In the work ahead, we must be guided by the philosophy that made our nation great. As Americans, we believe in the power of individuals to determine their destiny and shape the course of history. We believe that the most reliable guide for our country is the collective wisdom of ordinary citizens. And so in all we do, we must trust in the ability of free peoples to make wise decisions, and empower them to improve their lives for their futures. (Emphasis mine).
Mr. Bush said the above in his State of the Union speech, on Monday. Sadly, In light of his total disregard of Americans' overwhelming disgust with de facto amnesty proposals for illegal aliens, we can assume that the entire paragraph is pure bilge.
America needs to secure our borders -- and with your help, my administration is taking steps to do so. We're increasing worksite enforcement, deploying fences and advanced technologies to stop illegal crossings. We've effectively ended the policy of "catch and release" at the border, and by the end of this year, we will have doubled the number of border patrol agents.
Interesting comments, considering that the money allocated for building 700 miles of border fencing hasn't been utilized to that effect. As for "catch and release," the Bush administration has restricted that policy to the country's interior, as opposed to the border. Bush has also demonstrated his concern about border security by withdrawing the national guard from the area. Impressive.
Yet we also need to acknowledge that we will never fully secure our border until we create a lawful way for foreign workers to come here and support our economy. (Applause)
If we assume--hypothetically, of course--that he's being honest, here, his attitude is not one of someone who cares about the rule of law. Rather, it's a defeatist posture. It's giving up without making a sincere effort at solving the problem. We already have a lawful way for foreign workers to come here; it's called immigration; and by immigration, I'm not talking about the Olympian triathlon of crossing rivers, scaling fences, and trekking sweltering deserts. Furthermore, what does allowing "workers" easy access to our country have to do with securing our borders for America's safety? Are we incapable of using our great resources and materiel without rolling out the red carpet for X number of foreigners? That's nonsense. I assume the applause at the end came from representatives of big business who exploit illegal aliens for cheap labor, while shafting their fellow citizens in the process. Truly noble and altruistic, isn't it?
This will take pressure off the border and allow law enforcement to concentrate on those who mean us harm.
Yes, because rewarding lawlessness always stymies further unlawful behavior. How's the weather in Neverland, Mr. President?
Illegal immigration is complicated, but it can be resolved. And it must be resolved in a way that upholds both our laws and our highest ideals.
Said the man who ignores our laws when they don't suit his agenda, and spits full in the face of American ideals, while catering to interests other than those targeting our nation's welfare.
I merely skimmed through the rest of his speech, because I'm a firm believer in the concept of "garbage in, garbage out," and there's only so much B.S. I can tolerate.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Monday, January 28, 2008
Mi Casa es su Casa!
State of the North American Union, 2008 (Estado de los Asuntos, 2008)
"Mi companero norteamericanos:
"I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Arizona the sons of former undocumented workers will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood. After we make the blancos muerto. It is all bueno.
"I have a dream that one day even the state of Nuevo Mejico, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, sweltering with the heat of global warming, and 110 degrees in the shade, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice for those who believe that all borders should be erased like chalk from a blackboard; or conquistadores from Tenochtitlan.
"I have a dream that my house maid and gardener will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by their legal status, but by how them dishes sparkle and how that mary-jay-uany grows straight and tall out back.
"I have a dream today.
"I have a dream that one day, in America, with its vicious racists, with its people having their lips dripping with words like "wetback" and "illegal"; one day right there in America, little brown boys and brown girls will be able to join hands as sisters and brothers, singing Kumbaya in perfect Spanish, as the little gringos and gringas trod the steps of our pyramids and meet their fates at the hands of obsidian knives and leering priests in feathered headdresses.
"I have a dream today.
"I have a dream that one day every guest worker shall be exalted, every Anglo and other blanco diablos shall be made low, the welfare checks will be written plain, and the crooked whites will be made straight, and the glory of La Raza shall be revealed, and all bronze flesh shall see it together.
"This will be the day when all of Dios' children will be able to sing with a new meaning the Nuestro Himno.
"And if Aztlan--I mean 'America'-- is to be a great nation this must become true. So let freedom ring from the prodigious slums of Los Angeles. Let freedom ring from the mighty barrios of Chicago. Let freedom ring from the heights of Spanish Harlem!
"And when this happens, when we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every hacienda and every shanty, from every maquiladora and every taco stand, we will be able to speed up that day when all of Dios' ninos and ninas, bronze men and bronze women, Aztecs and Mayans, Olmecs and those who await Quetzalcoatl's return from o'er the oceano--all of Montezuma's happy people will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Mexica spiritual, "La Reconquista es consumado!"
"Mi companero norteamericanos:
"I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Arizona the sons of former undocumented workers will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood. After we make the blancos muerto. It is all bueno.
"I have a dream that one day even the state of Nuevo Mejico, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, sweltering with the heat of global warming, and 110 degrees in the shade, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice for those who believe that all borders should be erased like chalk from a blackboard; or conquistadores from Tenochtitlan.
"I have a dream that my house maid and gardener will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by their legal status, but by how them dishes sparkle and how that mary-jay-uany grows straight and tall out back.
"I have a dream today.
"I have a dream that one day, in America, with its vicious racists, with its people having their lips dripping with words like "wetback" and "illegal"; one day right there in America, little brown boys and brown girls will be able to join hands as sisters and brothers, singing Kumbaya in perfect Spanish, as the little gringos and gringas trod the steps of our pyramids and meet their fates at the hands of obsidian knives and leering priests in feathered headdresses.
"I have a dream today.
"I have a dream that one day every guest worker shall be exalted, every Anglo and other blanco diablos shall be made low, the welfare checks will be written plain, and the crooked whites will be made straight, and the glory of La Raza shall be revealed, and all bronze flesh shall see it together.
"This will be the day when all of Dios' children will be able to sing with a new meaning the Nuestro Himno.
"And if Aztlan--I mean 'America'-- is to be a great nation this must become true. So let freedom ring from the prodigious slums of Los Angeles. Let freedom ring from the mighty barrios of Chicago. Let freedom ring from the heights of Spanish Harlem!
"And when this happens, when we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every hacienda and every shanty, from every maquiladora and every taco stand, we will be able to speed up that day when all of Dios' ninos and ninas, bronze men and bronze women, Aztecs and Mayans, Olmecs and those who await Quetzalcoatl's return from o'er the oceano--all of Montezuma's happy people will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Mexica spiritual, "La Reconquista es consumado!"
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Idiot Sightings
I received these in an email:
The stoplight on the corner buzzes when it's safe to cross the street. I was crossing with an intellectually challenged coworker of mine. She asked if I knew what the buzzer was for. I explained that it signals blind people when the light is red. Appalled, she responded, "What on earth are blind people doing driving?!"
She was a probation officer in Wichita , KS
I work with an individual who plugged her power strip back into itself and for the sake of her life, couldn't understand why her system would not turn on.
A deputy with the Dallas County Sheriffs office, no less.
Imagine my surprise that these were government employees.
The stoplight on the corner buzzes when it's safe to cross the street. I was crossing with an intellectually challenged coworker of mine. She asked if I knew what the buzzer was for. I explained that it signals blind people when the light is red. Appalled, she responded, "What on earth are blind people doing driving?!"
She was a probation officer in Wichita , KS
I work with an individual who plugged her power strip back into itself and for the sake of her life, couldn't understand why her system would not turn on.
A deputy with the Dallas County Sheriffs office, no less.
Imagine my surprise that these were government employees.
Gripe Comments
From Cybersalt Digest:
After every flight, pilots fill out a form (called a "gripe sheet," at some airlines) which tells mechanics about problems with the aircraft. The mechanics correct the problems, document their repairs on the form, and then pilots review the gripe sheets before the next flight. Never let it be said that ground crews lack a sense of humor. Here are some actual maintenance complaints submitted (marked with a P) and the solutions recorded (marked with an S) by maintenance engineers.
P: Left inside main tire almost needs replacement.
S: Almost replaced left inside main tire.
P: Test flight OK, except auto-land very rough.
S: Auto-land not installed on this aircraft.
P: Something loose in cockpit.
S: Something tightened in cockpit.
P: Dead bugs on windshield.
S: Live bugs on back-order.
P: Autopilot in altitude-hold mode produces a 200 feet per minute descent.
S: Cannot reproduce problem on ground.
P: Evidence of leak on right main landing gear.
S: Evidence removed.
P: DME volume unbelievably loud.
S: DME volume set to more believable level.
P: Friction locks cause throttle levers to stick.
S: That's what friction locks are for.
P: IFF inoperative in OFF mode.
S: IFF always inoperative in OFF mode.
P: Suspected crack in windshield.
S: Suspect you're right.
P: Number 3 engine missing.
S: Engine found on right wing after brief search.
P: Aircraft handles funny.
S: Aircraft warned to: straighten up, fly right, and be serious.
P: Target radar hums.
S: Reprogrammed target radar with lyrics.
P: Mouse in cockpit.
S: Cat installed.
P: Noise coming from under instrument panel. Sounds like a midget pounding on something with a hammer.
S: Took hammer away from midget.
After every flight, pilots fill out a form (called a "gripe sheet," at some airlines) which tells mechanics about problems with the aircraft. The mechanics correct the problems, document their repairs on the form, and then pilots review the gripe sheets before the next flight. Never let it be said that ground crews lack a sense of humor. Here are some actual maintenance complaints submitted (marked with a P) and the solutions recorded (marked with an S) by maintenance engineers.
P: Left inside main tire almost needs replacement.
S: Almost replaced left inside main tire.
P: Test flight OK, except auto-land very rough.
S: Auto-land not installed on this aircraft.
P: Something loose in cockpit.
S: Something tightened in cockpit.
P: Dead bugs on windshield.
S: Live bugs on back-order.
P: Autopilot in altitude-hold mode produces a 200 feet per minute descent.
S: Cannot reproduce problem on ground.
P: Evidence of leak on right main landing gear.
S: Evidence removed.
P: DME volume unbelievably loud.
S: DME volume set to more believable level.
P: Friction locks cause throttle levers to stick.
S: That's what friction locks are for.
P: IFF inoperative in OFF mode.
S: IFF always inoperative in OFF mode.
P: Suspected crack in windshield.
S: Suspect you're right.
P: Number 3 engine missing.
S: Engine found on right wing after brief search.
P: Aircraft handles funny.
S: Aircraft warned to: straighten up, fly right, and be serious.
P: Target radar hums.
S: Reprogrammed target radar with lyrics.
P: Mouse in cockpit.
S: Cat installed.
P: Noise coming from under instrument panel. Sounds like a midget pounding on something with a hammer.
