we exist and BECAUSE we have a Natural Law right to maintain our existence, according to our nature.

    This is the natural law that leads to the right of free will, which leads to the right to live free of imposition.

    • JAC,

      I think they are the same thing – one cannot maintain his existence without action.

      “Man wait long time for cooked chicken to fly into mouth”

      The right to act – free will – is a necessary condition, without such, you cannot exist.

  40. Puritan

    I said [Printing more dollars (given a set quantity of products) lowers the value of ALL dollars because more dollars are chasing the same quantity of goods.]

    “But why should that happen?
    How do the dollars know there is too many of them?
    How do the goods know there are too many dollars?
    How do the consumers know there are too many dollars?
    How do the producers know there are too many dollars?”

    .
    All I can say at this point is that a freemarket will work it out over time, it just seems self evident to me.

    “A rock falls – all I can say is God is at work – this seems self-evident to me”

    Observing a condition in nature is NOT the same as understanding that condition in nature.

    Stopping at merely the observation does not give you a clue to understanding why a rock falls – and it is that understanding of why a rock falls then leads you to understanding why planets orbit, which leads to you to understand why you can launch space satellites, so on and so forth.

    It is here that your entire economic theory rests – your theory of money.

    If producers see an increase in sales from the increase in dollars they will likely raise prices.

    No, we have been over this before.
    I have already provided extensive examples that demonstrate the fallacy of this understanding.

    An increase in sales IS NOT THE CAUSE of a price increase…therefore, there is a far more fundamental process then merely observing “sales”

    Here, I’ll help:
    Shortages cause a price increase
    Oversupply causes a price decrease

    Note: NEITHER of these conditions hold any necessity of “sales” increasing or decreasing.

    The observation on sales can be wholly independent:
    – that there may be shortages and the sales goes down and prices goes up.
    – that there may be shortages and the sales goes up and prices goes up.
    – there is oversupply and sales goes down and prices goes down.
    – there is oversupply and sales goes up and prices goes down.

    Can you think of times and products that have experienced each one of these circumstances?

    However, if more production of new products happened at the same time as those newly printed dollars this inflation effect would likely not be seen.

    This is not true either.
    You hold, here, a fallacy to believe that merely the existence of new products influences price. It does not.

    Case in point:
    Does the arrival of a competitor to Coke-Cola decrease the selling price of a can of Coke?
    No, it does not.

    There is a different fundamental process by which new products influences prices of old products. The mere existence of new products does not cause this.

    When we discover this, we will find that this necessary fundamental process is also independent of the existence or lack of existence of new products though the creation of new products does tend to trigger this fundamental process! – which is why so many miss the fundamental process – they stop at the creation of new products believing it is the trigger, and fail to peak under the covers to see what is really going on.

    So, this is an important part of any economic theory – the “Puritan’s Theory of Money” – and you in your own “pet” theory have stumbled upon it for yourself.

    We will concentrate here to clarify things – moving beyond this before we nail this down will complete confuse any economic understanding for any theory, so it is worthless to dialogue on other parts of your economic theory until this one is hashed through.

    Mises concentrated his work here – the Theory of Money – and he succeeded in providing a comprehensive and consistent view of money in an economy. From this groundwork, incredible economic understanding grows.

    Keynes concentrated his work here – he wrote “A Treatise on Money” and “The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money” – and he succeeded in providing an incomprehensible mess, inconsistent, and fractured with baseless assumptions and basic misunderstandings. From this groundwork, incredible economic disasters grow.

    As you can sense, it is here that makes or breaks economic theory.
    Here, we will work on yours, too.

    • A Puritan Descendant says:

      “An increase in sales IS NOT THE CAUSE of a price increase”

      Ok, but as I said [If producers see an increase in sales FROM THE INCREASE IN DOLLARS they will likely raise prices.]

      “……………..Case in point:
      Does the arrival of a competitor to Coke-Cola decrease the selling price of a can of Coke?
      No, it does not.”

      Good point, I have more to think about.

      “There is a different fundamental process by which new products influences prices of old products. The mere existence of new products does not cause this.
      When we discover this, we will find that this necessary fundamental process is also independent of the existence or lack of existence of new products though the creation of new products does tend to trigger this fundamental process! – which is why so many miss the fundamental process – they stop at the creation of new products believing it is the trigger, and fail to peak under the covers to see what is really going on.
      So, this is an important part of any economic theory – the “Puritan’s Theory of Money” – and you in your own “pet” theory have stumbled upon it for yourself.
      We will concentrate here to clarify things – moving beyond this before we nail this down will complete confuse any economic understanding for any theory, so it is worthless to dialogue on other parts of your economic theory until this one is hashed through”

      Ok, I am all ears (eyes) and happy to learn more. And what have I stumbled upon?

