Shots Across The Bow

A Progressive Look at Immigration Reform: Steve Dupree's Disinformation Zone

The latest issue of the Metro Pulse has a column by Steve Dupree, a frequent poster at the place I am not allowed to link to. Fortunately, the Pulse has a more open definition of "open" so I can link to the column.

Dupree's column is all about how impossible a task it would be to deport 12 million illegal aliens,and why we therefore must have some kind of amnesty.

Don't laugh; he's serious.

Since it's Friday night,and my lady friend is studying for finals, I have some free time, so let's look at what Steve has to say and see if it makes any kind of sense at all.

But don't get your hopes up.

Dupree writes:

Our nation simply does not have the infrastructure or the will to do what would have to be done to actually get rid of that many people. We. Can. Not. Do. It. If you are going to have a serious discussion on the issue, some level of amnesty will have to be a part of it.

Let's apply this logic to other areas of life and see if it flies.

The large majority of burglaries are never solved, and even when they are solved, the stolen property is rarely recovered. Our nation simply does not have the infrastructure or the will to do what would have to be done to actually end burglaries. That being the case, it would be unfair to punish those burglars we do catch when the majority receive no punishment at all. We must consider amnesty as part of the solution to burglaries.

Hmmm. Not such a good plan, is it? The logical fallacy is clear; just because removing all illegal aliens is a difficult job that does not mean we have to legalize their continued presence here. We don't legalize other crimes simply because we can't prevent them 100% of the time; the very suggestion of such a policy is ludicrous, yet this is the idea that Dupree is advancing.

Okay,so his conclusion is patently false. Maybe he still has some good points to make in his lead up. After all, the question does have to be answered. Can we come up with an immigration policy that deals with the illegal aliens already here without resorting to amnesty?

Let's see what Dupree says.

Anybody out there remember the lead-up to hurricane Katrina? Remember the stories of people sitting in their cars on the highways for 12-plus hours to go 40 or 50 miles? Huge traffic jams, broken down vehicles, insufficient refueling facilities, incompetent and distracted drivers, and other factors combined to create the situation of essentially turning the interstates and other roads into steamy parking lots.

A few days later, we got to see a rerun of that situation but with Houston, Tex., and hurricane Rita cast as the lead characters.

I'm not entirely certain that evacuating a city before a hurricane is an appropriate analog for deporting illegal aliens. In fact,I'm certain that it isn't. First, illegals aren't concentrated into one metro area; they are dispersed throughout the US. Instead of trying to evacuate a city, think of transporting a very small number of residents from multiple cities. Let's take Knoxville for example. If the current estimates of illegal alien population are accurate, there are roughly 12 million living in the US and dispersed throughout the country. That means there's roughly 5 aliens per one hundred residents. According to the 2000 census, the Knoxville Metro area has 655,000 residents, and approximately 2% of these are Hispanic. We want as conservative an estimate as possible, so assume that all of them are illegal, which will give us the biggest number.

13,000 people. 13,000 people would be lost inside Neyland Stadium. We clear 100,000+ people out of Neyland Stadium 6 times a year in roughly 3-4 hours. I hardly think that 13,000 are going to gridlock our roads. Heck, KAT transports roughly 10,000 people every weekday. Yes, other cities will have a higher percentage of illegals, but those cities also tend to be closer to the border, so it's pretty much a wash. We're not looking at evacuating a city; we're looking at moving a small fraction of it.

So much for the hurricane analogy.

Recently, I heard on NPR some guesstimates of how long a pullout of the less than 300,000 American troops in Iraq would take. The estimates rang in at up to nearly a year to remove all of the troops and their equipment safely.

Now there's a stretch for you. Moving illegal aliens 2500 miles over land is exactly like moving an army with all of its equipment 10,000 miles across two continents and an ocean.

I don't think so. Anything else?

We would probably have to create and fund a completely new bureaucracy to keep up with the logistics of the deportation alone. Everyone would have to be fingerprinted, photographed, and possibly DNA tested so as to positively identify them.

Without doing that, and possibly even with doing it, we would still need to pay disgusting homage to the Nazis and somehow permanently identify illegals as illegals. Would we brand them with some sort of mark or tattoo?

I hereby invoke Godwin's law and pronounce that Dupree has lost the argument. But pay close attention folks; this is probably the only time you'll ever hear a progressive come out against a new bureaucracy.

Dupree's failure is one of imagination. He sees the argument only in terms of the past. His invocation of the Nazis clearly demonstrates this bias. In his limited perception, sending illegal aliens home is an act comparable to the Cherokee Trail of Tears, the Japanese internment, or the Nazi death camps. It never occurs to him that it doesn't have to be that way. What if instead of using the government as a bludgeon to force people to do what we want, we use it more delicately, to encourage them to do what we want?

The first thing to realize is that 12 million people did not arrive overnight, so there's no reason to think they have to be removed overnight. Also, they came here because they were offered tremendous incentives to do so. What if there were a way to remove those incentives, while replacing them with equally strong incentives to return home and come back legally?

It wasn't too long ago that I wrote up a plan that would address border security, illegal immigration,and the problem of deportation, and all without any form of amnesty. You can read it here, but the short version is this:
Step 1: Secure the Border
Step 2: Create a sane visa policy that recognizes the need for unskilled labor. Included in this policy should be reforms that make the visa stick with the worker, not the employer.
Step 3: Institute and enforce massive fines for businesses that hire illegal workers. Make it cheaper for them to hire legal workers at a decent wage than illegals at slave wages.
Step 4: Any illegal alien arrested for any reason is subject to immediate deportation.

The combined effect of these steps will create a strong incentive for illegal aliens to return home and enter America legally. As their job market shrinks, so does their incentive for being here. As legal immigrants come in and fill the jobs, as companies no longer turn a blind eye to forged IDs and work documents, their best choice becomes to return home and enter legally. Notice that there is no massed forced deportation required. The good guys go home and come back legally. The bad guys stay, get arrested, and are never allowed back.

So much for Dupree's Nazi nightmare. It doesn't have to be that way.

Will it happen overnight? No. But the natural incentives built into the plan, plus the fact that any arrest is a one way ticket for deportation will make it certain that it will happen over a period of several years.

Will they all go home? No. But we haven't licked burglary yet either; that doesn't mean we should stop trying. The illegal immigration problem is certainly solvable;all it takes is a little foresight and imagination.

Why Bloggers Are Important.

Last week, Michael Silence asked whether he should continue blogging, and then decided he would, and I want to expand on something he said.

It's not that his opinions are important, but that he has opinions, and has a forum to express them that's the important part. It's why we all blog; we have something to say, and blogging let's us say it.

Now, it used to be that the press was the voice of the people, but somewhere along the line, they forgot that. Instead of reporters they became advocates. The problem with being an advocate is that you no longer speak for all of the people, just for the group you're favoring. To make matters worse, since then, journalists have forgotten that they no longer speak for or even to all the people. Nowhere is this more clear than in the media's reaction to the growth of the blogosphere.