S: Took hammer away from midget.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Thursday, January 17, 2008
House of Cards III
READ PART I
READ PART II
The only people who don't want that outcome are the Mexican-hating bigots -- they would rather destroy the Republican Party than tolerate a change in the law that would allow more brown-skinned Spanish speakers a chance to become full-fledged English-speaking Americans.
Seeing that the law already allows brown-skinned Spanish speakers a chance to become full-fledged English-speaking Americans, and seeing that third worlders have been given special status among immigrants since the Immigration Reform Act of 1965--over and above people of white European stock--I can conclude only that you're either an imbecile, or grossly ignorant on this subject matter. Of course, that hasn't stopped you from waxing long and sophistically, has it?
And to you, Mitt Romney, if you win in New Hampshire on the backs of hard-working, brave Mexicans who put their family's welfare ahead of obedience to a cruel and useless immigration law, then shame on you. Shame on you as an American. Shame on you as a Christian.
I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings, but Mormonism isn't Christianity. Anyone conversant with both sets of beliefs knows this; those who deny it either dissemble or speak from comfortable cluelessness. Nor will I brook being lectured on proper Christian behavior by a Mormon.
I hope you lose in New Hampshire, Mitt Romney. I hope you realize that taking Tancredo's place as the leader of the xenophobic wing of the Republican Party is a losing proposition.
Interesting how Card defines someone who wants to preserve his country: as a xenophobe or a bigot. It says all you really need to know about his intellectual acuity and penchant for promoting left-wing anti-Americanism. It disgusts me to no end that a man who calls for what amounts to America's dissolution dares lecture others on what it means to harbor anti-American sentiments.
Then maybe you'll become again what I think you really want to be, at heart: A true moderate, a man who could preside over all the people of America -- even the ones who came here from Mexico under the wire, most of whom long to be citizens just like your ancestors and mine.
Two quick points, on this. First, "moderation" is not what brought the U.S. into existence, nor made it a great country. Were the Founders moderate in their philosophical and political outlook? Second, drawing no distinctions between illegal alien Mexicans and our ancestors is disingenuous. Prior to the 1940s, illegal migration into this country wasn't a serious problem; most immigrants came legally, and attempted assimilating into the culture. There is no comparison between Europeans who immigrated here one hundred-fifty years ago, and the uncontrolled chaos and flagrant disregard for the rule of law that we see today. That's a standard canard trotted out by globalists and illegal alien sympathizers.
Many Republicans are fond of saying that America is a Christian country. They claim to believe that we are all sinners, dependent on the mercy and forgiveness of Christ.
Which is why I'm baffled that so many of the same folks are grimly determined to deny any chance of amnesty -- a synonym for forgiveness or pardon -- to people whose crime is only a crime because a law we could easily change declares it so.
Simplistic and dishonest. Jesus never preached that we should allow crime to go unpunished. He never said, "Turn out your prisons; release your rapists and murderers; invite the torturer over for dinner." Forgiveness does not mean pretending that someone did no wrong, and foregoing just temporal punishment. Nor was He talking about the rule of law, when he spoke of mercy and forgiveness. He was referencing one's personal interactions with others. This is the same sort of argument made by those who proclaim Jesus was a socialist who advocated government confiscation of individual incomes for "charitable" purposes. It's applying to a national level what was meant strictly on a personal level. Charity starts at home and is a free-will sacrifice for the sake of others--not the involuntary loss of funds, confiscated by Caesar. There's nothing charitable about stealing another man's money, no matter how you sugar-coat it, and letting wanton criminals off the hook for their crimes is not following Jesus' example, in my opinion.
There's another point here that needs addressing: When Card says that their only crime is illegal entry, this is just more obfuscation on his part. In 2005 Los Angeles, 95 percent of outstanding homicide warrants were for illegal aliens, as were 66 percent of fugitive felony warrants. The 18th Street Gang has 20,000 members--of whom 60 to 80 percent are illegal aliens. According to the California Department of Justice and the L.A.P.D., The L'il Cycos Gang was thought to be made up of 60 percent illegal aliens in 2002, and the percentage is considered higher, now. This gang is best known for murder, racketeering, and trafficking drugs. Housing illegal aliens in Florida prisons costs the state $155 million annually. Around 30 percent of the U.S. federal prison population is illegal alien. All of the above doesn't even take into account tax evasion, social welfare and identity fraud, rapes, robberies, etc. Predictably, some of the most crime-ridden areas of our country are those where illegal aliens constitute the highest population percentages.
The unavoidable and non-PC truth is that a large portion of these people were criminals before they ever set foot on American soil, committed further crime by entering the U.S. illegally, and followed a path of career criminality once they settled down in the U.S. Even the ones who came here, received deportation notices, and came back--and did nothing else--are felons, according to U.S. law. Again, if you didn't respect the law in the beginning, why would you pay it heed later?
But in the voting booth, most Americans consult their consciences. Most Americans will not vote for a candidate whose platform is built on hate and fear of strangers.
This is the same brand of rhetoric practiced by the Left: if you don't embrace what they say you should embrace, it's because you hate or fear it. Don't like homosexuality? You're a homophobe or hate-monger. Dislike affirmative action? You're a racist. Find the modern feminist movement distasteful? Your a mysogynistic, knuckle-dragging patriarchal scum. Believe unborn children have a God-given right to life? Why, you must hate women and want to keep them repressed.
I don't want to live under shari'a -- but I also don't want to live under a government that drives hard-working parents and their children out of our country at the point of a gun, all for the crime of doing what it took to feed their families.
How hysterical. In the end, it all comes down to "it's for the children," doesn't it? Whose children? Why, not yours, you Anglocentric rat. He's talking about the children of criminals, who were born in our country and are now considered American citizens, due to a deliberate perversion of the Fourteenth Amendment. As for your children, gringo, they should smile and brush up on their Spanish. So what if their country and heritage is being stolen from them, without their consent or knowledge? Your children can go to blazes.
As a novelist, I quite like Orson Scott Card; as a thinker and a man of intellectual integrity, I think he's a charlatan, and strictly third-rate--at least on this particular issue. I'm not impressed by his feeble attempts at rationalization and semantic subterfuge. His emotion-driven casuistry on immigration is indistinguishable from that of the most committed one-world socialist.
READ PART II
The only people who don't want that outcome are the Mexican-hating bigots -- they would rather destroy the Republican Party than tolerate a change in the law that would allow more brown-skinned Spanish speakers a chance to become full-fledged English-speaking Americans.
Seeing that the law already allows brown-skinned Spanish speakers a chance to become full-fledged English-speaking Americans, and seeing that third worlders have been given special status among immigrants since the Immigration Reform Act of 1965--over and above people of white European stock--I can conclude only that you're either an imbecile, or grossly ignorant on this subject matter. Of course, that hasn't stopped you from waxing long and sophistically, has it?
And to you, Mitt Romney, if you win in New Hampshire on the backs of hard-working, brave Mexicans who put their family's welfare ahead of obedience to a cruel and useless immigration law, then shame on you. Shame on you as an American. Shame on you as a Christian.
I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings, but Mormonism isn't Christianity. Anyone conversant with both sets of beliefs knows this; those who deny it either dissemble or speak from comfortable cluelessness. Nor will I brook being lectured on proper Christian behavior by a Mormon.
I hope you lose in New Hampshire, Mitt Romney. I hope you realize that taking Tancredo's place as the leader of the xenophobic wing of the Republican Party is a losing proposition.
Interesting how Card defines someone who wants to preserve his country: as a xenophobe or a bigot. It says all you really need to know about his intellectual acuity and penchant for promoting left-wing anti-Americanism. It disgusts me to no end that a man who calls for what amounts to America's dissolution dares lecture others on what it means to harbor anti-American sentiments.
Then maybe you'll become again what I think you really want to be, at heart: A true moderate, a man who could preside over all the people of America -- even the ones who came here from Mexico under the wire, most of whom long to be citizens just like your ancestors and mine.
Two quick points, on this. First, "moderation" is not what brought the U.S. into existence, nor made it a great country. Were the Founders moderate in their philosophical and political outlook? Second, drawing no distinctions between illegal alien Mexicans and our ancestors is disingenuous. Prior to the 1940s, illegal migration into this country wasn't a serious problem; most immigrants came legally, and attempted assimilating into the culture. There is no comparison between Europeans who immigrated here one hundred-fifty years ago, and the uncontrolled chaos and flagrant disregard for the rule of law that we see today. That's a standard canard trotted out by globalists and illegal alien sympathizers.
Many Republicans are fond of saying that America is a Christian country. They claim to believe that we are all sinners, dependent on the mercy and forgiveness of Christ.
Which is why I'm baffled that so many of the same folks are grimly determined to deny any chance of amnesty -- a synonym for forgiveness or pardon -- to people whose crime is only a crime because a law we could easily change declares it so.
Simplistic and dishonest. Jesus never preached that we should allow crime to go unpunished. He never said, "Turn out your prisons; release your rapists and murderers; invite the torturer over for dinner." Forgiveness does not mean pretending that someone did no wrong, and foregoing just temporal punishment. Nor was He talking about the rule of law, when he spoke of mercy and forgiveness. He was referencing one's personal interactions with others. This is the same sort of argument made by those who proclaim Jesus was a socialist who advocated government confiscation of individual incomes for "charitable" purposes. It's applying to a national level what was meant strictly on a personal level. Charity starts at home and is a free-will sacrifice for the sake of others--not the involuntary loss of funds, confiscated by Caesar. There's nothing charitable about stealing another man's money, no matter how you sugar-coat it, and letting wanton criminals off the hook for their crimes is not following Jesus' example, in my opinion.
There's another point here that needs addressing: When Card says that their only crime is illegal entry, this is just more obfuscation on his part. In 2005 Los Angeles, 95 percent of outstanding homicide warrants were for illegal aliens, as were 66 percent of fugitive felony warrants. The 18th Street Gang has 20,000 members--of whom 60 to 80 percent are illegal aliens. According to the California Department of Justice and the L.A.P.D., The L'il Cycos Gang was thought to be made up of 60 percent illegal aliens in 2002, and the percentage is considered higher, now. This gang is best known for murder, racketeering, and trafficking drugs. Housing illegal aliens in Florida prisons costs the state $155 million annually. Around 30 percent of the U.S. federal prison population is illegal alien. All of the above doesn't even take into account tax evasion, social welfare and identity fraud, rapes, robberies, etc. Predictably, some of the most crime-ridden areas of our country are those where illegal aliens constitute the highest population percentages.
The unavoidable and non-PC truth is that a large portion of these people were criminals before they ever set foot on American soil, committed further crime by entering the U.S. illegally, and followed a path of career criminality once they settled down in the U.S. Even the ones who came here, received deportation notices, and came back--and did nothing else--are felons, according to U.S. law. Again, if you didn't respect the law in the beginning, why would you pay it heed later?