      • Puritan

        Ok, but as I said [If producers see an increase in sales FROM THE INCREASE IN DOLLARS they will likely raise prices.]

        But, once again, you are making an assumption.

        How does a producer know the increase in sales is due to an increase in the money supply?

        In other words, how does he know the difference of his sales increase from
        (1) increase in money supply
        (2) consumers like his price/value

        What tells him the difference?

        Ok, I am all ears (eyes) and happy to learn more. And what have I stumbled upon?

        That a comprehensive theory of money underlies all economic understanding.

        • Puritan,

          PS: It is this question posted here that founded Mises’ theory on the “Business Cycle”…. I will be interested to see if you can equal Mises 🙂 (I think you can).

        • A Puritan Descendant says:

          “How does a producer know the increase in sales is due to an increase in the money supply?

          In other words, how does he know the difference of his sales increase from
          (1) increase in money supply
          (2) consumers like his price/value
          What tells him the difference?”

          By observation. If other businesses are booming too and especially if it has made the news of a monetary increase. If a “Sears” store sees all products begin flying off the shelves, I think Sears would take notice. If may want to increase their prices because Sears own purchases/costs will likely increase too with the increase in money being put into currency.

          If it is just that consumers like a producers price/value of specific products or even all the producers products it should become apparent. Heck, people would comment “what a great deal”……….

          “That a comprehensive theory of money underlies all economic understanding.”

          Ok, I saved that website of a book you recommended. just hagvn’t gotten around to ordering it yet http://www.amazon.com/Economics-One-Lesson-Shortest-Understand/dp/0517548232

          • Puritan

            What tells him the difference?”

            By observation. If other businesses are booming too and especially if it has made the news of a monetary increase.

            You have a few, unproven, assumptions.

            How does “anyone” know there has been a monetary increase? Does the mere manufacture of money must mean an increase in prices?

            If the shoe sales are booming and my computer sales are booming, why does that mean the manufacture of money has increased?

            If a “Sears” store sees all products begin flying off the shelves, I think Sears would take notice.

            Yes, they would – but that could mean they have a sale on, too.
            Or perhaps a natural disaster – like a hurricane – is approaching.

            But what – independent of requiring but another assumption on a source of information tells you that the money supply has increased?

            You are requiring an expansion of assumptions to establish your monetary theory faster than you are dispensing with assumptions through theory….. you are inflating the assumption supply at unprecedented levels 😉

            If may want to increase their prices because Sears own purchases/costs will likely increase too with the increase in money being put into currency.

            But how do they know such an increase in money has occurred?

            • A Puritan Descendant says:

              Ok, you do not accept my assumptions… 🙂

              “But what – independent of requiring but another assumption on a source of information tells you that the money supply has increased?”

              You have me baffled here. maybe you are looking for the word “inflation” but I already said that in different words.
              You can tell me, I won’t be offended 😉

              • Puritan

                Ok, you do not accept my assumptions… 🙂

                Not true – I am asking for validation of them.

                The roots

                You claim prices go up because the money supply goes up.
                I ask for the mechanism.
                You claim the mechanism is “observation”.
                I ask observing what.
                You claim seeing the money supply.
                I ask how do “see” the money supply.
                You claim by “seeing prices go up”.

                A nice circle of no information.

                The breakout:
                “How does a business man tell the difference between his increase in sales of his good from:
                (1) inflation
                (2) increase demand for his product.

              • A Puritan Descendant says:

                “The breakout:
                “How does a business man tell the difference between his increase in sales of his good from:
                (1) inflation
                (2) increase demand for his product.”

                Sorry, I am unable to answer you any better than I already have. It is time for my nap.

              • Puritan

                Ok, I’ll help you out a bit here.

                The answer is:
                “He can’t”

                There is no way to tell the difference.

                You are sitting in a black box – and the only info that is coming to you is -as you put it – product is flying off the shelf.

                Since you are in business to provide product that flies off the shelf, the only real conclusion you can offer is “people like my product”, to which your answer is “I need to make more of that product”.