They were outraged. How dare the common man think that his opinion was worth sharing! What arrogance! Had he gone to journalism school? Were his columns distributed by syndicates? Did he make a living off of his writing? Then why should he think his opinion matters enough to share? It was almost as if many old school journalists felt like they had some official mandate to be the only ones with a voice.

And to be fair, until blogging came along, they were right. They were the only ones with a voice. And if you didn't like what they had to say, your only option was to turn off the TV, or stop reading the newspaper.

Now we have a choice. If my local news outlets aren't covering an issue to my satisfaction, detailed, in depth coverage and analysis is only a few mouse clicks away. To use a current example, Kathryn Johnston, an elderly woman, was shot and killed during a no-knock raid on her home. Compare the KNS coverage here (Article found doing a search for "Kathryn Johnston") with the coverage by Radley Balko. Just scroll down the page. There are multiple entries about the affair.

One article with little information vs a dozen or more detailed articles. That's the blogosphere.

And this isn't a knock on the KNS or any other paper for that matter. They have neither the space nor the resources to provide the in depth coverage this story demands. Even though no-knock warrants are a national issue, unless one goes bad locally, the KNS will not be able to cover it in any kind of detail.

Blogging gives a voice to all of those who have been squelched out either by editorial bias, or by the economic constraints of the old media. And that's why bloggers are important.

We the people are now speaking for ourselves. That makes each voice, whether it is talking about politics, sports, puppies, or dating, important. There's a bonus in this for the media. Since we can all advocate for ourselves, maybe the reporters can get back to what they do better than bloggers.

Reporting.

Nana Kwuku Danso; Missing Sept 11, 2001

The lone sentinel makes his rounds, his march slow and steady. Each step falls in a metronomic rhythm, almost mechanical yet organically smooth. His back ramrod straight, his rifle ever facing outward, his face shows utter focus; his full attention is on where he is, and the task he fills.

We know little about him; there are no tribute pages for him, no family or friends posting stories about his life. We don't even know if he's alive or dead; no remains have been identified. All we know is "Nana Kwuku Danso, delivery man, 47 years old, from Ghana"

His path is constant, unvarying. Rain, wind, thunder, lightening, bitter cold or searing heat does not affect his devotion to his duty. His uniform is flawless, without spot or speck, wrinkle or wayward crease. His body is honed from exercise, approaching the human ideal, and reflecting hours of hard work and training. His mind is sharp, filled with knowledge of the special role he plays, and the history of the place he guards. Such dedication cannot be taught or impressed upon the sentry; it can only come from within.

The demographics are dry and dusty; they reveal nothing about the man, who he was, how he felt, what his dreams were, and whether they were coming true for him. We don't know if he was a good man, loved by his family and friends, or if he was not. We don't know if he was married or single, a father or not. We don't know if he was a brother, or an uncle, or a cousin. All we know is "Nana Kwuku Danso, delivery man, 47 years old, from Ghana"

21 steps along the path. He executes a crisp right face, and holds for 21 seconds, gazing upon the subject of his watch, then he executes another right face. With inhuman precision, he performs a complex, ritualized series of motions that results in transferring his rifle to stand between his charge, and any threat that may come. He holds for another 21 seconds, paying tribute to all who came before him, and then retraces his 21 steps, where the turn is repeated.

But there is a subtle power in not knowing these things. His anonymity in death allows his life to take on a symbolic meaning far greater than if we knew all about him. His face becomes any face; it becomes our face. We assign to this unknown person all that is best inside us, our hopes, our dreams, our noblest ideas and aspirations. He comes to represent all that we cherish about ourselves and our nation, and we honor him. Not knowing his life, we give him the best parts of our lives, and we honor him accordingly. We create in this unknown soul an idealized version of ourselves, and then try to live up to that ideal; and in this we honor him.

The cycle continues endlessly, day in, day out, without break or interruption. When his watch is done, another takes his place, equally dedicated, equally strong, equally honored to be chosen for this duty. It is their proud privilege to stand watch over the remains of soldiers "Known only to God" from WWI, WWII, and Korea. These are the guards at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldiers in Arlington National Cemetery.

It has been my proud privilege to honor Nana Kwuku Danso, 47 years old, a deliveryman from Ghana who went missing at the World Trade Center on the morning of September 11, 2001. May his family find peace.

Last Word on ESC (for now)

Did I change any minds?

Probably not.

Did I cause anybody to at least think about it?

I hope so, but I'm not all that optimistic.

This is an issue where people make up their minds, then refuse to re-examine their decision. What makes it even harder is that ESC research is being so heavily sold as a miracle cure for what ails you, which pulls hard on the old self-interest lever. After all, we all know somebody who has suffered and possibly even died from one of the many ailments that researchers claim ESC's will cure, if only the Fed would fund the research.

So why do I do it? Knowing that I'm probably not changing any minds, why do I keep writing about ESC research, and why it's so very wrong?

It sure ain't to win friends, I'll tell you that much. All the cool kids are all for it. Say you're against ESC research, and not only are you an ignorant, hyper-religious luddite standing in the way of progress, you're also a cruel, inhuman monster that wants people to die just to protect a small lump of undifferentiated tissue.

I guess it's the Don Quixote in me.

People ask those of us against ESC research if we would refuse treatment derived from ESC if it would save our lives.

I would.

But ask me if I would refuse to allow my child to be treated, and you would probably get a different answer. My self interest would triumph over my ethical principles.

But that doesn't mean my ethics were wrong, now does it? Nope, just that I'm a typical human, weak and imperfect.

I think what gets to me the most is the hypocrisy inherent in the whole debate.

It's not really a life; it's just a lump of tissue. We can use it however we want without ethical qualms. But for God's sake let's not make it on purpose and harvest it! That would be icky.

If you take noting else away from these posts, carry that one with you. After all, it represents the "thinking" of the majority of our representatives.

Ask yourself why it's ok to harvest cells on a retail basis, but not a wholesale one. Why is it icky?

More On Embryonic Stem Cell Research

A quick trip through the libertarian blogosphere shows that I'm pretty much standing alone on this one. But that's OK. Copernicus stood alone, as did Galileo.

I can live with that kind of company.

But I do have a question for all my libertarian friends who want to see federal funding for ESC research expanded.

If an embryo is not a person, just a lump of tissue, and destroying it is A-OK if it leads to cures for all kinds of horrible diseases, then why isn't it A-OK to create fetuses specifically for doing the research? Tissue is tissue, whether created by accident or on purpose, so why would the Senate vote 63-37 to expand ESC research, but 100-0 against fetal farming?

Either it's a person, or it's a lump of tissue. Make up your minds and act accordingly.