But in the voting booth, most Americans consult their consciences. Most Americans will not vote for a candidate whose platform is built on hate and fear of strangers.
This is the same brand of rhetoric practiced by the Left: if you don't embrace what they say you should embrace, it's because you hate or fear it. Don't like homosexuality? You're a homophobe or hate-monger. Dislike affirmative action? You're a racist. Find the modern feminist movement distasteful? Your a mysogynistic, knuckle-dragging patriarchal scum. Believe unborn children have a God-given right to life? Why, you must hate women and want to keep them repressed.
I don't want to live under shari'a -- but I also don't want to live under a government that drives hard-working parents and their children out of our country at the point of a gun, all for the crime of doing what it took to feed their families.
How hysterical. In the end, it all comes down to "it's for the children," doesn't it? Whose children? Why, not yours, you Anglocentric rat. He's talking about the children of criminals, who were born in our country and are now considered American citizens, due to a deliberate perversion of the Fourteenth Amendment. As for your children, gringo, they should smile and brush up on their Spanish. So what if their country and heritage is being stolen from them, without their consent or knowledge? Your children can go to blazes.
As a novelist, I quite like Orson Scott Card; as a thinker and a man of intellectual integrity, I think he's a charlatan, and strictly third-rate--at least on this particular issue. I'm not impressed by his feeble attempts at rationalization and semantic subterfuge. His emotion-driven casuistry on immigration is indistinguishable from that of the most committed one-world socialist.
House of Cards II
READ PART I
Well, Mitt, what if we change the law so that Mexicans who are desperate to feed their families and improve their lives can come into our country legally?
Do you really think that if our doors stood open, providing a legal path to entry, any of these Mexicans would prefer to enter the U.S. illegally?
Translation: the solution to illegal immigration is telling people who broke the law that they didn't really break the law. See? We repealed the law, so it's all better now. Or we just ignored the law. There's not a peso's difference between what Card promotes, and what George Bush endorses. You'd call politicians and commentators morons if they suggested handling other crimes in this fashion. And rightly so.
Can you imagine this scenario?: The way that we resolve the problem of pedophilia is by redefining adult sexual desire for a small child as normal sexual activity. Reprehensible and intellectually vacant doesn't even begin to cover it.
So if you grant amnesty and make legal entry possible, you will not be encouraging illegal immigration in any way.
More semantic deceit. Notice the recurring theme of illegal immigration being the only legitimate path for Mexican entry into the U.S. This is outright lying. I also wonder what Card thinks about Mexico's immigration policies, which are far more stringent and unyielding than America's.
Please notice that the very same people who are most vehemently anti-amnesty -- the Pat Buchanan-style nativists -- are also most vehemently against opening the door to more legal immigration. It's not amnesty they hate, and not law-breaking ... it's Mexicans.
Another lie. I have nothing personally against Mexicans who want to immigrate to the U.S. legally and assimilate and become American citizens. I've read Buchanan's books, wherein he expounds upon his immigration views. Card's characterization of him is simpletonian and childlike. As for hatred of Mexicans--as opposed to hatred of criminality-- I've seen no evidence of this in Buchanan's works. Instead, I understand that Buchanan is 100% correct, when he says that America cannot take in the whole world. And if we are to welcome people to our shores, shouldn't we embrace those who come closest to sharing our language and culture? Or should we embrace all, and have no talk of national origins or beliefs? Card wants no restrictions of any kind, and he studiously ignores the links between race and culture, whereas Buchanan faces them head-on. No, it's not politically correct, but it is true.
So where should we cap legal immigration, Mr. Card? Ten million a year? Fifteen million? At what point does America lose its ability to sustain the world's influxion of people? We have six billion to think about, here. Would you have them all rubbing shoulders in the United States, as our standards of living slosh right down the septic tank?
I know hundreds of Mexican and Latin-American people, and person for person, I think they all make better Americans than any of the bigots who want to bar them from this country.
Anecdotal evidence preceding accusations of bigotry against those with whom one disagrees is always compelling.
America is America because our dream is open to the world. Those who would close that door, especially on the basis of race or language, are anti-Americans, as far as I'm concerned. They're certainly against the America that welcomed my despised, law-defying Puritan and, later, Mormon ancestors.
And here we see the crux of Mr. Card's confusion; he doesn't even know what America is, or what it was meant to be. Rather, Mr. Card's America is a free-for-all--a racial, linguistic, and cultural ghetto. His loyalty is not to America, but to "diversity," in the most globalistic, left-leaning sense of the word. America is not America "because our dream is open to the world." That's poppycock. America is a place, a language, an idea, and a people with a history and a heritage. It is a land whose people are rooted and blood-bonded. It's not merely a propositional entity. Card doesn't even support language as a unifier. Apparently, basic communication skills between "Americans" lies at the bottom of his priority list. His comment about the Puritans is incoherent, as Puritans made up some of the first people who came to this land. They were our progenitors, part of the stock who colonized this "stolen" continent. He acts as if there's no discernible difference between Mexicans on the one hand, and Puritans and Mormons on the other. As I said, Card has a lively imagination, having concocted his own fantasy world, whose borders he never crosses into the real world--legally, or otherwise.
Hispanics aren't blind or deaf. They know who hates them, and they aren't going to vote for that party, ever.
If they're illegal aliens, they shouldn't be voting, period. So his point, such that it is, is pointless.
Legal Hispanic-Americans are now about as big a voting bloc as African-Americans.
The funny part is that many of these "legal" Hispanics were amnestied in the 1986 Immigration Reform Act (there's a misnomer for you). A significant segment of these "legals" are anchor babies, as well. So if we had a coherent, nation-preserving immigration approach, rather than the notion that "anyone who can sneak in is a citizen," a large percentage of these "legals" wouldn't have voting rights, and we wouldn't be talking about this, right now.
Do you Republicans understand the demographics here? The Republican Party owns the White male vote right now -- if White males were the only voters, there would have been no Clinton years and Bush would have won in a landslide in both 2000 and 2004.
But White males are just another minority group.
Hilarious. Look at the circular reasoning: Card supports open borders. Open borders made whites a minority group (which isn't even accurate, but we'll assume it is, for the sake of argument), so we should embrace Hispanic voters, because the GOP can't win on the white-vote only; and it's imperative that the GOP win the 2008 election. Makes perfect sense, no?
So when Republicans permanently alienate Hispanic voters the way they have alienated Black voters, they are getting relatively little in return.
Translation: Down with the rule of law; it hurts my little brown brothers' and sisters' feelings.
Here's a question for you, Mr. Card: If the majority of legal and illegal immigrants are Mexicans, how does one broach the subject and address it forthrightly without bringing this fact into the open, at some point? I won't hold my breath waiting for your answer.
This election will not be won by appealing to the hard-core anti-illegal-immigration voters. They will vote Republican no matter what.
What a card you are. The joker, to be exact. Most Americans are anti-illegal immigration, irrespective of party affiliation, so I don't know what this means. There's a vast chasm on this issue between the intern-chasing politicians in D.C., and the average American citizen. Why would hardcore anti-illegal immigrant voters choose Republicans, when most GOP candidates on the ballots are lax or lean left on this issue?
This election will be won by whoever appeals most to the swing voters -- moderate Republicans, pro-defense Democrats, and independents who are generally disgusted with both parties -- groups that are far, far larger than either party's leadership seems to realize.
Card doesn't compute that many of those independent voters upon whom the election will turn are former Republicans who left the party because of its leftward tilt, including its pathetic stance on immigration. People like me, for instance. Mr. Card, you advocate the very policies which disgusted and turned me away, in the first place. I hope the next Republican president doesn't hire you as his chief advisor. God help him.
I believe that amnesty proceeded by huge numbers of Hispanics voting in our elections is all part of the Leftist plan of destabilization and further socialization of our country. And I believe that you, Mr. Card, are a willing lackey for the Left's agenda.
Harping on illegal immigrants didn't help Tancredo become a viable candidate.
Harping on illegal immigrants had nothing to do with his nonviability; it was his biggest draw--and still is. His nonviability was due to his lacking oratory skills, and a general cluelessness as to who he was exhibited by the average debate viewer. Most people simply have never heard of Mr. Tancredo, or if they are familiar with his name, know nothing more about him.
And with the Republicans firmly identified as the party of bigotry and cruelty, and with Blacks and Hispanics fully owned by the Democratic Party, Republicans will have as much chance in the next few elections as the Democrats did when they kept nominating William Jennings Bryan back around the turn of the last century.
Since both parties are driving us willy-nilly toward socialism--a strategy you support, by the way--why is it important that the GOP win?
Oh, that's right.
WE'RE AT WAR!! And the war is the most important thing in the world. Forget context. Forget history. Forget that these Islamic fundamentalists have no chance of defeating or destroying us--except demographically, through unrestricted migration, which, again, you endorse.
Think about how to solve the illegal immigrant problem rationally -- not by expelling them from the country, not by depriving them of hope, but by combining immigration law reform with a reasonable amnesty program that does not force millions of people into refugee camps just across the border in Mexico.
Ok, the illegal invaders aren't at fault; Mexico's deplorable, corrupt government isn't to blame.
Such a scenario would be the fault of the United States. Blame America First, anyone?
President Bush and many in Congress already offered America an excellent compromise, a fair law, which would have solved most of the problems.
Yes, by declaring that the problems don't truly exist. It's like sweeping a pile of dirt under a rug and saying: "See? The dirt's all gone!"
(TO BE CONCLUDED)
Well, Mitt, what if we change the law so that Mexicans who are desperate to feed their families and improve their lives can come into our country legally?
Do you really think that if our doors stood open, providing a legal path to entry, any of these Mexicans would prefer to enter the U.S. illegally?
Translation: the solution to illegal immigration is telling people who broke the law that they didn't really break the law. See? We repealed the law, so it's all better now. Or we just ignored the law. There's not a peso's difference between what Card promotes, and what George Bush endorses. You'd call politicians and commentators morons if they suggested handling other crimes in this fashion. And rightly so.
Can you imagine this scenario?: The way that we resolve the problem of pedophilia is by redefining adult sexual desire for a small child as normal sexual activity. Reprehensible and intellectually vacant doesn't even begin to cover it.
So if you grant amnesty and make legal entry possible, you will not be encouraging illegal immigration in any way.
More semantic deceit. Notice the recurring theme of illegal immigration being the only legitimate path for Mexican entry into the U.S. This is outright lying. I also wonder what Card thinks about Mexico's immigration policies, which are far more stringent and unyielding than America's.
Please notice that the very same people who are most vehemently anti-amnesty -- the Pat Buchanan-style nativists -- are also most vehemently against opening the door to more legal immigration. It's not amnesty they hate, and not law-breaking ... it's Mexicans.