                So far so good?

              • Puritan,

                So, moving forward.

                Product is flying off the shelf because there is more money running around in the economy – we agree.

                However, the point I think you missed is that the money retains the same value when the money has been recently manufactured.

                A dollar buys an apple.
                I, as the manufacturer of money, print a dollar.
                I can buy that apple for a dollar right now.
                I get that apple for my newly manufactured dollar and eat it.

                Now, there is an extra dollar in the economy, and the apple guy has more money in his pocket.
                A dollar can buy a candy bar.
                So the apple guy buys an extra candy bar that he couldn’t buy yesterday.

                The candy bar guy has an extra buck, so he buys more of what he couldn’t buy yesterday and so on and so forth.

                Prices have not changed (-yet). Why not?

              • A Puritan Descendant says:

                Prices have not changed (-yet). Why not?
                Because no one is aware there is a new dollar in the marketplace.

              • Puritan

                no one is aware there is a new dollar in the marketplace

                How can they become aware?
                You answered: by the increase in demand of goods (as you said -product flying off the shelf).

                But we have established already that an increase in sales does not give information about increase in money supply as it cannot be differentiated from an increase in “legitimate” demand of the product.

                Thus we have already established that there is no way from a producer to know to raise his prices because of an increase in the money supply.

                So let’s try not do this loop again.

                So, I’ll help.

                With the increase in the money supply, the apple seller found people were buying more of his apples because they had more money (by the manufacture of money), and the apple seller also bought more goods with the proceeds of his sales, and so on.

                But there has not been an increase in production of goods and services, but merely the manufacture of more money into the market. Thus with an increase in consumption within a market with no increase in production CREATES SHORTAGES of goods.

                This is the mechanism of the price increase due to inflation –
                the appearance of shortages in the market place causes prices to go up – in alignment with economic law “decrease in supply = increase in price”.

                Because there was no increase in production of goods, the “net goods” in the market did not change.
                But with the influx of new money, more goods are bought and consumed.
                If there is an increase of consumption in a market that has not increased its production, there will be shortages.
                It is these shortages that cause prices to rise.

                As the expanded consumption rippled through the market place,
                so then does the expanding consumption ripple through the market place,
                so then does the expanding shortages ripple through the market place,
                so then does the increasing prices ripple through the market place.

                This repeat of rippling also explains why there exists a time differential between the manufacture of money and the consequence of inflation – to the benefit of all those that are closer in the marketplace to the manufacturer of money. The further away a producer is from the manufacturer of money, the more impact of inflation…. and the furthest entity away from the manufacturer of money is the consumer.

              • A Puritan Descendant says:

                “Since you are in business to provide product that flies off the shelf, the only real conclusion you can offer is “people like my product”, to which your answer is “I need to make more of that product”.”

                ok i am thinking here………

                I wonder why they like my product(s) more lately than last week?
                If I make more of that product, that should be a good thing, so printing money is a good thing, and I am now a keynes supporter, 🙂 just kidding.

              • Arg…
                As the expanded MONEY supply rippled through the market place,
                so then does the expanding consumption ripple through the market place,
                so then does the expanding shortages ripple through the market place,
                so then does the increasing prices ripple through the market place.

              • A Puritan Descendant says:

                ” an increase in consumption within a market with no increase in production CREATES SHORTAGES of goods.” and everything else you wrote on that post……
                I knew that, (and I think you knew i knew that) but i was unable to spit it out so easily. ( I sometimes watch FoxNews)

                Well done Sir!

            • Puritan

              I wonder why they like my product(s) more lately than last week?
              If I make more of that product, that should be a good thing, so printing money is a good thing, and I am now a keynes supporter, 🙂 just kidding.

              Do not be so glib – you have hit exactly why Keynesian economics has such a tight hold on the economic thinking.

              As above, inflationary creation of money increases consumption and demand and EXACTLY AS YOU SAID – “you wonder why the like your goods so much more now” …. so you go into building more factories and more stores and hiring more people because you believe it is due to an increase in the PRODUCTIVITY of the economy.

              But it is not – you have been lied to.

              It is due to the manufacture of new money -there has been no increase in productivity. Suddenly, instead of getting a return of goods in exchange of your goods, you face shortages and price increases due to these shortages.

              You can’t afford the price increases, you shut your factories, and fire workers…..