Picture this. In some lab somewhere, Dr. Cureall discovers a way to use embryonic stem cells to treat Parkinson's and Alzheimer's diseases. The cure is 100% effective when used in the early stages of the diseases, and is moderately effective in reversing the ravages of the diseases even with late use. You now have a patient pool of hundreds of thousands of people, all of whom want the cure right now.

Where will we get the embryos?

Either farming, or by cranking up the abortion rate. There's no other answer. Either we create fetuses specifically for research and therapy, or we start to encourage abortions. If culturing existing strains can't keep up with the demands of research, then I highly doubt it will be able to keep up with the demands of ongoing therapy. And I'm only talking about 2 potential therapies. Throw in heart disease therapies, or kidney repairs, and the patient pool explodes in size.

Do the math, folks. If we start down this road, farming fetuses is the only efficient way to generate enough material to keep up with the eventual demand.

Are you A-OK with that?

It's the Kelo decision all over again, only this time it's written in the blood of our unborn children. Take a piece of private property and give it to somebody else and the libertarians cry out in outrage. Take the life of an unborn and give it to somebody else, and they applaud.

Veto the Bill on Funding Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Life begins at conception.

If you don't believe me, don't ask a priest; ask a biologist. It isn't a religious decision, it's a scientific one.

Here's the short version.

First, throw out all supernatural notions, including the idea of a soul. We're talking about good old-fashioned rigorous science. In the world of science, identity boils down to one thing, and one thing only.

DNA.

You are your DNA and your DNA is you. It's better than fingerprints. Not only does your DNA identify you, it defines you as well. How tall you are, what color your hair is, what color your eyes are, how you perceive the world; all of these things are determined by your DNA. In fact, some go so far as to argue that your DNA actually determines not only how you think, but what you think as well.

Given that DNA identifies and defines an organism, then the only logical conclusion is that as soon as a new DNA pattern emerges, the bearer of that pattern is a new, unique organism. This occurs at conception, therefore life begins at conception.

Like I said, check with a biologist if you don't believe me; you won't find a reputable one who disagrees.

Now, what they will say, in one way or another, is that personhood is separate from identity, and that the newly created organism may be human, but it isn't a human until it has a brain. Or until that brain passes through the vaginal canal. Or some other more or less arbitrarily defined moment.

But personhood is no more a scientific concept than is the soul, and we agreed to leave that soft stuff out of this. It's a legal fiction, used at different times to justify slavery, as well as genocide.

Probably not the best guidepost to be using here, eh?

So science tells us that life begins at conception. What does this mean for embryonic stem cell research? Simply that if we proceed, we're cannibals, devouring our young for our own benefit.

Probably not the optimum survival strategy when you think about it. Darwin would not approve.

And that's the science. I didn't have to bring God or morality into it at all.

I could go on, and talk about how few (zero) ESC treatments have actually worked, and how many ASC therapies are already in use. I could talk about the experiments showing that ASC can be coaxed into pluripotency, if not totipotency. I could talk about the benefits of autologous ASC transfers, and how they avoid immune system complications. I could talk about all of these things, but the core is still the same.

A species which cannibalizes its future to enhance its present will soon discover for itself where the dinosaurs went.

Tolerance; What it Really Means

We've all heard them a lot, lately. Folks on either side of the political debate talking about how they simply can't stand to be around people on the other side. Conservatives even have their own dating website, so that they don't have to worry about meeting somebody who might be a gasp liberal! The ideological divide has grown so deep, that for some, it is impossible to bridge even socially.

And it isn't just politics. Segregation has once again become a hot topic, although this time it is the minorities clamoring for separate schools and such. They want to maintain their cultural identity. Immigrants coming to the US have always formed their own communities, where they could bring a little of the home country with them, but until recently, they all wanted to become part of America. Now, it seems that many of them look at America as a place to live and work, not a home.

We're becoming a society divided by our differences instead of united by our commonalities, and we're weaker for it.

How is it that in a time when we're being bombarded with messages about inclusiveness, tolerance, and "Can't we all just get along?" that we're fast becoming the Disunited States of America?

I think that part of the problem is that we've allowed those values that once made America great to fall into disrepute. Today, you're much more likely to hear patriotism denigrated rather than praised. We push reliance on the government over independence. We push conformity over individualism. We actually punish people for being different.

We've lost the meaning of the word tolerance. For most of us, tolerance extends only so far as our own beliefs allow. For example, for most people, bigotry and prejudice are bad things, and we work to avoid them. In fact, we work so hard to avoid them that we have actually criminalized their very expression. A man can be scrupulously fair in his dealings with people of all races, but if he voices his opinions, he is punished, not for what he does, but what he believes.

Is this tolerance?

Let's take a look at another man, also a bigot. He shuns the object of his hatred, ans works to shut them out of his life totally, using the law wherever possible. He speaks out against them, calling them names, and making sure that those people know exactly how he feels about them.

A pretty reprehensible character, that one, eh?

But isn't that exactly how we treat him?

If we only extend tolerance to folks we understand and agree with, then we're no different than our hypothetical bigot. The only difference is the target of our intolerance.

Christians have a saying, "Love the sinner, hate the sin." It's an idea we would do well in adopting in our daily life. For example, I'm dead set against illegal immigration; I think it represents a tremendous threat to our country on several levels. However, I don't hate those who are here illegally, nor do I wish them harm. I understand the forces that drive them to come to the US, and the forces that drive American companies to employ them. Another example, I have several folks in my family who are very prejudiced, based both on the way they were raised, and their life experiences. Some of them feel guilty about it, others believe they are absolutely right in how they feel.

Should I condemn them as bigots, and refuse to associate with them?

Heck no! They're family, and that cuts through a lot. And even if they weren't family, they're good people, despite their flaws, and I would be a poorer person without them. Lord knows, I have my own set of flaws, and none of them have walked away from me because of them.

I guess the point I'm trying to get at is that tolerance only counts when it's hard; when the person is so different, or his beliefs are so antithetical to your own that you really have to work to accept him for who he is, instead of trying to change him or shut him up.

Freedom of Speech

WARNING! THE FOLLOWING POST IS OFFENSIVE! IT USES WORDS THAT ARE NOT NICE. IF YOU ARE THE TYPE TO BE OFFENDED BY THOSE WORDS, THEN SKIP TO THE NEXT POST OR GO AND READ A COMIC BOOK OR SOMETHING.

YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.

Nigger. Spic. Spade. Kike. Greaser. Chink. Slant. Slope.

These are all words you cannot use in public without facing possible censure, including loss of your job.

Use those words in a sentence, and you might even lose your freedom. For example:

Those niggers need to be put back in their place. Hell, they think they're as good as white folks.

Say that in public, and you could be convicted of hate speech, and take a trip to the pokey.

However, burning an American Flag while screaming that America is a fascist state, and that our citizens are murderers, our military are jack booted thugs, and our political leaders are Nazis, well, that's A-OK.