Another lie. I have nothing personally against Mexicans who want to immigrate to the U.S. legally and assimilate and become American citizens. I've read Buchanan's books, wherein he expounds upon his immigration views. Card's characterization of him is simpletonian and childlike. As for hatred of Mexicans--as opposed to hatred of criminality-- I've seen no evidence of this in Buchanan's works. Instead, I understand that Buchanan is 100% correct, when he says that America cannot take in the whole world. And if we are to welcome people to our shores, shouldn't we embrace those who come closest to sharing our language and culture? Or should we embrace all, and have no talk of national origins or beliefs? Card wants no restrictions of any kind, and he studiously ignores the links between race and culture, whereas Buchanan faces them head-on. No, it's not politically correct, but it is true.
So where should we cap legal immigration, Mr. Card? Ten million a year? Fifteen million? At what point does America lose its ability to sustain the world's influxion of people? We have six billion to think about, here. Would you have them all rubbing shoulders in the United States, as our standards of living slosh right down the septic tank?
I know hundreds of Mexican and Latin-American people, and person for person, I think they all make better Americans than any of the bigots who want to bar them from this country.
Anecdotal evidence preceding accusations of bigotry against those with whom one disagrees is always compelling.
America is America because our dream is open to the world. Those who would close that door, especially on the basis of race or language, are anti-Americans, as far as I'm concerned. They're certainly against the America that welcomed my despised, law-defying Puritan and, later, Mormon ancestors.
And here we see the crux of Mr. Card's confusion; he doesn't even know what America is, or what it was meant to be. Rather, Mr. Card's America is a free-for-all--a racial, linguistic, and cultural ghetto. His loyalty is not to America, but to "diversity," in the most globalistic, left-leaning sense of the word. America is not America "because our dream is open to the world." That's poppycock. America is a place, a language, an idea, and a people with a history and a heritage. It is a land whose people are rooted and blood-bonded. It's not merely a propositional entity. Card doesn't even support language as a unifier. Apparently, basic communication skills between "Americans" lies at the bottom of his priority list. His comment about the Puritans is incoherent, as Puritans made up some of the first people who came to this land. They were our progenitors, part of the stock who colonized this "stolen" continent. He acts as if there's no discernible difference between Mexicans on the one hand, and Puritans and Mormons on the other. As I said, Card has a lively imagination, having concocted his own fantasy world, whose borders he never crosses into the real world--legally, or otherwise.
Hispanics aren't blind or deaf. They know who hates them, and they aren't going to vote for that party, ever.
If they're illegal aliens, they shouldn't be voting, period. So his point, such that it is, is pointless.
Legal Hispanic-Americans are now about as big a voting bloc as African-Americans.
The funny part is that many of these "legal" Hispanics were amnestied in the 1986 Immigration Reform Act (there's a misnomer for you). A significant segment of these "legals" are anchor babies, as well. So if we had a coherent, nation-preserving immigration approach, rather than the notion that "anyone who can sneak in is a citizen," a large percentage of these "legals" wouldn't have voting rights, and we wouldn't be talking about this, right now.
Do you Republicans understand the demographics here? The Republican Party owns the White male vote right now -- if White males were the only voters, there would have been no Clinton years and Bush would have won in a landslide in both 2000 and 2004.
But White males are just another minority group.
Hilarious. Look at the circular reasoning: Card supports open borders. Open borders made whites a minority group (which isn't even accurate, but we'll assume it is, for the sake of argument), so we should embrace Hispanic voters, because the GOP can't win on the white-vote only; and it's imperative that the GOP win the 2008 election. Makes perfect sense, no?
So when Republicans permanently alienate Hispanic voters the way they have alienated Black voters, they are getting relatively little in return.
Translation: Down with the rule of law; it hurts my little brown brothers' and sisters' feelings.
Here's a question for you, Mr. Card: If the majority of legal and illegal immigrants are Mexicans, how does one broach the subject and address it forthrightly without bringing this fact into the open, at some point? I won't hold my breath waiting for your answer.
This election will not be won by appealing to the hard-core anti-illegal-immigration voters. They will vote Republican no matter what.
What a card you are. The joker, to be exact. Most Americans are anti-illegal immigration, irrespective of party affiliation, so I don't know what this means. There's a vast chasm on this issue between the intern-chasing politicians in D.C., and the average American citizen. Why would hardcore anti-illegal immigrant voters choose Republicans, when most GOP candidates on the ballots are lax or lean left on this issue?
This election will be won by whoever appeals most to the swing voters -- moderate Republicans, pro-defense Democrats, and independents who are generally disgusted with both parties -- groups that are far, far larger than either party's leadership seems to realize.
Card doesn't compute that many of those independent voters upon whom the election will turn are former Republicans who left the party because of its leftward tilt, including its pathetic stance on immigration. People like me, for instance. Mr. Card, you advocate the very policies which disgusted and turned me away, in the first place. I hope the next Republican president doesn't hire you as his chief advisor. God help him.
I believe that amnesty proceeded by huge numbers of Hispanics voting in our elections is all part of the Leftist plan of destabilization and further socialization of our country. And I believe that you, Mr. Card, are a willing lackey for the Left's agenda.
Harping on illegal immigrants didn't help Tancredo become a viable candidate.
Harping on illegal immigrants had nothing to do with his nonviability; it was his biggest draw--and still is. His nonviability was due to his lacking oratory skills, and a general cluelessness as to who he was exhibited by the average debate viewer. Most people simply have never heard of Mr. Tancredo, or if they are familiar with his name, know nothing more about him.
And with the Republicans firmly identified as the party of bigotry and cruelty, and with Blacks and Hispanics fully owned by the Democratic Party, Republicans will have as much chance in the next few elections as the Democrats did when they kept nominating William Jennings Bryan back around the turn of the last century.
Since both parties are driving us willy-nilly toward socialism--a strategy you support, by the way--why is it important that the GOP win?
Oh, that's right.
WE'RE AT WAR!! And the war is the most important thing in the world. Forget context. Forget history. Forget that these Islamic fundamentalists have no chance of defeating or destroying us--except demographically, through unrestricted migration, which, again, you endorse.
Think about how to solve the illegal immigrant problem rationally -- not by expelling them from the country, not by depriving them of hope, but by combining immigration law reform with a reasonable amnesty program that does not force millions of people into refugee camps just across the border in Mexico.
Ok, the illegal invaders aren't at fault; Mexico's deplorable, corrupt government isn't to blame.
Such a scenario would be the fault of the United States. Blame America First, anyone?
President Bush and many in Congress already offered America an excellent compromise, a fair law, which would have solved most of the problems.
Yes, by declaring that the problems don't truly exist. It's like sweeping a pile of dirt under a rug and saying: "See? The dirt's all gone!"
(TO BE CONCLUDED)
House of Cards
Orson Scott Card of Ender's Game fame has written an article detailing, among other things, why illegal immigration isn't all that bad. I was challenged to read and comment upon it. Having done so, I've concluded that Mr. Card's career as a novelist was an appropriate choice, since he has a firm grasp of fantasy. I hope he doesn't quit his day job.
It may require a couple of posts to critique his long, fallacy-ridden article.
Early on in his piece, Card suggests that a focus on illegal immigration for Republicans at election time has disastrous potential. He then observes prophetically:
This year, though, is one of those pivotal elections that may well set America's future course for decades -- possibly forever. Like the election of 1860, the issues are vital and clear -- and the future almost impossible to read, except that really bad things might happen.
The vagueness of this scare-mongering statement is downright silly; if you remove the reference to 1860, it could apply to any election since the country's founding.
We are a nation at war, with the intellectual and media establishment -- the universities, most television, and most newspapers -- so passionate to stop the war that they seem willing to throw away any chance of victory as soon as possible, lest we win before they can secure our defeat.
I've made clear in the past that I don't take the war seriously; why should I?; the president doesn't. As for victory, I'd like to see Card define it for us. Does he mean creating an Edenic utopia in Iraq, or just annihilating most of the terrorists? The latter is realistically more possible than the former. I firmly believe that instituting a viable, self-sustaining republican form of government in a Muslim country is impossible. Freedom of conscience--liberty of any stripe--is anathema to the basic tenets of Islam.
The Democratic Party is going to nominate someone committed to that position -- ending the war immediately, without possibility of victory. All of its leading candidates are pledged to that position.
Of course, since Card has made no case for why ending the war is problematic, or what true victory means, I don't find this eventuality particularly troublesome.
Up to this point, his argument is that the "show must go on," and only Republicans can be counted on to make it happen.
Too aggressive, and our president will unite all of Islam against us, and then we will have a genuine World War III, for who can doubt that China and Russia would arm and train them to bring us down?
Apparently he's laboring under the delusion that Muslims are rational beings. Muslims do not view American actions with the attitude "Oh, well, they're not too aggressive, yet; I'll just go back to whetting my scimitar. Woman, bring me some goat bladder soup." Instead, it's more like, "An attack against my Islamic brothers is a slight against all the House of Islam." That's how devout Muslims see the situation. It's the most tribalistic, "us-versus-them" religion on Earth. As a tiny bit of evidence, I offer the jigs of joy displayed by "Palestinians" after 9/11. As for China and Russia, does he believe they'll refrain from arming Muslims--despite the benefits derived therefrom--unless and until the guano hits the proverbial fan?
Too timid, and our president will signal our Islamicist enemies that we are back to the weakness of the Clinton years, and they can do what they want, using attacks on the West to boost their prestige and power in the Islamic world.
These "attacks on the West" haven't ended, despite our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan. Remember the 2004 Madrid bombings, and the London attacks in 2005? And personally, I consider sieve-like northern and southern borders a perfect match to the description "weakness of the Clinton years."
In other words, we need a president who is as resolute, careful, and moderate as George W. Bush has been (despite the obviously false claims of his enemies).
There are several candidates in the Republican race who might just be that president: Giuliani, Romney, and perhaps McCain (though moderation has never been his hallmark). Each has his virtues, each his problems.
More profundity. We need a president who will be moderate. Perhaps McCain will be, though moderation is not a known quality of his. These are brilliant insights, Mr. Card. No, really. Perhaps bloblike entities from Rigel will land in my backyard and declare a cure for all of humanity's ills, and train said cure's sights on our planet from orbit.
I am a Democrat, and wish fervently that my party would nominate someone I could vote for.
When Democrats defend Republican policies, you know there's something wrong with the GOP.
Here is the great irony: Even as President Bush's policies are leading us to victory in Iraq, which will certainly make the war a huge plus for the Republican Party, the Republican candidates are ignoring the war and beating each other up over an issue that could well destroy the Republican Party for years to come.
I speak, of course, of Mexican immigration into the United States.