              This is exactly Boom/Crack-up Business cycle that Mises said would be the consequences of such inflationary tactics – and it is exactly what we see in our modern economy.

              – a short term “boom” time of low unemployment, high consumption and business expansion, followed by shortages, price increases, inflation and a recession wreaked with high unemployment and business failures and closures.

              But because the the gross time differential between action and consequences, the economically illiterate masses cannot understand this – and in their recession, demand more manufacture of money … a demand of more of the very force that has impaled them and threatens their prosperity.

              • A Puritan Descendant says:

                Wonderfully said!
                See, you wasted some time with me ( I can be thicker than a fortified brick). Now you are clicking and I am lapping it up!

              • Puritan,

                You are not thicker than a brick – economics is not a physical science – there is no experiment one can run to test theory.
                It is praxalogical – study of human action – and then apply hypothesis and theory to the observation of human action and the consequence.

                All of this takes a lot of thinking and observation – years and years.

                Further, I find the best way to understand things is to figure it out for yourself.

                You did the work – I merely nudged here and there to help you over a couple of hurdles that you would have gotten over eventually anyway. I merely sped you over them a bit faster. Saved you 5 or 6 years of thinking….. 😉

  41. T-Ray,

    I moved us down here for my initial reply. On reading your latest comments I was cruising right along until I ran over the stop sticks you thre out.

    H. The children of the illegal feel like second class citizens since their parents are always in the shadows so they act out by joining gangs and conducting other criminal activity thus increasing our policing costs and jail populations. Same for young illegals that come here.

    Considering the number of years I worked on a gang team with the Sheriff’s Office I can clearly say – “WTH?” This is a claim I would quickly say you need to prove with supporting evidence.

    I. The illegal drives on our roads without driver’s licenses or insurance thus forcing legals to buy uninsured motorist protection (another expense out of my pocket). When stopped by authorities, they are frequently released since ICE will not do anything so why waste the officer’s time. Dare I suggest that legals are treated differently if stopped without a license or insurance?

    Another claim I would ask you provide evidence for. There are just as many non-illegals (as in legal residents and citizens) who are a large part of the problem. I also take issue that they are frequently released because ICE doesn’t want them. I booked an awful lot of illegals into the jail system for a variety of minor offenses irregardless of the status that ICE was going to exercise over them.

    As to some other aspects of the comment you made, I’m giving them some thoughts.

    • Plainly

      I have no specific gang data to support this just what I have heard over the last dozen years here in CA. Gangs are a big problem out here not just the Chicanos but also the Asian and others. I will defer to experience though.

      On driver’s licenses, many CA law enforcement agencies are now accepting matricula consular cards as ID. These individuals are cited and then allowed to proceed without a DI or insurance. Also remember we have many asylum cities in CA that do not enforce immigration laws even for felons. Gavin Newsom after being elected Lt Gov. finally admitted his asylum law in SF was a problem. The general word on the street here (hearsay) is that nothing happens to unlicensed, uninsured drivers if they immigrants. Once again I will defer to those who have experience. Unfortunately I do not know anyone locally in law enforcement that can give me a straight answer on the subject.

      http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_19410481

      From your note above, I was not aware of the FDA approved a THC drug. That makes the whole medical pot story different. I wonder why it is not publicised here in CA when discussion of MedPot come up. Like you I feel the MedPot scene has been coopted by the pleasure crowd and now by criminal elements. The Feds are cracking down and trying to close up some of the pot shops. So there is quite a bit of termoil out here on the subject. Police are advising growers to hide their gardens behind fences but that only works for a while untii the crooks find them and hop the fence.

      I appreciate the comments by you, D13 and others on this topic. I would like to see it continue to the point that we can form a workable solution. There is so much emotion built into this topic. One needs to tip toe through the minefield to find a workable solution that statisfies a majority. Maybe we should to a rewind and first write down a set of agreeable objectives that any legislation should include first. We have the hell no NO Amnisty now or ever, ship them home crowd and the open the gates and give them citizenship so they can vote for me now crowd.

      • T-Ray,

        Let me say that I believe this has been good conversation on the issue and I too would like to see it continue.

        I do not dispute there are gang members who are the kids of illegals, but it is a wider issue than that. There isn’t one race or ethnic group that doesn’t have some in gangs. The problem with the more blanket statement you made is that we make it an unsupportable argument to be used in a specific issue – like immigration. It is imperative that we maintain an honest picture of the truth or we end up no better than the two extremes and get no where as we demonize the immigrants and refuse to move off the base demands.

