GeorgiaDon

Not to spoil the fun or anything, but I believe Bill is responding to what you actually wrote, which (I hope) is not what you think you wrote. You (Turtle) said: Usually I'm OK at trying to guess what you and other literary paragons on this site are trying to say, despite the fractured English (or American), but this one has me stumped. Did you perhaps leave out a couple of words? And how is drying either distracting or diverting? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

So, another politician caught "padding" his resume. Hopefully the voters will reward his integrity with the appropriate vote, although these days the most important issue seems to be "I'm NOT the incumbent" so maybe honesty (or a functional memory) is not so critical. Anyway when I saw the title I thought this thread would be about how someone read your "Obama disrespects again" thread and mistook your front end from your back. Easy to do I guess, turtles are kind of symmetrical so they can look similar coming and going. Hope you and everyone has a safe Memorial day. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Agreed. But there are additional problems too. The percentage of black kids who are born into single parent families is astonishingly high, much higher than is the case for whites. There seems to be a subculture that just accepts that caring for children is "womens work"; men are free to go from partner to partner, and when a child results there is no social pressure to man up and take responsibility. It's extremely difficult for a single mom to escape poverty, especially if she dropped out of school to raise a child. I can't understand why the women let men get away with this. If you look at the black middle class, they are almost all living as two-parent families (if kids are involved at all). Humans always have and always will compete for social status. In some cultural groups, competition is channeled in creative directions, if status is awarded on the basis of behaviors that ultimately lead to economic success (such as education, hard work, being good at music, etc). In other cultures, status is given on the basis of being the most aggressive, the most bad-ass, the one everybody is afraid of. The natural result is a gang culture. That kind of competition is obviously destructive, but it does seem to be celebrated in certain cultural groups. These cultures seem to fall along economic lines, but in the US economic status and race have been linked by history, so the negative effects of choosing one form of competition over another tend to work against blacks more than whites. Please note that I am NOT saying that blacks are any more aggressive by nature, just that a history of not being rewarded for academic success (for example), as a result of Jim Crow laws and other aspects of segregation, fostered competition on other grounds. Many will say "that's all in the past", but cultural forces are very difficult to change, it takes generations. I suspect even the American love affair with sports works against black kids more than white kids. Whenever I do outreaches in the local schools, and I ask the kids what they want to do when they "grow up", by middle school almost 100% of the black boys say they are going to play in the NBA or the NFL, and almost none of the white boys say that. If being a professional athlete is your chosen career path, it makes sense to spend as much time as you can playing sports, and to let the boring school stuff slide. Colleges (including the one where I teach) aid and abet the problem by allowing lower admission standards for "student athletes". Unfortunately only a small percentage of these kids will actually grow up to play professional sports, and yet they all think they will be the ones to make it and so they don't need to worry about having a "plan B". Even the skinny short kids think they'll make it in the NFL, no question. When they don't, or by the time they figure out that they won't, they are so far behind academically that it's almost impossible to compete for programs leading to a "real" profession. Of course, all the above is based only on my observation and anecdotal musings, so make of it what you will. I expect I'll get flamed for some of it. But, I do think that some significant cultural changes will have to occur, from within the black community, before the problems of poverty can be addressed on a broad scale. Cosby has said it all much better than I can. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I suppose the fact that he gets comfort from his faith is a good thing for him; being responsible for the death of your children due to a stupid mistake has been known to drive people crazy. But, "it could have been worse" is really astonishingly poor evidence of God's mercy! I wonder what happened to the occupant (or occupants) of the car he pulled out in front of, were they killed or did they get some "mercy" too? I guy I knew some years ago was visiting Egypt and while there took a bus trip. He said it was the most terrifying four hours of his life, as the driver was speeding, passing on blind corners, driving after dark without headlights, and other crazy stuff. When he asked the driver to slow down, the response was "it's all in Allah's hands, if he wishes us to be safe we'll be safe, and if not nothing we can do will matter." That's a dark side of religion, the idea that God is in charge so we really aren't responsible when bad things happen, it's all just part of the "divine plan". Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