Freedom of speech, dontcha know.

I think that's called irony.

So, where do I stand on the Amendment to ban the burning of the flag? Well, it's pretty clear that we've already set limits on how far the freedom of speech goes. It doesn't give you license to lie, or to defame others, or to disrupt the peace. Freedom of speech does not allow you to walk through your neighborhood at 3AM singing Sweet Adeline in 4 part harmony at the top of your lungs. It does not allow you to verbally harass somebody based on their race, appearance, or sex. We accept these limits on free speech because we've concluded that the harm caused by this speech outweighs the speaker's right to express himself. It's an application of the old saw, "Your rights end when they begin to abridge mine."

So let's look at burning the flag. Let's assume that it is speech and not vandalism or arson. (If you think I'm being silly, light a bonfire in a public park during a protest fueled by something other than flags and see what happens.) Does the damage caused by this speech outweigh the cretin's right to express himself? Additionally, does he have available other ways to express his sentiments?

To answer these questions, we only have to ask, "Why burn the flag, anyway? What's the intended response?"

It's pretty obvious that as a logical gambit, burning a beloved symbol falls flat. As a means of persuasion, it's actually counter productive. I doubt seriously that anybody who supports our country has decided to go to the other side because they burned our flag.

"That damn hippy is burning my flag! You know, seeing the flag I love go up in flames makes me think that maybe I am just a tool of an oppressive imperialist regime! Pass me a doobie, my man! Truth to power, and all that stuff"

That just ain't gonna happen.

So, if they aren't trying to win people to their cause, what are they trying to do?

Hurt people. They want to provoke an emotional response in the opposition by destroying something they revere, something that holds meaning to them. They like the outrage they provoke, just like Sinead O'Connor ripping up the picture of the Pope. It's a narcissistic stunt, a way for insecure punks to say "Look at me! I'm standing against the Man!"

It's not a protest; it's a child's tantrum. We don't put up with that kind of behavior from our children; why should we tolerate it in our adults?

So, the bottom line is this. Since we've already decided that the first amendment does not protect speech where the primary purpose is to cause damage and that's the only purpose of burning a flag, and those who dissent from the path our country is taking have multiple other means to express their dismay, there's no reason to extend First Amendment protections to flag burning.

That being the case, then why do we need an amendment to the Constitution?

Because most judges aren't as smart as me, that's why!

And for those who don't think this is an important issue, think about this. We think and commmunicate in symbols. It's how we process the information we take in every day. In a time when our nation is under attack, literally and figuratively, protecting our symbols is almost as important as protecting our borders. (Of course, we're failing in that regard as well.) If you're unconvinced, then just ask yourself a quick question:

An Object Lesson in the True Definition of Torture

For those of you who are still suffering under the delusion that the interrogation techniques used at Gitmo are torture, let me offer up a brief comparison between the US and the terrorists.

US	Them
Keeping the room too cold	Slitting the captives throat
Playing loud music	Beheading captives
Sleep Deprivation	Life Deprivation

I could go on, but if you haven't gotten it by now, you never will.

And for what it's worth, if you can't tell the difference between what we do at Gitmo and what the terrorists do, then not only shouldn't you be holding public office, but you probably shouldn't be allowed to operateheavy machinery, motorized vehicles, or to handle sharp instruments without close supervision.

A Nation of Immigrants

From the moment the first Europeans set foot on the land, the fate of the indigenous peoples was sealed. Their cultures, their languages, their very way of life was doomed to extinction by that first bootprint.

They came first in a trickle, exploreres, adventurers, misfits and outcasts, telling themselves they were looking for a new life, but in reality fleeing from past failures. These small bands of men moved out across the continent, exploring the New World, and sending back word of wealth unimagined, fertile fields and ripe lands for the taking. The word went back to Europe of these riches and opportunities, and the mad rush was on.

The armies of conquest quickly moved throughout the land, driving the natives before them based on superior weaponry and tactics. Oh sure, there were ocasional reversals, but the issue never was in doubt, particularly when the natives began to fall ill from the Europeans' diseases. Their lack of immunity to the invaders' diseases doomed them even more surely than did the invaders' weapons.

The native men were slaughtered, and their women raped and sold into slavery; the bloodlines of the nativ peoples were destroyed forever, ensuring that they would always be a minority in the lands formerly theirs. The native religion was outlawed, as was the native languages; the gods themselves were replaced by European gods, and the tongue became European as well. Even the names of the lands were changed to new European lands, and where the native names were kept, they were Anglicized to make them more appealing to the new settlers.

In short, the usual pattern of imperialist conquest was folowed as the Europeans moved in with an insatiable appetite for land and resources, and the colonies grew in strength and power until they eventually fought a war against their former brothers to establish freedom and independence. Unfortunately, as is usually the case, that freedom and independence was only for the Europeans and their descendents; the native peoples remained in poverty and oppression, where they remain to this day.

It's a familiar tale to anyone on the left who detests imperial agression and colonization, but in this case there's one slight detail I left out.

This isn't the story of North America and the United States.

It is the story of Meso-America and Mexico.

The Spanish conquest of Meso-America was so pervasive and devastating to the indigenous peoples that the vast majority of Mexican citizens are of European extraction; they are immigrants, not natives.

Which makes their claim to large chunks of the US Southwest a bit problematic.

The Greatest Country?

Pirates Cove took a trip into the festering swamp of DU and nets a thread, since removed, (He's got the thread backed up so you can still see it) that questions the greatness of America. Hat Tip Hot Air

Essentially, the thread starts with a poster stating that despite problems, America is still the greatest country in the world. In the 87 minutes the post was allowed to live, there were 34 replies, the overwhelming majority of which disagreed with the original post. Those who disagreed took one of two positions. Either they said that ranking countries was inherently unfair (If one country is the best, then other countries are then worse, and that's just mean.) or that the only people who could believe that America is the greatest country are uneducated boobs who have never been anywhere else.

Instead of using this to bash the DU folks, I'd like to go in a different direction and ask y'all a question.

What is it that makes a country great? Is it standard of living? GDP? Freedom? Security? Tell me what you think in the comments, and we'll go from there.

Gas Gouging: An Exhaustive Analysis: Part 1-Where does the money go?

Gas Prices. Everybody pays them; most think they're too high. Some even accuse the oil companies of price gouging. Most of those making the accusation base it on recent news headlines about record oil company profits, high CEO salaries, and extravegent retirement bonusses. It's almost like somebody wants us to think that oil companies are gouging.

But are they?

For the next few weeks, I'm going to take you on an in depth journey through the price of a gallon of gas. We're going to look at everything about the gas you put into your car, how much each step costs, and who makes how much money. We'll also look at historical prices for oil, gasoline, and diesel fuel, and see how today's prices match up. We'll also look at how oil company profits and margins stack up with other idustries. Finally, we'll put all the pieces of the puzzle together, and then we'll be able to say for sure whether here's any price gouging going on or not.