        I can’t excuse the behaviors of the sanctuary cities – that is a local issue that the state could fix if they chose to – but politically in CA it won’t happen. Those agencies may overlook their responsibilities to equally and fairly enforce the law, giving ammunition for the anti-immigration extremists to use in their arguments. I remember the fight over Prop 187 back in the early 90’s (I personally voted against it because of the blatant unconstitutionality of portions of it), the images of immigrants portrayed by either side was so outrageous it wasn’t funny. All that manages to be accomplished is the maintaining of continual roadblocks to any reform.

        As to the THC based drug – I can understand why the pro crowd doesn’t speak of it…….wouldn’t help their cause at all. It’s the same here in Colorado. If it weren’t for my RN wife who told me of it I wouldn’t have known from reading either sides position in the legalization fights occurring in Colorado.

        • T-Ray,

          To comment on some of the other statements in your last big post.

          The cost to our governments (all levels) for the presence of illegal immigrants has been estimated to be $113B/yr. Spread over 330M residence of the US, results in an individual cost to every American of $342. For my household of two that is $684. So yes illegal immigration impacts every single resident of this country.

          A. The illegal crosses our border in the dead of night to avoid detection

          Seriously, this makes sense if you’re trying to avoid being caught I suppose. I’m sure in this country they are not the only ones acting at night to avoid detection. 😉

          B. The illegal purchases forged documents to obtain work

          Now, when I see this I say, hmmmmm…..how does this fit with your #E? If they present false papers to the employer (and lie to them – which I grant they’ll be doing), to get work (and even if the employer suspects the documents are false they can point to them and say they had no idea that person was an illegal worker), then the employer is going to be sending in the appropriately withheld taxes (FICA, Medicare, Income) under that SSAN to the government. So, the illegals are paying some taxes then, no?

          C. The illegal lies to any potential employer about his work status

          See #B.

          D. The illegal enters a business (ER), requests services, then leaves without paying

          Yes, I’ll agree this happens. But so do a lot of other people who are here legally, or are US citizens. It is a more widespread problem than just illegal immigrants.

          E. The illegal receives cash payment for labor that is not taxed or recorded by government

          Which I believe does happen to some degree, but also see #B above. I would also like to state that my wife and I have a friend who divorced her abusive husband and now struggles to raise their child alone, without support from her ex. He isn’t required to pay suppoprt because he has no employment – his work is paid for under the table. He is white and was born here. So, this – like many of the points raised – isn’t restricted to the illegals only.

          F. The illegal comes across the border to birth babies here for the sole purpose of creating a US citizen hence an anchor. Once established in this country, more anchor babies are created

          I don’t deny this happens, and we know how it has to be fixed.

          G. The illegal applies for welfare services and often gets that service because of his non-reported income

          I won’t argue this happens. They aren’t the only ones taking advantage of the system either. It screams at us for reform of the welfare system.

          Our welfare system and overreaching, overspending government are separate issues that need to be dealt with as well. We can deal with them better if we are a united country with a single society and culture.

          Lets be honest and acknowledge that this country will not be a nation of one culture, our society wasn’t set up that way and to do so goes against too many of our freedoms and rights.

          If we allow the bifurcation to continue, we also increase the risk of Aztlan becoming a real movement beyond its current minor status. At our current pace I give it about 40 years before a separatist movement will petition the UN for a vote to split off the southwest and form a new country with Mexico. The result will be bloodshed.

          You mean like a second civil war to prevent succession of any portion of the US? Heck, don’t tell the white supremacists – it might give them ideas too.

        • I’ll look these over – hopefully tonight.

          I will say that I have been reading (since last evening) a report published by FAIR called, “The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on
          United States Taxpayers” (sorry, I don’t have the link handy at the moment). While it is heavy on numbers, I can say I have a problem with the whole thing, they constantly “estimate” the numbers/percentages of illegals with no explanations at how they realistically reached those numbers/percentages.

          I could easily do the same and skew their money totals in the complete opposite direction. So, be aware I will have a lot of skepticism on the information in the links you provided if there is that kind of guess work going on. 🙂

  42. A Puritan Descendant says:

    “Saved you 5 or 6 years of thinking…..” 🙂 🙂 🙂 Just might be true!!!
    Another question for you BF……… Don’t you think that with todays information technology, an astute businessman (or maybe even a fool) could more easily see what is really happening when money is printed and products fly off the shelves? It is no longer as it was 30 or more years ago when a businessman/producer really was in a black box………….