Here is the great irony: Even as Mr. Card accepts as a given--without elaboration or evidence--that Bush's policies and the war in Iraq are "leading us to victory," the American people have become less enthusiastic about the war. Simultaneously, U.S. citizens all across the philosophical and political spectrums agree that illegal immigration must be stopped, while Mr. Card believes that focusing on popular, election-winning issues is disastrous for our country. Exactly how does taking the American people's side on an issue that resonates with them lead us into a trap that "could well destroy the Republican Party for years to come."? As I alluded earlier, Mr. Card is a consummate fantasist.
For instance, one of the greatest complaints against "illegal immigrants" is that they are refusing to learn English and are not assimilating. The scholarly in this camp invoke the example of ancient Rome, which invited large, coherent, undigested and unassimilable groups of Germans within the boundaries of the empire.
Yes, and how did the Romans profit long-term from this decision? Opps, well, the outcome wasn't so nice, so let's flippantly disregard it.
I could happily spend many pages pointing out why this is not the clearcut example they suppose it to be, but instead I will simply point out what should be obvious: First generation immigrants rarely become fluent in their new language.
Translation: Your illustration is so ridiculous, it is beyond my ability to refute it.
Meanwhile, the second generation of legal Hispanic immigrant families is becoming fluent at about the normal rate. It's a non-issue. They're not stupid -- they know their lives will be better when they're fluent in English, and even better if they have no accent.
A study by Dr. Steven Camarota of the Center for Immigration Studies found that high school dropout rates for second-and third-generation Mexican-Americans are 2.5 times those of Americans by birth. The Pew Hispanic Center, not what I'd call an anti-Mexican organization, found that Hispanic immigrants self-segregate in major U.S. cities, and usually attend Latino public high schools. Nationwide, Hispanic enrollment makes up 13 percent of the total; but 85 percent of Hispanic students are concentrated in a small number of schools. These inner city schools tend toward high dropout rates and poor educational records.
Peter Brimelow's Alien Nation makes similar points. Card's assertion that second-generation fluency in English is a "non-issue" is his opinion--an opinion which contradicts factual studies conducted by others.
I can tell you that in my neck of the woods, I see no evidence that these people care one whit about learning English; nor do they typically speak to their children in English. They congregate together, conduct business in Spanish, and insulate themselves from the English-speaking world, for the most part. If you can get by without learning the language, why bother?
The illegals have far less chance to become fluent because they are, essentially, in hiding; the less contact they have with native-born English-speakers, the safer they are.
So keeping them illegal is also keeping them from learning English. Giving them legal status would make it far more likely that English would remain the dominant language in America.
This is patent nonsense. These people are not in hiding; they move about openly in the grocery stores, malls, and throughout the public arena, without fear of apprehension. Perhaps you should get out more. Mr. Card, we're not "keeping them illegal." That's an asinine perspective. They made themselves illegal, when they slipped over the border in violation of American law. Notice that the rule of law plays zero role in this man's evaluation. He suggests that we arbitrarily make them legal; I'm assuming he wants a revocation of our immigration laws, or blanket amnesty; otherwise, how do we "make them legal?"
Another of the big complaints against illegals is "they don't pay taxes."
Well, duh. You can't pay taxes without a social security number. If we gave them legal status they'd have that number, and then they could pay taxes.
Many have phony social security numbers, and even get refunds from the government on taxes they never paid. Duh. Guess you didn't know that. And way to ignore the fact that certain greedy employers hire illegals off the books, pay them cash under the table, and no taxes get paid--by the employer or the exploited illegal alien. I suppose the real scourge of greed doesn't exist in Card's fairytopia.
However, it's a non-issue for another reason: Most illegals are paid so little that their income never rises high enough for them to pay income tax!
Wow! I bet that works out well for them, since they disproportionately land on the welfare rolls: heck, we won' pay no steeenkeeeng taxes; and gringo can foot the bill when we get public assistance! What a country!
So they are paying taxes, at exactly the same rate as any native born low-income Americans. Only the Mexican-haters want to deprive them of any of the benefits that they are, in fact, paying for.
What an intellectual disconnect. He just admitted a few paragraphs above that they don't pay income taxes. Now they're paying at the same rate as the native born? I also enjoyed the cheap shot at the end, where we're told that decrying the invasion demonstrates bogotry.
In fact, I believe that illegal immigrants are, indirectly, paying a far higher tax rate than other low-income Americans. We don't call it a tax, but it amounts to the same thing: I refer to the sharp increase in buying power for all Americans because illegal immigrants work for subminimum wages, thus keeping prices in the stores lower for everyone.
Uh, sorry, but increased buying power doesn't equal an additional tax. And there is no "sharp increase." Economists have determined that, if all the Mexicans went home tomorrow, prices on good likes produce would increase slightly, and that's all. The point is irrelevant, anyway, because the prices--low or high--are set artificially by the presence of aliens in the job market. I'm calling for this artificial construct's removal, by giving them incentives to go home.
Thus far, Card has demonstrated no empathy for American citizens displaced by aliens, or for the depressed wages they earn. I suppose that's the real non-issue, for Mr. Card.
The truth is that illegal immigrants, because they can be cheated and oppressed with impunity due to their lack of protection by the government (which they do pay taxes to support), are subsidizing for all Americans a higher lifestyle than we could otherwise afford.
Is this supposedly an argument in favor of backing off the immigration issue, or for addressing it in a more coherent manner? By the way, I dare you to try that "subsidizing for all Americans a higher lifestyle than we could otherwise afford" crap on Americans who can't get a job for their skill level, or decent wages. I'm sure you'll have a sympathetic ear.
I've heard some complain with resentment that the illegals don't want to be citizens, that they wave the Mexican flag and despise America.
First, I know for a fact that that is not the feeling of most Mexican immigrants, legal or not.
Mr. Card, I stand in awe of your apologetic prowess. I mean, if you say it's a fact, it must be, by virtue of the fact that you said it. I'm convinced. The massive numbers of illegal aliens thronging the streets in protest marches, waving Mexican flags, pictures of Che Guevara, and historically illiterate signs screeching "THIS IS A STOLEN CONTINENT!" and "ANGLOS: ILLEGAL INVADERS SINCE 1492!" are mirages experienced by those thirsting for Mexican blood. Reconquista movements--such as MEChA, the Mexica Movement, and La Raza--are figments of deluded minds, si? The rewritten national anthem ("Nuestro Himno"), MS-13 and other well-heeled street gangs, and the obtrusive leftist slogans all point toward loyalty and true expressions of Americanism. What was I thinking?
Second, why should illegal immigrants not feel greater allegiance to Mexico? America keeps telling them that they don't belong here, they aren't welcome, there's no road for them to have legal status and never will be.
Mr. Card, you're either a liar or willfully stupid. America has perhaps the most liberal immigration policy in the world, with the possible exception of Canada. Mexicans already have a road to legal status, you dunce; it's called immigrating legally to the United States. It's called following the law. Ever heard of it? Are you suggesting that legal immigration to the U.S. by Mexicans is impossible?
Understand that when Card mentions a "road to legal status," he's referencing blanket amnesty. It's the only logical deduction available to us.
This one is obvious: Because we declare all these illegal immigrants to be criminals and threaten to deport them if they're caught, they can't cooperate with the police to report the real criminals who hide among them and prey on them.
The more of Card's tripe that I read, the more convinced I become that he's a blithering idiot. If someone's an illegal immigrant, he is--by definition--a criminal. Get a dictionary and look up the word "Illegal" sometime. It'll be a mind-expanding experience. Illegal entry is a misdemeanor; reentry after deportation is a felony. As for deportation, there's very little threat of that at present, and you know it. People afraid of deportation do not parade about the streets, waving Mexican flags. That I must point this out speaks volumes about your intellectual honesty, or perhaps your intellect--full stop.
As for criminals "preying on them," let me just go all nativist for a second and say that I'm much more concerned about illegal alien criminals preying upon my fellow citizens. I'm a bigot that way.
I ask you, please, to look closely at the way our current immigration laws contribute to or cause all the problems that actually worry you.
I'm fond of Card's baseless assertions. Aren't you?
If we converted the status of all our present illegal immigrants to legal immigrant or legal migrant worker status, then key changes would happen instantly:
1. All these immigrants or workers would come under the protection of laws they already are taxed to support: Minimum wage, health and safety laws, and so on.
Hm, I had no idea that our focus should be on protecting the "rights" of illegal aliens. I was under the silly impression that domestic security and the best interests of Americans should take priority.
2. These immigrants would now have an incentive to report the criminals who, after all, prey mostly on them.
Yes, because people with criminal mentalities become pillars of your community, when you wave a wand and make them law-abiding citizens by nullifying immigration laws. One question Card doesn't address is that if your first act upon entering a country is a knowing violation of its laws, why should others believe that you won't continue breaking those and other laws?
3. Coming out of hiding, it would be far easier for these immigrants, and their children, to learn English and become full participants in American culture.
Assuming, of course, that they want "to learn English and become full participants in American culture," which is a case he hasn't made. Nor does he tackle the subjects of bilingual education, or America's once-prevalent and now nonexistent assimilation incentives. The "melting pot" was tossed out long ago.
If we took any of these rational steps (which are called "amnesty" in tones that suggest it's a hideous disease) we could come far closer to a solution to all the problems that the anti-illegal-immigrant faction claims as their reasons for opposing amnesty.
No, it's not a disease; it's just a decision not to make someone pay the just penalties for his acts. Amnesty has cultural ramifications which Mr. Card doesn't relish discussing, so he pretends they don't exist. Rather than attacking those on the opposite side, I'd prefer an explanation for why he's pro-amnesty and anti-anti-illegal-immigrant. In other words, why are you pro-invasion, Mr. Card?
I laughed out loud when I heard Mitt Romney state that if you give amnesty to illegals, it will just encourage more illegal immigration.
I laughed out loud when I heard someone state that if you give amnesty to burglars, it will just encourage more burglary. I laughed out loud because I realized that some people are so stupid, they can't comprehend this basic truth. Generally speaking, when you reward bad behavior, you get more bad behavior. This isn't rocket science. Are teenagers more or less likely to become promiscuous when you hand out condoms like candy on Halloween? Since Reagan's 1986 amnesty of illegal aliens, has illegal migration into this country markedly increased, remained static, or decreased? (Hint: it's the first one).
(TO BE CONTINUED)
It may require a couple of posts to critique his long, fallacy-ridden article.
Early on in his piece, Card suggests that a focus on illegal immigration for Republicans at election time has disastrous potential. He then observes prophetically:
This year, though, is one of those pivotal elections that may well set America's future course for decades -- possibly forever. Like the election of 1860, the issues are vital and clear -- and the future almost impossible to read, except that really bad things might happen.
The vagueness of this scare-mongering statement is downright silly; if you remove the reference to 1860, it could apply to any election since the country's founding.