No fence has been more than an inconvenient nuisance, illegals manage to climb over, cut through them, or tunnel under them. Drug runners in Douglas AZ have dug tunnels that are hundreds of yards long, longer than the spacing between double fences. The point is that fences without border security are worthless, so you'll be mistaken to assume building a double fence will be cheap border security. If you actually believe that, you certainly are confused. The left wingers I know do consider illegal immigration to be a problem, and they are proponents of solutions that will have a high likelihood of success without violating the constitution. Right wingers seem more interested in kicking ass, whether or not ass-kicking is effective or constitutional. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Possibly so. If the North had had the gumption to follow through on rights for former slaves, things could have been very different and we might have had an extra 100 years to shake off the effects of the history of racism in this country. Blacks were allowed to vote and some were elected to office for a few years following the war, but soon appeasement let the Confederacy snatch a sort of victory from the jaws of defeat, and at least preserve much of their old way of life. Maybe, maybe not. Evolution isn't striving towards a goal or "progress", it just reinforces whatever is most successful. As long as 90% of the green is in the hands of the whites, and whites prefer to patronize businesses that only cater to whites, there is no selective pressure for businesses to integrate. For that to have happened, non-white purchasing power would have had to increase to where it could offset losses resulting from racist whites redistributing their purchasing to white-only businesses. In fact, "evolution" could easily have strengthened racist business practices by directing more and more cash flow to white-only businesses and away from those willing to integrate. I've observed the same thing. In some cases that is likely true. Certainly, if in the past 100% of the jobs (say as business CEOs) went to Caucasian males, then even if positions are allocated based on ability less than 100% will go to Caucasians, and they may feel discriminated against. Attempts to redress historical wrongs through affirmative action and quotas is more overtly reverse-racist. There have been threads in the past (that got quite heated) about affirmative action, and I don't want to get into that again, except to say that the debate about "was it ever necessary" vs "is it justifiable today" is pretty similar to the present discussion about the civil rights act. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Yep, I did. I also read the interesting article he linked to in the first post. I don't disagree at all that accusations of racism are used to bludgeon political opponents. I myself do not think Paul's comments make him a racist, he does ask an interesting question. (His comments about dead miners and "sometimes accidents just happen" is actually much more bothersome to me.) But there are two questions here it seems to me. Firstly, was the Civil Rights Act ever needed or justified? Then, if it was needed in the first place, how long does it need to go on before the "cost" (say in terms of suppressing free speech) exceeds the benefit? For the first part, the CNN article suggests that the Libertarian position is to stand aside and wait for "market forces" to correct the situation. Since Jim Crow laws stood for almost 100 years, and were not in obvious decline in 1963, there is no reason to suppose we wouldn't be living with Jim Crow today. Some might say that one more day of people being deprived of basic, constitutionally guaranteed rights is one day too many. Some may say "wait for your turn, the market will catch up eventually". Is it now time to stop, or at least severely scale back, enforcement of the Civil Rights Act? I don't think we could go back to Jim Crow any more. Maybe the courts could set a high bar so only the most egregious cases would be prosecuted. So-called victims could be required to show that their constitutional rights were infringed, and not just that they felt insulted. Certainly we should be able to talk about it without being assailed with cries of racism. Oh, and I'm not cynical about politics (or people) either. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Cool. But since Libertarians oppose any laws aimed at actually changing peoples behavior, what would have been an appropriate Libertarian response, had they been in a position to actually do anything, in 1963? _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Prior to the Civil Liberties Act, part of the country had adopted a set of Jim Crow laws that systematically deprived a large segment of the populace of their constitutional rights. If the Civil Rights Act is contradictory to Libertarian philosophies, what would have been the appropriate response to the situation in your opinion? For the government to continue to do nothing, and just wait until the white people decided voluntarily to allow non-whites to exercise their allegedly constitutional rights? Maybe in a few more centuries they'll decide to "do the right thing"? If Libertarians aren't willing to take action to defend the Constitution, what does it mean to be a Libertarian and an American? As for civil rights, perhaps the day will come when there are no violations worth the effort to prosecute, when we will all treat each other "based on the content of our character and not on the color of our skin". When that day comes, civil rights laws will be as meaningful as laws about double-parking horses on Main Street. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Maybe not so easy to get up-and-running for the over 300 million existing citizens. It will be expensive and involve creating a new bureaucracy to do so accurately and in a timely manner, as everyone's documentation will have to be independently verified. Otherwise, it will just be an amnesty program: mail in a fake birth certificate, nobody checks, they mail back your citizenship card, and hey presto! you're a citizen. Of course these days there's not much support for expensive new programs, even ones near and dear to the conservative heart, such as stopping illegal immigration. The Feds did try to do it on the cheap, by foisting the bill on the states as an unfunded mandate, but when the states realized the cost and the security issues they rebelled and refused to implement RealID. And then there are the folks who just think it's a bad idea for the Feds to be prying into their business. Of course the same people expect the Feds to be prying into the illegal's business, but they should just magically know who's who and leave the real citizens alone. I've no idea how that's supposed to work. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Yep, the Border Patrol for example can, and do, set up checkpoints to check all vehicles for illegal immigrants. When I lived in Tucson and was doing research in the surrounding desert, I always carried my work authorization card as I frequently ran into checkpoints. No problem. The problem now that I am a citizen is just a practical one, in that the Federal Government does not provide any form of documentation that is intended to be put in your wallet and carried on your person. They do it for the green card, so it can be done, but they just don't for naturalized citizens. Imagine if your drivers license was a 11" x 9" unlaminated sheet of paper, and was invalidated if folded, and if damaged cost $400 and took up to 10 months to replace, and you couldn't legally drive during that time. I sure you'd wonder WTF were they thinking? The larger issue is that the drivers license sucks as proof of citizenship, for the reasons I gave before. The solution to the latter problem, which would also solve the first (more trivial) problem, is a form of government issued ID that specifically is designed as proof of citizenship or legal status and is designed to resist counterfeiting. It could logically be integrated with an effective E-Verify system so employers could easily check on the ID and avoid hiring illegals. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

And is that how you think the US government should deal with each and every country where there is some disagreement? Is that how the government should deal with US citizens? For that matter, is that how you'd deal with neighbors over, say, a barking dog? If a foreign country were to invade US soil [or in your example breaks into your house and molests your daughter], of course we'd kick them out by force. No-one has suggested otherwise. That's quite different from suggesting that we ensure continued access to Middle East oil by making an example of some country in the region so the rest will understand the importance of being cooperative (as in the PNAC document that outlined years in advance the rationale for invading Iraq). Krauthhammer and other conservative commentators consistently disparage every attempt at a diplomatic solution to international issues. They usually don't say right out to go to war, but they exclude every other possible approach. If every attempt to talk, or to recruit other countries to our side of the dispute is ridiculed as weakness, what else is left except military action? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

That has not been shown in the other thread. Whether or not you believe that the Arizona law will lead to profiling, it is clear that circumstances could occur at any time that could lead to contact with the police, and they can then legitimately ask for proof of citizenship. I could be driving, minding my own business, and another driver could run into me, for example. Davjohns (in another thread ) provided a list of acceptible forms of ID under the Arizona law: Ø A valid Arizona driver license. Ø A valid Arizona nonoperating identification license. Ø A valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification. Ø A valid federal, state or local government issued identification, if the issuing entity requires proof of legal presence before issuance. Only that last applies to an out-of-state resident. Of course I would have my Georgia driver's license with me, but it is not clear that Arizona police would accept that as proof of citizenship. Some states require proof of citizenship before issuing a license, others do not. Will all police officers have a list of acceptable/unacceptable licenses, will they just accept all out-of-state licenses at face value, or will they detain holders of out-of-state licenses until they can provide other evidence of legal status? Only time will tell. If a Georgia license is not deemed sufficient proof of citizenship, what else would do? According to the Federal government (from Bill von's post): From USGovInfo: ================== Documents serving as primary evidence of U.S. citizenship are: * Previously issued, undamaged US passport * Certified birth certificate issued by the city, county or state of birth * Consular Report of Birth (of U.S. citizen) Abroad or Certification of Birth * Naturalization Certificate * Certificate of Citizenship The Consular Report of Birth Abroad or Certification of Birth should be obtained by persons who were born abroad to U.S. citizens. For a naturalized citizen, only the Naturalization Certificate and a US passport are available as evidence of US citizenship. The naturalization certificate, as I explained in my earlier post, is not designed to be portable and is in any practical sense useless as ID (unless you expect citizens to carry an unfolded 11 inch by 9 inch document at all times). That leaves the US passport. I could take a chance that a Georgia driver's license would be sufficient, but I have no way of knowing in advance if that will be acceptable, and if it isn't I'm risking being detained until the Arizona police can verify my status from Federal sources. Unless and until the Feds set up an error-free rapid response system for checking on such requests, I could be looking at days to weeks in detention until local authorities hear back from the feds. The safer alternative is to carry a universally accepted form of ID, which is a passport, when visiting Arizona from another state. Get it now? If you had actually read my post, you would have understood that I was complaining about having to carry a naturalization certificate, which is not designed to be portable. For that matter, passports are also not designed to be stuck in your pocket and carried around day after day for years at a time. A drivers license is designed to fit in a wallet and be carried around, but it's intended function to prove the legal right to drive. A secondary function is to offer evidence of identity. It isn't designed to be evidence of citizenship, and it isn't very useful for that purpose because numerous types of non-citizens are legally able to (and in fact are required to) obtain a driver's license in order to drive in the US. Also, in those states that do attempt to link legal residency or citizenship to drivers licenses, the system is easily circumvented and depends totally on the honesty of the applicant. All you need to get an authentic Georgia license is a birth certificate (ridiculously easily faked) and a utility bill to prove residence. There is no system to cross-check birth certificates, and people would scream bloody murder if there was as it would take weeks or months to get a drivers license issued if DMV had to verify every birth certificate. There was an attempt to get states to do something like this, called the RealID program, and states refused to cooperate because of the expense and the program collapsed. My point (once again) is that, if the goal of the exercise to to have a document that actually provides proof of citizenship, it would have to involve something more-or-less identical to a national identity card. If just going through the motions, appearing to be doing something without actually accomplishing anything very rigorous, is good enough, then by all means stick with drivers licenses. But then, we should be honest about the fact that we aren't really very serious about illegal immigration, we just care about putting on a show not the results. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I don't have a problem with the idea that one should be able to verify identity and citizenship when one is arrested or otherwise legally detained for proper cause. But do you really think a "birth certificate" is adequate? If illegals are easily able to obtain realistic-looking driver's licenses and social security cards, how hard could it be to manufacture a birth certificate? There are web sites where you can print up an Obama birth certificate with any place of birth you want, and they look pretty good too. Demanding to see an easily faked certificate as "proof of citizenship" will be as successful a barrier to illegal immigration as is taking off your shoes while going through airport security. Something more rigorous will be needed, but the conservatives in this country are dead set against anything resembling a national identity card. Also in my case, as a naturalized citizen, my birth certificate would just show that I was born in Canada. My naturalization certificate is a 11" x 9" piece of paper with photos and embossed seals attached. The paperwork that came with it makes it clear that it is invalidated as proof of citizenship if it is folded or creased. It is also illegal to make copies, although curiously at the the naturalization ceremony we were advised to make copies and keep them in a safe place in case the original was damaged. Anyway my point is, how the hell am I supposed to carry around with me at all times an unfolded 11" x 9" sheet of paper, so that I can prove citizenship on the spot if required? By the way the government does not issue wallet-sized naturalization cards, unlike the "green cards". So in effect if I want to visit Arizona, for example, I am forced to obtain and carry in my pocket at all times a US passport, even though I am a US citizen and not planning on leaving the country. A national ID card, designed to resist counterfeiting, would be more secure and more convenient if we want to really be able to verify citizenship, IMHO. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I think you miss the point completely. All these stories are merely testimonials to some people's remarkable ability to interpret any possible circumstance to fit their pre-existing belief system. If you already believe there is a "God with and inscrutable plan" anything can be rationalized, but it's just self-fulfilling circular "reasoning". Is there any possible event that would suffice to convince you that there is not a God directing everything according to His Will? I doubt it very much. If people can explain away innocent people suffering terrible diseases, or the Holocaust, or two unseatbelted girls killed because Dad ran a red light, as the "Will of God", then what would it take to raise doubt? This is why religion is so unappealing to me: it explains everything and nothing at the same time. Unlike empiricism (e.g. science), in religion nothing can be falsified with evidence (as there is no evidence other than personal "revelation"), and so nothing can be objectively known. That doesn't mean that there is no God, but if there is no physical evidence and the whole belief system is founded on Bronze Age mythologies there is (IMHO) no reason to reject empirical evidence of reality (i.e. materialism) and substitute invisible, undetectable supernatural entities. Your mileage obviously varies, and if that works for you then great, you're welcome to it. But Bolas is right, your anecdote is convincing only to the already convinced. To others, it smacks of post-hock rationalizing to help Dad escape his guilt. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I wonder how many jumps $1,000,000 would buy? Surely dropzones would count as an eligible business? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Sorry, but it's not nearly that simple. First you have to find an eligible US company that wants to hire you. Then they have to obtain a certification from the Department of Labor that there are no qualified US citizens available to fill the job. Usually this means they have had to have advertised the job for a period of time (I think a month) in trade publications and large-circulation newspapers, without finding any qualified US applicants. They can't exclude Americans by low-balling the salary either, they have to offer at least the prevailing wage for that type of employment. Once the employer obtains a labor certification, you can apply for a H1 visa, but there is a quota on those and most applicants have to wait a year or more. Once you're in the States, after a while (a few years) you can apply for permanent residency. This is the route most often taken. If you have extraordinary skills, and can prove that [generally by demonstrating that you are currently being paid significantly more than the industry standard because of your exceptional skill], your employer may be able to apply for permanent residency on your behalf. Details are here. So no, the US doesn't hand out green cards to anyone with a degree. That's just the minimum starting point for a long expensive process. The point of the thread is that without a degree you can't even get started, except in a few very unusual circumstances (world-class athlete or entertainer for example), Do that, you've nothing to lose and you might get lucky. Assuming you are from Northern Ireland, otherwise you're ineligible. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Because they want the ability to draw on skilled American and Canadian workers, and it is unlikely that Canada and the US would have agreed to a one-way street. Also the TN system already existed in the US/Canada treaty that preceded the current agreement, and it would (I imagine) have been difficult to adapt the expanded NAFTA to allow TN exchanges between the US and Canada but exclude Mexico. To return to your post that I was responding to before, the great majority of Mexicans who are here illegally are not eligible for TN visas as they are not appropriately skilled. Manual labor/carpentry/chicken processing are not professions that are TN eligible, so it's not accurate to say the Mexican government is encouraging illegal immigration when legal alternatives (such as the TN) are readily available. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

The problem there is that TN visas are available only to skilled/educated people in a narrow range of industries, and those are the people the Mexican government would (logically) most want to have stay in Mexico to develop Mexican industries. It is to their advantage to encourage emigration of poor and less skilled workers, for all the reasons given in other posts (sending money to Mexico, political influence, etc). Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

If our "intelligence apparatus" had stayed the fuck out of Iran in 1953 that country would likely still be a thriving secularist West-leaning democracy. The "might is right" belligerence you seem fond of has created many of the tensions that plague the world today. The mullahs and political climate in Iran are creatures of our own making. Given our crappy track record at using intelligence agencies to create "friends" by installing dictatorial regimes, you'd think we would have learned a little humility. Apparently the lesson is lost on some, who still think we can bully the rest of the world into jumping to our every whim. Perhaps Mr. Krauthhammer should volunteer to go fight in one of the limitless wars he seems to think we should be fighting. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

How long has your family been in the US? Why didn't they "stay in their own country"? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Dang! Beat me to it! Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Yet another plagiarized piece of crap from off the internet. This has been floating around since the 1960's, and has been applied to about every prominent politician. Funny when told as a joke, less so when the gullible post it without attribution, as if it was their own writing. Hint: Snopes is your friend. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

It's not clear to me why rushmc should get to define the limits of the discussion any more than anyone else does. Skydekker's question was clearly not limited to the US, and it's much more interesting than rushmc's dubious math skills. Nevertheless, since Turtle has chimed in and clarified that he intended to refer to the US, I'll agree that the political situation here is FUBAR. As much as I'm enjoying bobbing for turds with you all, it's late so goodnight and stay safe. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Thanks, that does help. I totally sympathize with the sentiment, but it would probably be impossible to enforce. How could we possibly force Mexico to keep violators of US law in prison there? How would we respond if Mexico were to demand that we imprison US citizens in the US for violation of Mexican law? Yeah, that has got to stop. Maybe we could close their consular offices until they cease and desist. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)