    • Puritan

      Yes – just as we have done, we now use our intellect of cause/effect plus our economic theory to predict the eventual outcomes.

      We then can decide on present actions we can do to prepare and perhaps prosper from knowing what will happen in the future

      The key is to understand “why”, and understand the mechanics of the “why”.

      Then we can apply a bit of action to take advantage of it.

      This is where much of my “Black Flag Suggestions” comes from such as buying gold and dumping 401K’s, etc.

      Also realize, however, that “astute” businessmen are rare – few and far between – and even more rare of the type that will actually risk action today to take advantage promise in the future based on some wacky “theory of money”.

      This is also why there now exists “carry trade” – profits earned by buying money in one currency and selling money in another currency. Such a thing could not exist unless inflationary Keynesian economics dominated. A few men figured out how to profit – a fraction of a percent but multiplied by huge volumes – by getting as close to the manufacture and distribution of new money as possible, and scoping up the eventual differentials as the new money ripples through economies.

      All sorts of derivatives exist to profit from or mitigate the losses of inflationary money expansion. Most of them are out of our peon reach – reserved for only the super-wealthy (for “our own protection”).

      But we can be astute in our own little way – such as buying and storing long term goods, or investing in real assets, etc.

      • We can also take advantage of “boom” cycles – knowing that there will be an increase in consumption of all sorts of products, including labor.

        When that happens, this is when we sell our gold and convert into currency – and begin acquiring goods like crazy – a sort of “ride the wave” economics. The only difference from the economically illiterate is we know why it is happening and know when to get off the wave.

  43. Colonel and T-Ray,

    Check out this story http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/americas/arrests-of-illegal-migrants-on-us-mexico-border-plummet/2011/12/02/gIQA6Op8PO_story.html

    it’s about the flow of illegals into the US. I’m not interested in the “pat us on the back” government position etc., but the idea of your opinions if this provides an opportune time to begin reform of the laws, policies, procedures for entry into the US that the article has suggested?

    • There is never a time like now to solve a long standing problem. Delay always makes the problem worse. Had we tackled this problem, drilled for oil, fixed the mortgage and banking mess and stopped the out of control spending 10 years ago we would not be in this mess. I am not sure I believe all the numbers. I have heard it reported that crossings were down and some had left voluntarily. Most of that I suspect is due to the economy. Some may be due to the fences, manpower and technology. D13 would be a better resource for that. The primary failure of the ’86 amnesty legislation was that the enforcement part was never properly funded or implemented. That is why border security must come first this time or no one will believe that it is for real.

      • I think, no disrespect intended to him, that the Colonel can speak strongly about Texas, but this issue requires a wider view than a single state – wouldn’t you agree?

        I do believe the economy has had quite an impact too, along with toughened enforcement by the state authorities in Texas, etc. But, as you point out – is there a better time before we see a potential resurgence in the numbers as (if/when) the economy gets stronger and grows back towards what it was?

        You have a strong point about the failure of the 86 reform. Unfortunately politics reared it’s head and – like so many works of law – made a joke of it all.

  44. Whew! 12-0!

  45. Mathius™ says:

    Black Flag,

    Mathius

    Can you explain your assignment again?

    (1)Accurately articulate the natural law in question
    (2)Apply the law -not with your opinion of my application but specifically in a manner that you believe.
    (3)Do it slowly, because you have a tendency to got A to B to C to J to K to D to F to Q to Z arguments, and end up in left field.

    1. I asked YOU to articulate the natural law from which human rights derive. It was your homework, not mine. And you came up with the golden rule. If, now, it’s my assignment, I would to say that I don’t know, hence why I asked you for your – to try it on for size.
    2. I can’t. I haven’t figured step A out yet, but if we accept your version of step A, then we get some funky results which you have not explained.
    3. This is not untrue. So why don’t you help me by answering my question: where does your statement of Natural Law distinguish between human and non-human actors?

    • Mathius™ says:

      I’ve been thinking it over.

      The only Natural Law which seems to exist in nature and the universe at large its this: Might makes right.

      Lions eat gazelles.. because they can. And this is natural. And there is nothing wrong with it.

      Humans eat cows… because they can. And this is natural. And there is nothing wrong with it. And they’re delicious.