We are a nation at war, with the intellectual and media establishment -- the universities, most television, and most newspapers -- so passionate to stop the war that they seem willing to throw away any chance of victory as soon as possible, lest we win before they can secure our defeat.
I've made clear in the past that I don't take the war seriously; why should I?; the president doesn't. As for victory, I'd like to see Card define it for us. Does he mean creating an Edenic utopia in Iraq, or just annihilating most of the terrorists? The latter is realistically more possible than the former. I firmly believe that instituting a viable, self-sustaining republican form of government in a Muslim country is impossible. Freedom of conscience--liberty of any stripe--is anathema to the basic tenets of Islam.
The Democratic Party is going to nominate someone committed to that position -- ending the war immediately, without possibility of victory. All of its leading candidates are pledged to that position.
Of course, since Card has made no case for why ending the war is problematic, or what true victory means, I don't find this eventuality particularly troublesome.
Up to this point, his argument is that the "show must go on," and only Republicans can be counted on to make it happen.
Too aggressive, and our president will unite all of Islam against us, and then we will have a genuine World War III, for who can doubt that China and Russia would arm and train them to bring us down?
Apparently he's laboring under the delusion that Muslims are rational beings. Muslims do not view American actions with the attitude "Oh, well, they're not too aggressive, yet; I'll just go back to whetting my scimitar. Woman, bring me some goat bladder soup." Instead, it's more like, "An attack against my Islamic brothers is a slight against all the House of Islam." That's how devout Muslims see the situation. It's the most tribalistic, "us-versus-them" religion on Earth. As a tiny bit of evidence, I offer the jigs of joy displayed by "Palestinians" after 9/11. As for China and Russia, does he believe they'll refrain from arming Muslims--despite the benefits derived therefrom--unless and until the guano hits the proverbial fan?
Too timid, and our president will signal our Islamicist enemies that we are back to the weakness of the Clinton years, and they can do what they want, using attacks on the West to boost their prestige and power in the Islamic world.
These "attacks on the West" haven't ended, despite our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan. Remember the 2004 Madrid bombings, and the London attacks in 2005? And personally, I consider sieve-like northern and southern borders a perfect match to the description "weakness of the Clinton years."
In other words, we need a president who is as resolute, careful, and moderate as George W. Bush has been (despite the obviously false claims of his enemies).
There are several candidates in the Republican race who might just be that president: Giuliani, Romney, and perhaps McCain (though moderation has never been his hallmark). Each has his virtues, each his problems.
More profundity. We need a president who will be moderate. Perhaps McCain will be, though moderation is not a known quality of his. These are brilliant insights, Mr. Card. No, really. Perhaps bloblike entities from Rigel will land in my backyard and declare a cure for all of humanity's ills, and train said cure's sights on our planet from orbit.
I am a Democrat, and wish fervently that my party would nominate someone I could vote for.
When Democrats defend Republican policies, you know there's something wrong with the GOP.
Here is the great irony: Even as President Bush's policies are leading us to victory in Iraq, which will certainly make the war a huge plus for the Republican Party, the Republican candidates are ignoring the war and beating each other up over an issue that could well destroy the Republican Party for years to come.
I speak, of course, of Mexican immigration into the United States.
Here is the great irony: Even as Mr. Card accepts as a given--without elaboration or evidence--that Bush's policies and the war in Iraq are "leading us to victory," the American people have become less enthusiastic about the war. Simultaneously, U.S. citizens all across the philosophical and political spectrums agree that illegal immigration must be stopped, while Mr. Card believes that focusing on popular, election-winning issues is disastrous for our country. Exactly how does taking the American people's side on an issue that resonates with them lead us into a trap that "could well destroy the Republican Party for years to come."? As I alluded earlier, Mr. Card is a consummate fantasist.
For instance, one of the greatest complaints against "illegal immigrants" is that they are refusing to learn English and are not assimilating. The scholarly in this camp invoke the example of ancient Rome, which invited large, coherent, undigested and unassimilable groups of Germans within the boundaries of the empire.
Yes, and how did the Romans profit long-term from this decision? Opps, well, the outcome wasn't so nice, so let's flippantly disregard it.
I could happily spend many pages pointing out why this is not the clearcut example they suppose it to be, but instead I will simply point out what should be obvious: First generation immigrants rarely become fluent in their new language.
Translation: Your illustration is so ridiculous, it is beyond my ability to refute it.
Meanwhile, the second generation of legal Hispanic immigrant families is becoming fluent at about the normal rate. It's a non-issue. They're not stupid -- they know their lives will be better when they're fluent in English, and even better if they have no accent.
A study by Dr. Steven Camarota of the Center for Immigration Studies found that high school dropout rates for second-and third-generation Mexican-Americans are 2.5 times those of Americans by birth. The Pew Hispanic Center, not what I'd call an anti-Mexican organization, found that Hispanic immigrants self-segregate in major U.S. cities, and usually attend Latino public high schools. Nationwide, Hispanic enrollment makes up 13 percent of the total; but 85 percent of Hispanic students are concentrated in a small number of schools. These inner city schools tend toward high dropout rates and poor educational records.
Peter Brimelow's Alien Nation makes similar points. Card's assertion that second-generation fluency in English is a "non-issue" is his opinion--an opinion which contradicts factual studies conducted by others.
I can tell you that in my neck of the woods, I see no evidence that these people care one whit about learning English; nor do they typically speak to their children in English. They congregate together, conduct business in Spanish, and insulate themselves from the English-speaking world, for the most part. If you can get by without learning the language, why bother?
The illegals have far less chance to become fluent because they are, essentially, in hiding; the less contact they have with native-born English-speakers, the safer they are.
So keeping them illegal is also keeping them from learning English. Giving them legal status would make it far more likely that English would remain the dominant language in America.
This is patent nonsense. These people are not in hiding; they move about openly in the grocery stores, malls, and throughout the public arena, without fear of apprehension. Perhaps you should get out more. Mr. Card, we're not "keeping them illegal." That's an asinine perspective. They made themselves illegal, when they slipped over the border in violation of American law. Notice that the rule of law plays zero role in this man's evaluation. He suggests that we arbitrarily make them legal; I'm assuming he wants a revocation of our immigration laws, or blanket amnesty; otherwise, how do we "make them legal?"
Another of the big complaints against illegals is "they don't pay taxes."
Well, duh. You can't pay taxes without a social security number. If we gave them legal status they'd have that number, and then they could pay taxes.
Many have phony social security numbers, and even get refunds from the government on taxes they never paid. Duh. Guess you didn't know that. And way to ignore the fact that certain greedy employers hire illegals off the books, pay them cash under the table, and no taxes get paid--by the employer or the exploited illegal alien. I suppose the real scourge of greed doesn't exist in Card's fairytopia.
However, it's a non-issue for another reason: Most illegals are paid so little that their income never rises high enough for them to pay income tax!
Wow! I bet that works out well for them, since they disproportionately land on the welfare rolls: heck, we won' pay no steeenkeeeng taxes; and gringo can foot the bill when we get public assistance! What a country!
So they are paying taxes, at exactly the same rate as any native born low-income Americans. Only the Mexican-haters want to deprive them of any of the benefits that they are, in fact, paying for.
What an intellectual disconnect. He just admitted a few paragraphs above that they don't pay income taxes. Now they're paying at the same rate as the native born? I also enjoyed the cheap shot at the end, where we're told that decrying the invasion demonstrates bogotry.
In fact, I believe that illegal immigrants are, indirectly, paying a far higher tax rate than other low-income Americans. We don't call it a tax, but it amounts to the same thing: I refer to the sharp increase in buying power for all Americans because illegal immigrants work for subminimum wages, thus keeping prices in the stores lower for everyone.
Uh, sorry, but increased buying power doesn't equal an additional tax. And there is no "sharp increase." Economists have determined that, if all the Mexicans went home tomorrow, prices on good likes produce would increase slightly, and that's all. The point is irrelevant, anyway, because the prices--low or high--are set artificially by the presence of aliens in the job market. I'm calling for this artificial construct's removal, by giving them incentives to go home.
Thus far, Card has demonstrated no empathy for American citizens displaced by aliens, or for the depressed wages they earn. I suppose that's the real non-issue, for Mr. Card.
The truth is that illegal immigrants, because they can be cheated and oppressed with impunity due to their lack of protection by the government (which they do pay taxes to support), are subsidizing for all Americans a higher lifestyle than we could otherwise afford.
Is this supposedly an argument in favor of backing off the immigration issue, or for addressing it in a more coherent manner? By the way, I dare you to try that "subsidizing for all Americans a higher lifestyle than we could otherwise afford" crap on Americans who can't get a job for their skill level, or decent wages. I'm sure you'll have a sympathetic ear.
I've heard some complain with resentment that the illegals don't want to be citizens, that they wave the Mexican flag and despise America.
First, I know for a fact that that is not the feeling of most Mexican immigrants, legal or not.
Mr. Card, I stand in awe of your apologetic prowess. I mean, if you say it's a fact, it must be, by virtue of the fact that you said it. I'm convinced. The massive numbers of illegal aliens thronging the streets in protest marches, waving Mexican flags, pictures of Che Guevara, and historically illiterate signs screeching "THIS IS A STOLEN CONTINENT!" and "ANGLOS: ILLEGAL INVADERS SINCE 1492!" are mirages experienced by those thirsting for Mexican blood. Reconquista movements--such as MEChA, the Mexica Movement, and La Raza--are figments of deluded minds, si? The rewritten national anthem ("Nuestro Himno"), MS-13 and other well-heeled street gangs, and the obtrusive leftist slogans all point toward loyalty and true expressions of Americanism. What was I thinking?
Second, why should illegal immigrants not feel greater allegiance to Mexico? America keeps telling them that they don't belong here, they aren't welcome, there's no road for them to have legal status and never will be.
Mr. Card, you're either a liar or willfully stupid. America has perhaps the most liberal immigration policy in the world, with the possible exception of Canada. Mexicans already have a road to legal status, you dunce; it's called immigrating legally to the United States. It's called following the law. Ever heard of it? Are you suggesting that legal immigration to the U.S. by Mexicans is impossible?
Understand that when Card mentions a "road to legal status," he's referencing blanket amnesty. It's the only logical deduction available to us.
This one is obvious: Because we declare all these illegal immigrants to be criminals and threaten to deport them if they're caught, they can't cooperate with the police to report the real criminals who hide among them and prey on them.
The more of Card's tripe that I read, the more convinced I become that he's a blithering idiot. If someone's an illegal immigrant, he is--by definition--a criminal. Get a dictionary and look up the word "Illegal" sometime. It'll be a mind-expanding experience. Illegal entry is a misdemeanor; reentry after deportation is a felony. As for deportation, there's very little threat of that at present, and you know it. People afraid of deportation do not parade about the streets, waving Mexican flags. That I must point this out speaks volumes about your intellectual honesty, or perhaps your intellect--full stop.