PART 1:Where Does the Money Go?

Gas prices are certainly igher than I'm comfortable with. It seems like my wallet empties of cash faster than my tank fills with gas. If somebody's gouging, I certainly want to know who it is, and the first step towards identifying the bastard is to figure out just exaclty what I'm paying for. In order to do that, we need to look at exactly where the money goes for a gallon of gas. Since we have all the numbers for February of 2006, that's what I'll use. The numbers all come from the Energy Information Administration website, a government agency that tracks all the numbers we need to use.

Now then, according to Gas Buddy, the average price for a gallon of regular gas in Tennessee was about $2.13. So how much of that found it's way into the oil company's pockets?

Well, let's break it down. First off, we have to deduct the taxes. This is the easiest to track since it's printed right on the pump. Federal taxes are 18.4 ¢ and state taxes are 21.4 ¢. That makes the actual price of a gallon of regular gas about $1.73. This agrees closely with the EIA number of $1.773. We'll use the EIA number for consistency, since it's certainly more accurate than my rough interpolation from a graph. Still, it's nice to have a secondary source. Next, the wholesale price in Tennessee averaged $1.615 per gallon. That means the distributer and the retailer split about 15.8 ¢ profit per gallon, with the bulk of that going to the distributer.

Refiners paid an average of $53.49 per barrel of crude. Now, this is where it gets tricky. A barrel holds 42 gallons of crude, which means the refinery is paying $1.27 per gallon of crude. The tricky part is that the barrel of crude can be made into a wide variety of petroleum products, not just gasoline, so determining the actual profit per gallon of fuel is difficult. One rule of thumb is to assume a straight one to one relationship, one gallon of gas per gallon of crude. If the refinery pays $1.27 and sells it for $1.615, then their costs and profits are 34 ¢ per gallon. What we don't know yet is how much of the 34 ¢ is profit, and how much is cost. Every chart, every source I've looked at lumps together refiner costs and profits. However, with the exception of California refineries, which have seen their profits and costs skyrocket over the last year or so, the figure for refinery costs and profits as a percentage of the price of a gallon of gas has remained fairly stable as shown by this chart. According to API, refineries ran a profit margin of roughly 15 ¢ per dollar invested, so we can figure that 18 ¢ of the 34.5 ¢ is profit.

OK, we now have determined all of our profits;, so, who profits the most off a gallon of gas?

	Profit per gallon
Refiner	18 ¢
State Tx	21.4 ¢
Federal Tx	18.4 ¢
Distributer/retailer	15 ¢

So, in Tennessee at least, the State makes the most off each gallon of gas, followed by the fed, the refiner, then the distributer and retailer.

The perceptive reader will notice that there's a piece missing in this puzzle. What about the producer of the oil? What kind of profits are they making?

That will be the subject of Part 2

Immigration and Racism; Logical Failures

The favorite cry of the open borders crowd is that anybody who supports tougher borders and enforcing our immigration laws is, by definition, a racist.

I'm for enforcing our borders. I support a tighter enforcement of our immigration laws. I oppose amnesty for illegal aliens in any form. I don't believe in rewarding behavior. While I can understand the circumstances that drive them to come here, I do not concede that harsh economic conditions in Mexico, Honduras, or El Salvador, gives them the right to cross into our country illegally. I generally support the idea of citizen patrols on our borders, like the Minutemen. So am I a racist?

According to some folks I am.

Never mind that I support opening immigration restrictions to allow more unskilled workers to immigrate legally. Never mind that I support revamping the immigration system so that it doesn't take years to bring a foreign born spouse into the country. Never mind that my reasons for supporting strong borders have nothing to do with the race of the people on the other side, and everything to do with the idea that a nation has not just the right but the duty to secure its borders.

David Neiwert at Orcinus wrote a series of articles on his blog detailing exactly how and why those folks who feel that securing our borders is a good thing are actually racists in disguise. He opens his piece with a throwaway line that not all Minutemen are racists, then spends thousands of words describing how they really are racists after all. His research is meticulous and thorough. There is no doubt that there are racists involved in the Minuteman project.

But does that mean that all Minutemen are racist, or that all folks who believe in securing our borders are racists?

Time for Logic 101.

Everybody who took math in high school remembers this one:

If A=B and B=C, then A=C.

Put in words, if A and B are the same, and B and C are the same, then A is the same as C. For example, If Mark is 13, and 13 year olds are adolescents, then Mark is an adolescent.

Pretty simple stuff.

Now,consider this construction. If Mark is 13, and some 13 year olds are fat, then Mark is fat.

Hmmm. That doesn't work as well, does it? So what's the difference?

The difference is the key word "some." We added a qualifier to the second term, so we can no longer equate the first with the third without using the same qualifier. We've moved from basic math into set theory. Now we have to say this:

If A is a member of Set B, and Set B is contained by Set C, then A is a member of Set C. This is a true statement. Our second example would become this: If A is a member of Set B and Set C contains some members of Set B, then A is a member of Set C. As before, we see that this statement is false. Going back to Mark, we can't say he was fat because according to our statements, not all 13 year olds are fat. Our conclusion is not born out be the facts.

Which brings us back to David Neiwert. Despite all his meticulous research into the sordid underbelly of the Minutemen and his excellent command of all the facts, his argument fails because its underlying logic is flawed. His argument boils down to this: If you support the Minutemen, and some Minutemen are racist, then you are supporting racism. Or if you take his opening disclaimer seriously, then replace racist with extremist, i.e. If you support the Minutemen, and some Minutemen are extremists, then you are supporting extremism.

Neiwert explains that one of the most dangerous aspects of the Minutemen ovement is that it has been embraced by the mainstream. He attributes this to the fact that the Minutemen have disguised the racist and extremist aspects of the movement. He's arguing that by hiding the repellant aspects of the organization, the Minutemen automatically become attractive. What he fails to investigate is why that would be so. Given his intense antipathy for border control (In one of his examples of the racist nature of Jim Gilchrist, he points to Gilchrist's use of the term illegal alien, instead of illegal immigrant. In another place he equates demonizing people based on their race with seeking to deport them based on "perceived immigration status.") this is not surprising. Based on the articles he wrote, immigration control is racism by default, even if it's an unconscious racism.

Obviously, I do not share that view.

As I've written before, I believe we have every right to secure our borders, and to chose who we let enter our nation. And it doesn't matter one bit to me what the color of the guy on the outside happens to be. Anybody who believes he has the right to break in and take what he wans regardless of the law is a threat, no matter what color of the rainbow his skin happens to be, because by his actions, he has declared that the laws of our nation do not apply to him.

It's just that simple.

Now then, to the rabble rousers on the right, screaming about the reconquistadors; I want you to re-read the section on Logic 101. Realize that while the radical fringe elements of the immigration movement do exist, they no more define the immigrant movement than do the Nazis hiding within the Minutemen define me.