      Velociraptors eat humans.. because they can. And this is natural. And there is nothing wrong with it.

      All “human morality” seems to be a veneer of civilization we’ve placed on top of this law to keep ourselves from acting out our animal nature – in short, it facilitates cooperative societies which gives us a competitive advantage against other animals (humans included) and other societies. (no society could exist where we freely permit murder, so we proscribe it as immoral in order to preserve civilization).

      In this view, there are no true human rights beyond “I can do whatever I am able to do, and I can stop whatever I am able to stop.” By banding together, then collectively administrating the “human rights” necessary to form a cohesive society, humans are using violence and the threat of violence (under the banner of might-makes-right) and a shared sense of right-and-wrong (under the banner of “morality”) in order to establish a society where the individuals in that society have the highest probability of survival, genetic perpetuity, security, and stability. Only by trusting your fellow members of society, feeling safe, feeling stable, et cetera, can you actually cooperate to grow crows, raise cattle, run businesses, open a pub, drill for oil, or otherwise have a productive society. If you don’t have these “rules” in place, then every human is a threat and society collapses, therefore trade is nearly impossible and we are reduced back to hunter-gatherers.

      … And let the games begin! (busy day though, so I will only be stopping in occasionally)

      😀

      • Mathius

        I would say you have a lot of it correct, although your arguments are very fuzzy and some are flawed. I will address those later.

        But you missed the very first step. Might is right is NOT the Natural Law. It is in fact one of many rules governing action. But it is the NEED to ACT that is the basic LAW.

        Second is the need that each entity act according to its nature. Thus again Natural Law. Humans have a capacity others living organisms do not. It is this capacity, our nature, that leads to the discovery of “rights” at a basic level.

        So we do not “overcome” a natural law of “might is right”. We recognize that “might is right” does NOT APPLY to HUMANS. Because it violates the Natural Law applicable to HUMANS.

        My solution will lead you to the same place but the how you get there is critical. Because if “might is right” is in fact the base natural law, then any human can make a rationale argument that civilization is contrary to natural law and thus we MUST return to what is “NATURAL”.

        • Mathius™ says:

          I’ll mull that over when I have time (starting Red Bull #3, and counting).

          So we do not “overcome” a natural law of “might is right” I do not think we are overcoming it, so much as applying it in a constructive way. I would suggest that civilization, like all technologies, exponentially increases the abilities of humans. As such, banding together into a civilization increase the “might” of the individuals in that civilization, thus they are acting in their best interests.

          But it is the NEED to ACT that is the basic LAW. Can you expand on this?

          • Mathius

            MY ERROR.

            The need to act is not THE basic law.

            If you are trying to identify A SINGLE basic NATURAL LAW that is applicable to ALL things then it must be the law of IDENTITY.

            The “need to act” is applicable to some things but not all. But it IS subject to the law of IDENTITY.

            This will eventually lead you the point you were arguing with BF. We have HUMAN rights because we are HUMAN.

            Before you go further I suggest you try to establish a definition of Right.

          • Mathius

            P.S. I am going to move over to the new Open Mic.

            So I ask that you join us there.

      • Interesting points, my friend. One question……you said ” can you actually cooperate to grow crows”

        Good commodity? We usually shoot them……jus’ wondering.

  46. @ Plainly……no disrespect taken whatsoever. I can only speak intelligently about Texas and New Mexico, since they have asked us to help them set up the same thing there. There are a couple of points to be made to both you and T Ray.

    1). ICE no longer accepts nor deports illegal immigrants from any nation UNLESS they were involved in felony activity at the time of arrest or unless they have a known criminal record. This is a change that was implemented last year. Example, if we catch a “coyote” leading a group of illegals across the border 20 miles outside of town, ICE will not come and pick them up. We are to detain the “coyote” and do what we want with the others. So, we get what identification we can on the spot, finger print them, run the prints through a satellite hookup to verify that they are not wanted previously in the United States or Interpol (Interpol because it is not only Hispanics we catch), notify and document that we called ICE and their response, check them for snake bite, scorpion stings, cactus projectiles, etc, escort them back to the same spot that they crossed and make them cross the river into Mexico, and we are done. The impact that this has is that we do not take them into the nearest town and turn them loose or jail them unless their prints show up. The word is getting around that if caught, they are turned loose in what is called the frontier and that is usually not a very good thing. They are miles and miles from any civilization on the Mexico side without ample food and water. This is a great deterrent. The only exceptions we make are visibly sick or snake bite reaction. This is because of the governments refusal to pick them up anymore. It is fact. We do not have the resources to do the government’s job so we do the next best thing. The end result…….they are going more to California and Arizona…..mainly California because of the sanctuary cities. They do not want to be left in the frontier. We do not make exceptions for women and children. If they are able to walk and not sick or snake bit….they go back across the river in the frontier. Once in Mexico, it is a Mexico problem. Cold heart? Maybe…..but it works and that is the way of the frontier.