As for criminals "preying on them," let me just go all nativist for a second and say that I'm much more concerned about illegal alien criminals preying upon my fellow citizens. I'm a bigot that way.
I ask you, please, to look closely at the way our current immigration laws contribute to or cause all the problems that actually worry you.
I'm fond of Card's baseless assertions. Aren't you?
If we converted the status of all our present illegal immigrants to legal immigrant or legal migrant worker status, then key changes would happen instantly:
1. All these immigrants or workers would come under the protection of laws they already are taxed to support: Minimum wage, health and safety laws, and so on.
Hm, I had no idea that our focus should be on protecting the "rights" of illegal aliens. I was under the silly impression that domestic security and the best interests of Americans should take priority.
2. These immigrants would now have an incentive to report the criminals who, after all, prey mostly on them.
Yes, because people with criminal mentalities become pillars of your community, when you wave a wand and make them law-abiding citizens by nullifying immigration laws. One question Card doesn't address is that if your first act upon entering a country is a knowing violation of its laws, why should others believe that you won't continue breaking those and other laws?
3. Coming out of hiding, it would be far easier for these immigrants, and their children, to learn English and become full participants in American culture.
Assuming, of course, that they want "to learn English and become full participants in American culture," which is a case he hasn't made. Nor does he tackle the subjects of bilingual education, or America's once-prevalent and now nonexistent assimilation incentives. The "melting pot" was tossed out long ago.
If we took any of these rational steps (which are called "amnesty" in tones that suggest it's a hideous disease) we could come far closer to a solution to all the problems that the anti-illegal-immigrant faction claims as their reasons for opposing amnesty.
No, it's not a disease; it's just a decision not to make someone pay the just penalties for his acts. Amnesty has cultural ramifications which Mr. Card doesn't relish discussing, so he pretends they don't exist. Rather than attacking those on the opposite side, I'd prefer an explanation for why he's pro-amnesty and anti-anti-illegal-immigrant. In other words, why are you pro-invasion, Mr. Card?
I laughed out loud when I heard Mitt Romney state that if you give amnesty to illegals, it will just encourage more illegal immigration.
I laughed out loud when I heard someone state that if you give amnesty to burglars, it will just encourage more burglary. I laughed out loud because I realized that some people are so stupid, they can't comprehend this basic truth. Generally speaking, when you reward bad behavior, you get more bad behavior. This isn't rocket science. Are teenagers more or less likely to become promiscuous when you hand out condoms like candy on Halloween? Since Reagan's 1986 amnesty of illegal aliens, has illegal migration into this country markedly increased, remained static, or decreased? (Hint: it's the first one).
(TO BE CONTINUED)
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Top 16
I was reading a list of Amazon's top-ten best-selling books mentioned at Vox's, and it gave me an idea for some fictional titles which would amuse me. And yes, I have too way much time on my hands.
1. Fat and Happy: Getting in Touch with Your Rotund Inner Child
2. Eat, Drink, and Be Merry: An Atheist's Guide to Sightseeing on the Road to Oblivion
3. Hoo-ahh!: The Witticisms of Al Pacino
4. I Hate God: An Objective Approach to Theism, by Richard Dawkins
5. The Devil's Concubine: An Inside Look at Hillary Clinton, by Bill Clinton
6. Everyone's An American, by Jorge W. Bushandez
7. Wine, Women,and Song: A Portrait of Ted "Hic" Kennedy
8. Enslaved to Love: A Revisionist Looks At Thomas Jefferson's Affairs of the Heart
9. Gimme Some Sugar, Baby: An Unauthorized Biography of Bruce Campbell
10. Stupid Is As Stupid Does: The Quotations of Al "Forest" Gore
11. Fat Pinko: An Autobiography, by Michael Moore
12. La Voz de Aztlan: Reclaiming the Azteca Continent for La Raza, by Vicente Fox, Juan Valdez, and Nat Chertoff; Forward by Jorge W. Bushandez
13. It Takes a Serpent, by Hillary Clinton
14. Like, As If: An Intellectual Deconstructs Paris Hilton
15. Live Long and Prosper: Doctor Spock's Guide to Infant Health
16. Watch Your Language, Honkey, by Al Sharpton
1. Fat and Happy: Getting in Touch with Your Rotund Inner Child
2. Eat, Drink, and Be Merry: An Atheist's Guide to Sightseeing on the Road to Oblivion
3. Hoo-ahh!: The Witticisms of Al Pacino
4. I Hate God: An Objective Approach to Theism, by Richard Dawkins
5. The Devil's Concubine: An Inside Look at Hillary Clinton, by Bill Clinton
6. Everyone's An American, by Jorge W. Bushandez
7. Wine, Women,and Song: A Portrait of Ted "Hic" Kennedy
8. Enslaved to Love: A Revisionist Looks At Thomas Jefferson's Affairs of the Heart
9. Gimme Some Sugar, Baby: An Unauthorized Biography of Bruce Campbell
10. Stupid Is As Stupid Does: The Quotations of Al "Forest" Gore
11. Fat Pinko: An Autobiography, by Michael Moore
12. La Voz de Aztlan: Reclaiming the Azteca Continent for La Raza, by Vicente Fox, Juan Valdez, and Nat Chertoff; Forward by Jorge W. Bushandez
13. It Takes a Serpent, by Hillary Clinton
14. Like, As If: An Intellectual Deconstructs Paris Hilton
15. Live Long and Prosper: Doctor Spock's Guide to Infant Health
16. Watch Your Language, Honkey, by Al Sharpton
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Lying for the Masses' Sake
George W. Bush defines himself as a "compassionate conservative;" he ran as such in 2000, making the description his campaign's centerpiece. Some deluded folks still characterize him in this fashion, all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.
I contend that Bush is neither compassionate, nor conservative. Believing his self-description requires a twisting of these words' definitions, to such a degree that a more accurate elaboration of "compassionate conservatism" is "a term encompassing any- and everything that I (Bush) deem appropriate." It's Orwellian balderdash.
Take his so-called compassion. Where's his empathy for Americans displaced from certain occupations by illegal aliens? Where's the compassion for citizens working for depressed wages, again, due to illegal aliens flooding the labor market? When will his sympathy rear its head for victims of criminal aliens--the murdered, the raped, the robbed? What about their families, who must somehow pick up the pieces of their shattered lives and carry on? And what of private property violations at or near the borders? When will his heart break for those who cannot obtain prompt or adequate medical care, because ubiquitous illegal aliens have swamped local emergency rooms or forced the bankruptcy and subsequent closing of area hospitals? (I use the immigration issue in making my point because it clearly illustrates his indifference and contempt for the American people--particularly those in the middle or lower classes). If Mr. Bush retains any compassion in his soul, it is selectively applied to criminal foreign nationals, not his fellow citizens to whom he has sworn an oath.
As for the other component of his facade, conservatism is--by definition--inclusive of a desire to preserve or conserve a society. It is the maintenance of tradition. Can we call a man a "preserver" who happily abets the invasion of his country by criminals, terrorists, and others who neither share our language and culture, nor our values and love of this land, its people, or heritage? Conservatism promotes decentralized government and decreased government spending of taxpayer monies; Bush stands for neither of these basic tenets of conservative philosophy. True conservatives do not seek to undermine the rule of law or the Constitution of the United States--in non-enforcement of immigration policies and support for a regional government or North American "union." To the extent that conservatism has an objectively identifiable meaning, Bush neither understands nor adheres to it, unless one counts paying it lip service.
So why does Bush present himself as a conservative, when he clearly has no familiarity with the concept, in practice? The answer is that the powers-that-be understand the American people's right-of-center outlook. We're talking about a con job: two duelling parties, both of whom love and worship socialism. But what to do, when the American people aren't "ready" for full-blown, in-your-face socialism or Communism? Why, by playing the shell game. Present one candidate as a leftist ideologue, and the other as a strict conservative. The citizenry automatically (and predictably) gravitates toward the "conservative" contender, never realizing that he is a socialist in disguise. This sleight-of-hand works beautifully, because no matter which party wins the contest, socialism survives the day and becomes instituted.
America is not completely in the toilet, yet, though she dances on the rim. That these rival factions still feel the need to play the game and obfuscate is proof of this, in my opinion. If Americans embraced socialism to the same degree as the Republican and Democrat parties, there would be no need to hide Oz behind a curtain of color and thunder and lightning.
I contend that Bush is neither compassionate, nor conservative. Believing his self-description requires a twisting of these words' definitions, to such a degree that a more accurate elaboration of "compassionate conservatism" is "a term encompassing any- and everything that I (Bush) deem appropriate." It's Orwellian balderdash.
Take his so-called compassion. Where's his empathy for Americans displaced from certain occupations by illegal aliens? Where's the compassion for citizens working for depressed wages, again, due to illegal aliens flooding the labor market? When will his sympathy rear its head for victims of criminal aliens--the murdered, the raped, the robbed? What about their families, who must somehow pick up the pieces of their shattered lives and carry on? And what of private property violations at or near the borders? When will his heart break for those who cannot obtain prompt or adequate medical care, because ubiquitous illegal aliens have swamped local emergency rooms or forced the bankruptcy and subsequent closing of area hospitals? (I use the immigration issue in making my point because it clearly illustrates his indifference and contempt for the American people--particularly those in the middle or lower classes). If Mr. Bush retains any compassion in his soul, it is selectively applied to criminal foreign nationals, not his fellow citizens to whom he has sworn an oath.
As for the other component of his facade, conservatism is--by definition--inclusive of a desire to preserve or conserve a society. It is the maintenance of tradition. Can we call a man a "preserver" who happily abets the invasion of his country by criminals, terrorists, and others who neither share our language and culture, nor our values and love of this land, its people, or heritage? Conservatism promotes decentralized government and decreased government spending of taxpayer monies; Bush stands for neither of these basic tenets of conservative philosophy. True conservatives do not seek to undermine the rule of law or the Constitution of the United States--in non-enforcement of immigration policies and support for a regional government or North American "union." To the extent that conservatism has an objectively identifiable meaning, Bush neither understands nor adheres to it, unless one counts paying it lip service.
So why does Bush present himself as a conservative, when he clearly has no familiarity with the concept, in practice? The answer is that the powers-that-be understand the American people's right-of-center outlook. We're talking about a con job: two duelling parties, both of whom love and worship socialism. But what to do, when the American people aren't "ready" for full-blown, in-your-face socialism or Communism? Why, by playing the shell game. Present one candidate as a leftist ideologue, and the other as a strict conservative. The citizenry automatically (and predictably) gravitates toward the "conservative" contender, never realizing that he is a socialist in disguise. This sleight-of-hand works beautifully, because no matter which party wins the contest, socialism survives the day and becomes instituted.
America is not completely in the toilet, yet, though she dances on the rim. That these rival factions still feel the need to play the game and obfuscate is proof of this, in my opinion. If Americans embraced socialism to the same degree as the Republican and Democrat parties, there would be no need to hide Oz behind a curtain of color and thunder and lightning.
Sunday, January 6, 2008
Praise the Lawd, the Sky Is Falling!
A day after ordained Baptist minister Mike Huckabee finished first in the opening round to choose a Republican candidate for the White House, scientists warned Americans against electing a leader who doubts evolution.
Insert Chicken Little hysteria here.
"The logic that convinces us that evolution is a fact is the same logic we use to say smoking is hazardous to your health or we have serious energy policy issues because of global warming," University of Michigan professor Gilbert Omenn told reporters at the launch of a book on evolution by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS).
The problem with your "logic" is that it would turn a contortionist into a pretzel. Complete with Sesame seeds. It's amusing how "academics" promote atheist/agnostic or Leftist dogmas as fact, and anyone who presents the slightest scepticism about their gospel must be so rude of intellect that he makes australopithecus look sophisticated.
"I would worry that a president who didn't believe in the evolution arguments wouldn't believe in those other arguments either. This is a way of leading our country to ruin," added Omenn, who was part of a panel of experts at the launch of "Science, Evolution and Creationism."
Translation: "I'm terrified that someone who embraces scripture at face-value or rejects left-wing principles might become president."
A poll conducted last year showed that two-thirds of Americans believe in creationism, or the theory that God created humans at a single point in time, while 53 percent believe that humans developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life -- the theory of evolution.
So if two-thirds of Americans believe in creationism, what possibly could be more ridiculous than electing a leader who shares their belief? That whole "representative" aspect of our political system has your stomach in knots, doesn't it, Herr Omenn?
By the way, notice this "objective news reporting" from the linked article:
The evolution versus creationism debate has crept into school classrooms and politics, where it is mainly conservative Republicans who espouse the non-scientific belief.
Yep. No bias there. The implication is that evolution is scientific, while creationism isn't. The reality is that neither are scientific, in the sense that they are subject to testing or observation.
Insert Chicken Little hysteria here.
"The logic that convinces us that evolution is a fact is the same logic we use to say smoking is hazardous to your health or we have serious energy policy issues because of global warming," University of Michigan professor Gilbert Omenn told reporters at the launch of a book on evolution by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS).
The problem with your "logic" is that it would turn a contortionist into a pretzel. Complete with Sesame seeds. It's amusing how "academics" promote atheist/agnostic or Leftist dogmas as fact, and anyone who presents the slightest scepticism about their gospel must be so rude of intellect that he makes australopithecus look sophisticated.
"I would worry that a president who didn't believe in the evolution arguments wouldn't believe in those other arguments either. This is a way of leading our country to ruin," added Omenn, who was part of a panel of experts at the launch of "Science, Evolution and Creationism."
Translation: "I'm terrified that someone who embraces scripture at face-value or rejects left-wing principles might become president."
A poll conducted last year showed that two-thirds of Americans believe in creationism, or the theory that God created humans at a single point in time, while 53 percent believe that humans developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life -- the theory of evolution.
So if two-thirds of Americans believe in creationism, what possibly could be more ridiculous than electing a leader who shares their belief? That whole "representative" aspect of our political system has your stomach in knots, doesn't it, Herr Omenn?
By the way, notice this "objective news reporting" from the linked article:
The evolution versus creationism debate has crept into school classrooms and politics, where it is mainly conservative Republicans who espouse the non-scientific belief.
Yep. No bias there. The implication is that evolution is scientific, while creationism isn't. The reality is that neither are scientific, in the sense that they are subject to testing or observation.
Saturday, January 5, 2008
"We're Fine Where We Are, Thanks."
From WorldNetDaily:
If given the option of living in a future Palestinian state, most Israeli Arabs would prefer to remain citizens of Israel, according to a new survey released this week.
You mean they actually prefer Jewish rule to that of Islamic overlords? How could that be? I was under the impression that Jews use Arab blood in their matzos, disembowel puppies for fun, and are in the planning stages of a secret project to knock Earth out of its orbit and send it spinning into the sun.
"The future Palestinian state would serve as a national solution for the Palestinians of the West Bank, those living in the refugee camps and those who are citizens with equal rights in the Jewish state," stated (Israeli Foreign Minister) Livni at a November press conference with France's foreign minister.
Talking about your pies in the sky. There is no "national solution" to the "Palestinian" problem; not when these people are engaged in a final "Final Solution," if you get my drift. A "Palestinian" state will serve as a staging ground for attacks on Israel, only from the back door, rather than across the street.
But a new poll conducted by Keevoon, an Israeli research and strategic communications company, found the majority of Israeli Arabs – 62 percent – don't want to live under Palestinian rule.
Only 14 percent of respondents said they would prefer to live in a Palestinian state and not Israel if given the choice, while 24 percent did not express an opinion or refused to answer.
Notice that this isn't a poll of Arab Christians, but of Arabs in general--be they Christian or Muslim. I wonder how many of the 24% non-respondents were worried about being "Islamocized" in a back alley, somewhere, no doubt accounting for their reticence.
Mitchell Barak, managing director of Keevoon, told WND, "The survey challenges the widely held claim that Israeli Arabs have national aspirations for statehood. Most expressed a desire to remain Israeli when given a choice."
If given the option of living in a future Palestinian state, most Israeli Arabs would prefer to remain citizens of Israel, according to a new survey released this week.
You mean they actually prefer Jewish rule to that of Islamic overlords? How could that be? I was under the impression that Jews use Arab blood in their matzos, disembowel puppies for fun, and are in the planning stages of a secret project to knock Earth out of its orbit and send it spinning into the sun.
"The future Palestinian state would serve as a national solution for the Palestinians of the West Bank, those living in the refugee camps and those who are citizens with equal rights in the Jewish state," stated (Israeli Foreign Minister) Livni at a November press conference with France's foreign minister.
Talking about your pies in the sky. There is no "national solution" to the "Palestinian" problem; not when these people are engaged in a final "Final Solution," if you get my drift. A "Palestinian" state will serve as a staging ground for attacks on Israel, only from the back door, rather than across the street.
But a new poll conducted by Keevoon, an Israeli research and strategic communications company, found the majority of Israeli Arabs – 62 percent – don't want to live under Palestinian rule.
Only 14 percent of respondents said they would prefer to live in a Palestinian state and not Israel if given the choice, while 24 percent did not express an opinion or refused to answer.
Notice that this isn't a poll of Arab Christians, but of Arabs in general--be they Christian or Muslim. I wonder how many of the 24% non-respondents were worried about being "Islamocized" in a back alley, somewhere, no doubt accounting for their reticence.
Mitchell Barak, managing director of Keevoon, told WND, "The survey challenges the widely held claim that Israeli Arabs have national aspirations for statehood. Most expressed a desire to remain Israeli when given a choice."
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
I Am Legend
Richard Matheson's book of the same title was published in 1954. Ten years later, the first cinematic version hit the screens--a low-budget film called The Last Man on Earth, starring Vincent Price. In 1971 came Charlton Heston's movie, The Omega Man, the second adaptation of Matheson's book. The third is Will Smith's new film, the only one sharing the novel's original title.
None of these attempts follow the book in every detail, but the closest match is the first entry, if memory serves (I read the book about fifteen years ago). The Omega Man is a better movie, technically speaking, but diverges from the novel even further. Smith's film departs as much or more, and this is the main problem with it.
I've never understood the attitude behind tinkering with good storylines. It's as if screenwriters/producers/directors have an innate need to mold something into their own creation, even if the outcome is foreign or even anathema to the source material. With rare exceptions, stories are not improved when this mindset prevails. It's bizarre that filmmakers believe that certain novels and shorter works need screen treatments, but do not deserve to make the transition intact. With I Am Legend, whole segments of the story--particularly the ending--veer away from Matheson's novel, with no legitimate reason for doing so. Nor am I talking about condensing for screen-time considerations, but alteration of the plot itself. I believe I would have enjoyed the movie far more, had I not read the novel, first.
Unjustified nonadherence to the book aside, this film has a lot to offer. Will Smith carries the movie singlehandedly; his acting is right on the button. I think he demonstrates with each film project his considerable acting skill, and justly deserved fame. Another high point is the visual effects, especially the set pieces and atmosphere. I was amazed at how the filmmakers made a large city look deserted, with nature reclaiming a once-thriving metropolis. Little details throughout lent hints of realism to an otherwise fantastic subject matter, as well. I also enjoyed the intense feelings of dread and suspense elicited in some scenes.
If you're looking for a faithful rendition of the novel to the big screen, don't bother with this one. It takes one too many liberties with the original story. On the other hand, if you're on the lookout for a good science fiction/horror movie that rises above the typical dreck found in your local theater (think Saw LX, or whatever), I recommend I Am Legend.
None of these attempts follow the book in every detail, but the closest match is the first entry, if memory serves (I read the book about fifteen years ago). The Omega Man is a better movie, technically speaking, but diverges from the novel even further. Smith's film departs as much or more, and this is the main problem with it.
I've never understood the attitude behind tinkering with good storylines. It's as if screenwriters/producers/directors have an innate need to mold something into their own creation, even if the outcome is foreign or even anathema to the source material. With rare exceptions, stories are not improved when this mindset prevails. It's bizarre that filmmakers believe that certain novels and shorter works need screen treatments, but do not deserve to make the transition intact. With I Am Legend, whole segments of the story--particularly the ending--veer away from Matheson's novel, with no legitimate reason for doing so. Nor am I talking about condensing for screen-time considerations, but alteration of the plot itself. I believe I would have enjoyed the movie far more, had I not read the novel, first.
Unjustified nonadherence to the book aside, this film has a lot to offer. Will Smith carries the movie singlehandedly; his acting is right on the button. I think he demonstrates with each film project his considerable acting skill, and justly deserved fame. Another high point is the visual effects, especially the set pieces and atmosphere. I was amazed at how the filmmakers made a large city look deserted, with nature reclaiming a once-thriving metropolis. Little details throughout lent hints of realism to an otherwise fantastic subject matter, as well. I also enjoyed the intense feelings of dread and suspense elicited in some scenes.
If you're looking for a faithful rendition of the novel to the big screen, don't bother with this one. It takes one too many liberties with the original story. On the other hand, if you're on the lookout for a good science fiction/horror movie that rises above the typical dreck found in your local theater (think Saw LX, or whatever), I recommend I Am Legend.
Happy New Year!
I haven't made any new year's resolutions, as I just don't have enough resolve. Oh, well. I'll just resolve to do better next year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)