So you just might want to lay off the rhetoric, and work on a solution that deals with the majority of illegals, rather than the minority of nutjobs.

Crashing at the Bottom of the Slippery Slope

Inch by inch, we move closer and closer to state sanctioned euthanasia. Follow the link to read the whole thing but here's the gist.

A woman writes that her sister is in a hospital in Houston, and that the hospital's board of ethics has determined that continued treatment is futile. They've informed the woman that she has 10 days to find another facility to take her sister before they pull the plug. Now, before lapsing into unconsciousness, according to the sister due to overmedication for pain, the hospitalized woman made it very clear that she wanted full life support until she died naturally. But Texas has a law that says that doctors do not have to take the wishes of the patient, or whoever makes medical decisions for the patient, into account if in their judgment, continued treatment would be futile.

Now, while there are a lot of questions surrounding this woman's case, there aren't many questions for me surrounding this law. Back during the Schiavo case, I wrote the following:

I'm guessing that the next fight will be similar to the Schiavo case, except with the sides reversed. The family will be fighting to keep the victim alive, but the doctors, or just as likely, the insurance company, will sue to remove a feeding tube, or stop a ventilator.

Boy did I miss the mark! Not only was there a law allowing involuntary euthanasia already on the books, it had been there since 1999!
Let's take a look at the law in question.

§ 166.046. PROCEDURE IF NOT EFFECTUATING A DIRECTIVE OR TREATMENT DECISION.

(e) If the patient or the person responsible for the health care decisions of the patient is requesting life-sustaining treatment that the attending physician has decided and the review process has affirmed is inappropriate treatment, the patient shall be given available life-sustaining treatment pending transfer under Subsection (d). The patient is responsible for any costs incurred in transferring the patient to another facility. The physician and the health care facility are not obligated to provide life-sustaining treatment after the 10th day after the written decision required under Subsection (b) is provided to the patient or the person responsible for the health care decisions of the patient unless ordered to do so under Subsection (g).

And there it is in black and white. If the doctors decide you aren't fit to live, you don't live. If that isn't euthanasia, then what is it? Yeah, the law requires that the hospital help the patient find alternative care, but how many hospitals are going to take a transfer that has already been labeled futile?

None. Once an ethics panel (God the irony is so rich, isn't it?) determines that further treatment is futile, you're bound for the cemetery.

So, what are the ramifications of this law? Once a doctor has determined that treatment is futile, can insurance companies refuse to pay the claim? Also, the law intentionally refused to define just exactly what defines futility. There's nothing to restrict doctors and hospitals from extending the concept of "futile treatments" beyond life supporting/saving measures. If a patient has a history of severe heart trouble with multiple heart attacks and so on, could a medical panel determine that further treatment is futile, as he will certainly die of a heart attack eventually? How about treating illness in the elderly? If their life expectancy is only 5 or 6 years anyway, couldn't treating their illnesses be considered futile? Wow, insurance companies would save a bundle with that policy!

Again, there are a lot of unanswered questions concerning the case that brought this to my attention. It could turn out that the patient in question is much worse off than her sister is telling us, and further life support would indeed be futile.

But do you really want a panel of corporate ethicist making that decision for you?

Here's the real knee slapper.

§ 166.047. HONORING DIRECTIVE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE OFFENSE
OF AIDING SUICIDE. A person does not commit an offense under
Section 22.08, Penal Code, by withholding or withdrawing
life-sustaining treatment from a qualified patient in accordance
with this subchapter.

So in Texas, a doctor can kill you when you don't want to die, but he can't kill you when you do want to die!

Simply amazing.

Michelle Malkin and UCSC SAW

I first read the story on Michelle's page. The Students Against the War group at UC Santa Cruz ran off military recruiters during a job fair on campus. Clearly this is a case of an abuse of free speech, as the students used their right to abridge the rights of the recruiters and the students who wished to talk to them. In her story, Michelle published the contact information of the SAW organizers which she obtained from their press release, available at multiple sites across the internet. Folks used that information to contact the student organizers, and some went over the line, threatening and harrassing them. Then supporters of SAW started threatening and harrassing Michelle. Now some of the left side of the blogosphere are saying that what Michelle did by publishing the contact information was unethical.

Here's a brief part of what Kevin at Lean Left has to say:

This is a despicable, loathsome thing to do. Malkin deliberately set out to harass people for the “crime” of protesting military recruiters. She didn’t attack their ideas, or debate their conclusions, or engage them in anything resembling an honest fashion...She set out to intimidate the students and make their lives miserable...

Here's what I find as odd; the SAW at UCSC were engaged in exactly the same kinds of activity when they protested the recruiters!

Now Kevin characterizes the protest as "peaceful;" I guess he missed the past history of SAW campus protests, which included slashing the tires on recruiters' cars, rock throwing, and intimidation and harassment of students wanting to talk to the recruiters last year; and the fact that this year, the protesters tried to break through the police lines while a group of students were talking to the recruiters. Maybe because nobody got hurt this time (One school employee was injured last year) that's all it takes for Kevin to consider it a "non-violent protest." But I'll bet any amount of money you want to put up that if a pro-life group set up outside an abortion clinic and engaged in the exact same tactics used by SAW, Kevin would stand squarely in favor of prosecuting them to the fullest extent of the law.

To paraphrase Kevin, SAW deliberately set out to intimidate the recruiters, and any student who wanted to talk to them. They set out to harass them for the crime of wanting to serve their country. Doesn't this activity also warrent the labels of 'despicable' and 'loathsome'?

Reading Michelle's piece further, including the updates, I found out that A) not one of the students whose contact information was given out has contacted Michelle in any way to ask that she take down the information, and B) that the information she posted could be found on several other websites. To argue that the information was somehow meant to be private is ludicrous at that point. To take a lesson from another current kerfluffle, we've been told by many on the left that because Bill Hobbs put the cartoon up, he's accountable, even if he didn't publicize it, and even if he took it down later.

Shouldn't the same standard of accountability apply to these protestors?

Free Speech Carries a High Price

Speaking our minds is one of the quintessential traits we think of as American. And that makes sense; our country was born when we told a king exactly what we thought of him and his rules. In fact, we thought the right to speak our minds freely was so important that we made sure that it was one of the few rights specifically mentioned by our Constitution.

But just because that right is important to us does not mean that it comes cheaply. In fact, just the opposite is true; the right to speak out freely is one that has always carried a high price. People have been imprisoned, tortured, even killed for saying what they believe. We generally don't go for that here in America, but there are still things you can lose by speaking out.

Like your job, for instance.

Bill Hobbs is the latest in a growing list of bloggers who have lost their jobs, seen their businesses suffer and/or fail, or had their anonymity stripped at the hands of folks who didn't like something they wrote. Bill drew a cartoon to illustrate the cowardice and hypocrisy of a media cowed by threats of violence from a fringe element of Islam. The same folks who wrote strongly worded editorials supporting works like he 'Piss Christ' refused to print the Mohammed cartoons, claiming that they had a duty to be 'sensitive' and 'tolerant' of other religions. Bill was angry at this hypocrisy and he went on the attack.

It's not surprising that the media he attacks should strike back; in fact it is to be expected. But there's another angle to this story that makes it disturbing. The attack was delayed. The cartoon was posted in February, about 6 weeks ago, with absolutely no impact. Nobody complained; it seems that Hobbs only became a big enough target when he became associated with the Bryson campaign. Reading Spragens' article, it seems to me that attacking Hobbs was simply a way to go after Jim Bryson. After sliming Hobbs, Spragens goes to great lengths to repeatedly link him with Bryson and Belmont College, not to mention this rather cryptic comment:

Bryson and Belmont, it should be noted, are both faith-based institutions.

So you can take your pick here. You can believe that Bill lost his job for creating an offensive cartoon in an attempt to halt the growing spinelessness of the American press, or you can believe he lost his job for supporting the wrong candidate. Neither choice paints a flattering picture of modern society does it?

Isn't it ironic that some members of the press, the institution charged with maintaining the free flow of news and ideas, instead act more often to suppress ideas they find dangerous through intimidation and personal attacks, or by slanting their coverage, to ignore stories that do not support their preconceived point of view?

So, what's to be done? Should Bill have some legal protections for speaking his mind? Should Belmont be forced to continue to employ a man they apparently find embarrassing?

It's hard for me to say, mainly because I look at the issue from a slightly different angle. The question I ask is this:

"Would you want to continue to work for an employer if the only way to do so was to keep your mouth shut about what you believe?"

I say no, I wouldn't. And based on his statements to date, Bill answers in the same way. Others choose differently; they hide either their beliefs or their names. They value their employment more than they value their right to speak their mind. They speak anonymously, or choose not to speak at all. I'm not saying that their choice is wrong; every person has to set their priorities as best they can. They may have families, or make work in a field where the predominant philosophies run counter to their own. They may believe that it is better to work quietly from within to achieve change. There are many legitimate reasons for some to choose silence over speech.

It's not a choice I can make.

I've written things in this blog that can potentially keep employers from hiring me. I'm a libertarian, the bastard child of American politics. That means I can irritate the left and the right with equal facility. To make matters worse, I'm a small l libertarian, which means I irritate the Big L libertarians almost as much.

But anybody who googles me, and reads some of this blog will know exactly what kind of a person they are hiring. Look at it this way, they have four years of resume to look through. They'll know for certain if there's a good match or not. If so, they'll hire me; if not, they won't, and that will be the best for both parties involved.

And it seems to me that Bill is in that place right now. He is paying a price for speaking out, for getting involved. But he was willing to pay that price, and is moving on with dignity.

As for Belmont College, they're being raked over the coals in the blogosphere now, and I don't know that they totally deserve it. After the Spragens hit piece, they were placed in a very awkward position. The cartoon was offensive, particularly when taken out of its context as a protest. The college had to react. It would have been nice to see them stand up to the pressure, but that's an unrealistic expectation, given the precarious nature of collegiate funding.

So where does that leave us? Well, let's sum it all up.

• Politics can be an ugly business.
  
• Some folks don't care who they hurt to achieve their aims.
  
• Freedom of speech does not always mean freedom from consequences.
  
• Sometimes, the cost of speaking out is less than the cost of remaining silent.
  
• Finally, a man acts according to the dictates of his conscience, then accepts the consequences of those actions, without whining or evasion.
  

Simple, and Misleading: A Response to the "Pro-Life Beliefs" Chart

Via Smijer comes this post about inconsistencies within the pro life position.

The basic premise is that if pro-lifers believe that abortion is the same as infanticide, why then do their policies not carry that belief out to the fullest extreme. Amp goes on to show a table (reproduced below) that, according to him, reveals the most damning inconsistencies.

On its face, the chart indeed looks very damning. It does seem to demonstrate that the pro-life movement is really the anti-"women having sex" movement. Unfortunately for the pro-choice folks, appearances are deceiving. Let's put aside for a moment the fact that the positions of the pro-life movement are in fact compromises designed to gain the most support, and therefore by nature will be inconsistent with an absolutist position. While this argument alone explains Amp's "inconsistencies," I think it's very instructive to look at the chart in detail.

What I find most interesting about the chart in question is its inherent bias against the pro-life position. In various places, it contains lgical flaws, buried assumptions, and raises straw man type arguments that fall apart when examined closely.

For example, consider the phrasing throughout the chart. Rather than being a normal outcome of sexual activity, pregnancy is referred to as 'suffering' or 'punishment' and placed on the same level as acquiring an STD. Isn't this the rather medieval outlook that Amp is accusing the pro-lifers of having? Most pro-lifers I have known view pregnancy as a natural consequence of sexual activity, a consequence that must be dealt with, not tossed aside.

All adult choices carry with them consequences that must be dealt with. If I choose to drink too much and drive, there will be consequences. If I choose to spend all my money having fun and neglect to pay my bills, there will be consequences to face. If I choose to indulge in risky activities, like hang gliding, or scuba diving, there may be consequences.

To immediately characterize the process of facing the sometimes difficult consequences of our decisions as 'suffering' or 'punishment'is to assume that it is somehow unfair to the one who made the decision, in essence saying they aren't accountable for their actions.

Granted, the availablity of contraception has enhanced the availability of recreational vice procreational sex, the hard fact remains that the sex drive is primarily procreative, and pregnancy is a forseeable result of sexual activity regardless of intent. That means that the possibility of an unexpected pregnancy must be a factor in the decision to have sex in the first place.

Now, let's look at the decision process a little bit closer. For some reason, most pro-choice advocates believe that the decision to have sex should bear no consequences to the female unless she chooses to accept them, while at the same time denying that same choice to the male. His consequences are determined solely by her choices. The usual defense for this is that biology places the greater burden on the woman, therfore she should have the greater choice. I would agree with that, except that most pro-choicers ignore the logical extension of that principle. By nature of her greater burden, and subsequently greater choice, shouldn't she bear a greater responsibility during the initial choice on whether to be sexually active?

The logical answer is yes; implicit in the power to make decisions is the responsibility to make good decisions, and to accept the consequences of those decisions. Abortion on demand is not facing the consequences, but avoiding them by destroying them. As a practical matter, the answer is also yes. It's her body that will be affected; therefore she should be extra cautious about the decisions she makes, and fully cognizant of the potential consequences.

Once we get past this subtle bias in the chart, we find it also contains a few glaring logical errors. Let's start with the first entry.