    2) The economy in Texas really does not have much to do with the less flow from Mexico. Texas has a robust economy, especially in the lower wage area…..but we are finding that once people get off unemployment, those 8-15 dollar an hour jobs are being taken by citizens. Isn’t that amazing? Let unemployment and food stamps expire……jobs get taken by citizens…….what a novel concept. The other issue that is overlooked in the numbers…….the Obama Administration knows how to manipulate the numbers….(.ie….don’t arrest and the numbers fall.).The same way they manipulate the unemployment numbers. They show an 8,7% U/E based on the fact of low unemployment applications…whereas….it does not take into consideration those who just quit looking and whose U/E has run out. The same applies to border arrests and deportations…..they change the rules and affect the numbers. You, especially, knows how the L/E administration works to show arrest numbers. The L/E that works in the field knows the real score just as we do on the border. I can guarantee that the lower numbers in Texas is not due to the economy nor the Feds but they will do their best to take credit for it. I might add, that fences are not the answer…..boots on the ground are the best. Along with some really great technology and our ranchers.

    3) Gangs……..this is a sticky wicket. We are finding that the gangs on the US side are quite different than the gangs on the Mexico side. Usually, the illegal child is used as a “mule”. ( I am sure you are used to that term). What this means is that the illegal child is approached by a gang member on the US side and told that if they do not work for them, their parents will be turned into immigration. If the illegal child is a female aged 13 or greater, she becomes a “mama” or a “puta”. If it is a male, they are the mules…… unarmed. We have found that the normal gang member on the US side at the border is usually a citizen OR is here legally. They recruit by brutality from the schools. If the “mule” is fortunate enough to run marijuana, he usually lives. If the “mule” is unfortunate enough to run “coke” or “hero” and the street value is a million dollars or more, he is usually killed to prevent identification. It matters not the age. The cartels and the gangs are brutal. Killing a 6 year old is simple and life means nothing………until you water board a gang member. Wait, I cannot say that. Disregard, please. We would never do such a thing. What we are beginning to see, however, on the US side is the increased violence that is happening at a function called La Quinceañera. This is the equivalent of a “sweet 16” or Debutante party. It is very important to the Hispanic culture. It is the coming out or the budding of womanhood. Don’t want your daughter raped before La Quinceañera…..it will cost you $10,000. Refuse to pay it…..you figure out the rest;

    The gangs that operate in Mexico do so under the watchful eye of the Mexican Government which is under the watchful eye of the Cartels. You have read the reports of the killings at Weddings, funerals, picnics, and schools. I do not need to elaborate.

    In closing, as Plainly knows, there are great differences in the facts and figures reported than what is on the street. The same applies, greater fold, on the “frontier”…..known as the border. The border is nasty and it is mean. It shows and takes no quarter. It is not civilized. The “behind the scenes” mantra is deadly. Miranda means nothing here. White flags of peace means nothing. It is lawless and it is threatening. It is violent. If any of you know people that live on the river on the US side……ask them about playing in the parks. Ask them how many gunshots they hear at night. Ask them how many spent bullets go through windows or hit cars. Ask them about going to movies. Ask then about schools. Next,ask the mayors of Laredo, Eagle Pass, and McAllen, Texas why the population is moving. Ask the vendors on the Mexican side where the tourists have gone. Ask the anglers at Del Rio why it is necessary to carry weapons while bass fishing on the US side. Ask the hunters why they get written warnings from the Big Bend Parks Department that hunting is at your own risk and to be aware of the smugglers. Ask the campers in Big Bend why the Sheriff and the Parks Department advises to go armed when camping on the US side. This is a different world than it used to be. When fighting rats…….you have to be a rat.

  47. Hey guys-there is a brand new open mic page-Could we move any ongoing conversation over there? Please 🙂

%d bloggers like this: