muff528

One small point -- (IMO) The "documentation" issue is not about how much documentation you have with you. It's about getting "documented" upon arrival. But, my post was in response to Bill's suggestion that his ancestors entry into the country (through Ellis Island) would have made them "criminals" by today's standards. The simple fact is that their legal entry and processing through Ellis Island prevented them from becoming "criminals" ...at least as far as immigration status is concerned. You seem to be lamenting that if only the ships didn't have to take them to Ellis Island, dammit!, they would have exercised some preferred other "option" ...probably an "illegal" one.(?) As a side issue, I wonder if there actually were other points of entry around the country's borders for processing incoming immigrants and foreign visitors? Without looking it up, I think incoming immigrants could have checked in at any INS (or equivalent Federal office?). I think Ellis Island (i.e., a large-scale immigrant induction facility) existed because of the large influx of immigrants into a major port city. That's where the ships go, so let's build an induction center there. Also, Ellis Island did provide (at least by 19th C. standards) a quarantine point, however ineffective, for possible identification/isolation of incoming diseases, considering the large numbers of folks who were being funneled through there from many different lands and cultures. (But, at least at our southern border, that is one issue where we have no worries since those folks are coming from regions that, even with all their political and economic failings, boast 100% vaccination rates.) As far as wolfriverjoe's post above yours: "Except that the door for the "poor, tired and weary" was closed a while back. There's virtually no way for an ordinary Mexican or Central American to immigrate legally to the US.". I don't know if that door really is "closed" for lawful entry, but if it is, maybe it's because we are presently (and daily becoming more and more) "saturated" as far as providing mandated and other humanitarian services to the folks who have already arrived, legally or illegally. If that's the case, it's likely that illegal entrants from Mexico and C. America have literally stolen food, health care coverage and other aid from their countrymen who actually entered (or are now prevented from entering) lawfully. Totally agree that any help, from anyone, would be welcome in Alberta. The contributions, however small, from the newly-arrived Syrian immigrants were likely painful in terms of the amount of sacrifice on their part. And I suspect that, in part, they really were trying to say thanks and to show a sense of community at the same time. Also, agree that news coverage was probably over the top.

Well, except for that whole checking in at Ellis Island thing.

Okay ...so by this article I (with one immigrant grandparent from Spain) am 1/4 "Hispanic". But, my other 3 grandparents, who emigrated from the region that gave birth to the Latin language, do not contribute any "Latino" mojo to my genes at all. Doesn't matter anyway, because, even though my grandparents and parents were all fluent speakers of Italian and Spanish, I don't know enough Spanish to be sure of what I'm ordering at Taco Bell. OTOH, I have Cuban and Mexican relatives who can be called Hispanic and Latino, each preferring only one of the labels depending on which side of the Mississippi they are from.

I love a good hot dog. That said, it is NOT the role of government to declare bullshit holidays to promote business. Not all hot dogs are made from beef.

Much more interesting, IMO, is Steven Weinberg's article "Sokal's Hoax" (which is linked in about the ninth paragraph of the "Big Science..." article, here)

Looks like she was fairly stable, though. BTW - It does look like a little bit of photoshopping was done to get the L-R symmetry effect.

We jumped this one at Zhills during the summer of 1993 (IIRC), after the DC-3 crashed but before a King Air and TO arrived. The photo is a few years later. http://www.airport-data.com/aircraft/photo/000598331.html and sadly here, http://flightaware.com/photos/view/231285-31ebe1195725dd851390cf049d149681346d2937/aircrafttype/, after being flipped over by wind.

Naw, Billy, I laughed.

Took me about 10-15 years into his career to begin to appreciate how talented he was. Never really paid much attention to him until I heard a really good local band cover a couple of his songs at a bar. Started listening to some of his stuff and became a fan. RIP

Like he never ever went with a girl that chewed! I've reformed. (...it could happen.)

HEy! HEY! We don't drink, smoke, cuss, or chew and we don't go with girls that do.

I'm having trouble imagining a scenario where this law will prevent a sexual predator from preying on anyone. If a man is intending on going into a bathroom to rape a woman, do you think he's going to stop because of this law? Can you give me an honest example of how this law is going to prevent any crime? Again, IMO it is more likely that a Chester the Molester, operating under cover of a law allowing him to walk into any bathroom without raising suspicion, can target victims than a lack of "protections" will victimize a transsexual using the men's room. It's more likely still that Chester the Molester is a Republican politician than a transgender person. Pretty sure I never suggested that Chester would be a transsexual person or that a transsexual person would be a Chester. That wasn't my point at all, ...only that a transsexual person is less likely to be a victim of a sexual assault in a men's room than a predator, using "anti-anti-discrimination" laws as cover, would be able to target his victims in a ladies room. (IMO, of course). Maybe you could start another thread about your obsession with Republican preverts.

That would work. I was thinking of providing a urinal in each "toilet room", but a separate urinal area is OK. That would free up more toilets.

I seriously doubt that, with passage of this law, your "nightmare scenario" will play out with any significant change in current statistics. I think transsexual folks were using the rooms of their choice before the law and will continue to do so afterwards. Who is going to check? Who was checking before? It's already illegal to lift skirts or use shoe cams. It's even worse for someone to ask. So ...no meaningful data for you. As far as your "less nightmarish" scenario (and that cartoon) goes, No one with any brains believes that any of these arguments are about a male who just wants to pee surprising women in the ladie's room, with or without the NC law. And for the 3rd or fifth time ...I can see where passing these kinds of laws can cause a blowback that results in legislation that has the opposite effect. That is where I can imagine a situation where predators will opportunistically take advantage of protections meant for others. That is what they do. That could be where you will find data you can look forward to.

A similar one here: http://usuncut.com/resistance/north-carolina-anti-lgbt-bathroom-law/ That's the beauty of my proposed solution! If your old lady and this guy want to share a stall, they can! ...in complete privacy!

Yeah, getting a little tired of hearing from these self-appointed, self-righteous, hypocritical "human rights" wankers. Deutsche Bank, Springsteen, Swiss "human rights" groups, Bryan Adams, etc.

Yeah, who the hell really wants to spend much time beyond that in a public restroom?

I'm having trouble imagining a scenario where this law will prevent a sexual predator from preying on anyone. If a man is intending on going into a bathroom to rape a woman, do you think he's going to stop because of this law? Can you give me an honest example of how this law is going to prevent any crime? Again, IMO it is more likely that a Chester the Molester, operating under cover of a law allowing him to walk into any bathroom without raising suspicion, can target victims than a lack of "protections" will victimize a transsexual using the men's room.

Right, likewise with Bill's concern that assaults on transsexuals using the men's room will increase without those "protections". (which was the only reason for my responses WRT assaults.) Guess we'll have to wait for the numbers. BTW- I'm in favor of completely unisex facilities, as described above. No discrimination at all.

Haven't seen any posts here (except yours) concerned with being in the same bathroom as a transexual person. Results for this study WRT Dem pervs "are expected to be released in the coming weeks".

What is the real concern? Providing cover for sexual predators who will use it to their advantage. Yes, i agree, it will create that problem. I haven't commented either way concerning that specific law. I've only commented on what any consequences may be and on possible solutions that may make everyone happy. I can't say one way or the other if it is really discriminatory or if it's implementation creates "made-up" problems.

Exactly. Opponents of such laws always try to make it about discrimination or some kind of ???-phobia. This type of reaction is meant to shut down discussion while not providing any reasonable solutions for real concerns. Tiring tactic. The reality is that, unless actual implementation is better thought out, this (the de facto elimination of sex-specific restrooms) will make it easier for actual predators. IMO, re: billvon's concerns about a sexual assault, it is more likely to happen in that way rather than by an attack on a 5'2" transsexual woman who is forced to use the men's room because of birth plumbing. Of course, we won't really know until data on a few bathroom assaults are collected and analyzed. I'm still in favor of eventually providing completely unisex restroom common area with more secure, private, unisex stalls for doing business as one solution. This would allow, for example, a father to take his young daughter into a restroom area (which is now accessible by all) and be able to keep an eye on the specific stall she is using. To me, that's even a little different (IMO, better) than taking her to the door of a public ladies' room and waiting outside for her. Also, folks are more likely to wash their hands on the way out if old Aunt Gertie is in there watching.

Why no urinals? Each unit should accommodate all. (Although, providing a standing solution in each stall is really not for the standers. It's actually a consideration for the sitters!) Make the stalls a little more secure and maybe some security cams in the common areas and it might work.

In a sense, you have the answer right there. Not everyone in the family uses the bathroom at the same time. So, public bathrooms become more like home-type bathrooms, ...just more of them, each independently lockable while occupied. But no newspapers, magazines or mobile devices allowed! You don't have all day!

The answer, of course, is to mandate multiple bathrooms, each labeled in its own special way. e.g., Birth Male (no change), Birth Female (no change), F>M Transsexual, M>F Transsexual, Neutered, Sex Neutral, Male Self-Identified as Female, Female Self-Identified as Male, Androgynous, etc., etc. Of course, the laws would prohibit the asking of any questions or requiring proof of status, so anyone could use any restroom. Obviously, the costs associated with providing these facilities would be passed along to the patrons. There might even be a mandate to provide for the possibility of future expansion of restroom types in case someone comes up with a yet unknown sexual identity type. This could really enhance a concert or other large-event experience as the waiting lines are diminished and the pee-pee dance becomes a thing of the past.