It claims that nobody would be sympathetic to parents who kill their children, therefore, any provision to protect the woman receiving the abortion from legal repercussions is hypocritical. May I remind Amp about the tremendous support Mrs. Andrea Yates received after drowning her 5 children? Thre were many who supported letting her go free; some of whom wanted to put her husband on trial for getting he pregnant in the first place. Apparently in some people's minds, there are circumstance where parents can be held blameless for murdering their children.

Further on, the chart claims that supporting lower welfare for poor single mothers is inconsistent with the belief that a fetus is a life. It characterizes the conservative position as saying that welfare encourages poor women to have babies, then argues that by cutting welfare, more poor mothers will abort their babies. The assumption buried in this conjecture is that poor women will get pregnant at the same rate regardless of welfare status, and that the amount of welfare available only affects the decision to keep the baby or abort it.

That assumption has not been tested. In fact, the evidence suggests that the opposite is true. Pregnancies to single women on welfare (particularly young women)have decreased and the abortion ratio has also decreased, indicating that not only are there are fewer overall pregnancies among welfare recipients, there's proportionally fewer abortions as well. Clearly, the argument in the chart is flawed. Supporting welfare reduction results in lower pregnancy rates, a lower abortion ratio, and fewer overall abortions, making it perfectly consistent with a pro-life position.

Another logical flaw is contained in the section on abortion bombers. The chart suggests that those who believe abortion is murder must support the bombers, who are only acting to protect the innocent. The flaw is that this analysis overlooks a key ethical standard; the ends do not justify the means. It's the same old moral dilemma; if you could go back in time and strangle Hitler in his crib, would you? If not, are you now partially responsible for the deaths of millions of innocents? The answer to the second question is obviously, "No." The only one responsible for those murders is the one who ordered it done. And this implies the answer to the first question; if you aren't responsible for the murders, how can you justify doing murder yourself?

The next flaw in the chart is it deals in outdated information. For example, the claim that most pro-lifers are against contraception and sex education. Twenty years ago, even ten years ago, this charge was true. Today however, many pro-life groups support sex education and contraception; even those who still favor abstinance as their favored method now grudgingly accept contraception as a better alternative to abortion. The absolutist position is held only by the extreme fringes of the pro-life camp, just as abortion as contraception is approved of only on the fringes of the pro-choice camp.

Another flaw is the section dealing with partial birth abortion. The chart claims that banning the procedure will not result in a single life saved, since doctors will use another process. There are two logical flaws here. The first is obvious. Just because some folks will find a way around a law does not make the law invalid. You could just as well argue that since murder is illegal, but some folks still commit murder, we should abolish all statutes against murder. The second flaw is more subtle. The objective of the ban is to make late term abortions a matter of medical necessity, rather than convenience, a position recognized as constitutional even by Justice Blackmon in the original Roe v Wade decision. Medical opinion on whether D&X is ever a medical necessity is divided with OB/GYNs falling on either side. Eliminating a medical procedure of dubious value, one that has been abused in the past, will save lives, even if another technique is eventually found. If that new technique is as close to murder as is D&X(the difference between a D&X and infanticide is approx 5"; the average length of a fetal head) then that process too will be scrutinized and opposed if appropriate.

So, now the chart is much less damning than it first appeared. Removing the bias, the inaccuracies, and the logical flaws, it is apparent that the chart is basically a well constructed bit of misleading propaganda. Pro-life is not anti-woman in a thin disguise. Most pro-lifers are motivated by a profound belief that a fetus is a person. Now, while many of the apparent contradictions can be resolved with the application of a little research and thought, those that remain are real, but are usually the result of compromise in order to create a larger base of support.

Important Disclosure: As a single male, I have a vested interest in the pro "women having sex" camp, but that interest in no way contributed to this post, or biased me in any way.

Immigrants and Illegal Aliens: My New Perspective

Yeah, I'll get to the Bristol stuff later, but it seems that while I was out of the loop, having a completely wonderful time by the way, illegal immigrants already in this country have been actively protesting attempts to curb their rapid growth by strengthening our borders.

How quaint.

You know, up until today, I took a fairly moderate position on illegal immigration. I acknowledged that it was a crime, but that the solution involved a two pronged approach, easing legal immigration restrictions while discouraging illegal immigration. However, after reading about what has gone on over the weekend, the protests and the violence, I've changed my mind. Somehow, these folks (the illegals) have come to believe that they have a right to be in America, even though they crossed the border illegally, and that's just flat out wrong. That erroneous belief changes the illegals from a nuisance to be minimized to a threat that must be removed. If a nation does not have a right to defend its borders, then it is no longer a nation.

Now, if you believe that America does not have the right to determine who is allowed to immigrate and who is not, then you might as well stop reading this, because you'll disagree with everything I've got to say. Spend the time practicing your Spanish because it will certainly come in handy if your side prevails. (And that's not a racist comment, just an accurate reflection of what inevitably occurs when a decadent culture comes up against a young vibrant one. And if we decide that our borders aren't worth defending, then we most certainly are a decadent culture.)

Let's start basic and work our way up. A nation is defined by its borders. Now some may argue that it's the laws or mores that define the nation, but they really define the character or culture of the nation. After all, those laws and cultural mores stop at the borders. The borders aren't just lines on a map; they are an expression of a nation's willingness and ability to defend its beliefs, its laws, and its culture against other cultures, other beliefs, other nations. By definition, a border recognizes and mediates an adversarial situation. While we co-operate across borders, and trade, and so on, the existence of the border is a recognition that a different belief systems hold sway on either side of the border. If this weren't so, the border would fade away.

Now, if the border defines the nation, then the nation clearly has a right to determine who crosses those borders, otherwise, the border is a meaningless fiction, totally irrelevant in any practical matter.

Given that a nation has the right to determine who crosses, then it must also have the right to enforce that determination, to keep out those who are not welcome, to capture and return those who slip through, and to punish any who seek to violate the border. Without the ability to defend the border, it once again becomes meaningless. Remember, the border isn't just a line on a map, it represents the collision point of two cultures. A strong border prevents that collision from causing damage; a weak border does just the opposite. Unrestrained, the clash of cultures can become violent, damaging both sides, and leading to escalating problems. The border may begin to shift, leading to increased tensions and more violence.

WHile it is clear that a strong border reduces the chances for violence, there are those within the US who will say that any attempt to strengthen our borders is racist. When asked why, they will say because most of those stopped at the border, or returned after crossing illegally are of another race. This argument is silly. They are not being deported because of their race; they are being deported because they are here illegally. Race is irrelevant. Now, if these folks screaming racism could show that members of a particular race are being deported out of proportion to their contribution to the total pool of illegal aliens, then they might have a case, but I am unaware of any such claims. As long as illegal aliens are being deported because of their immigration status, racism is nothing more than attempt to divert atttention from the truth.

Now then, nothing I've written has changed since this weekend, so why has my position changed? The same forces are at work; borders work the same; illegal aliens are the same people as they were Friday. Why the change?

Well, on Friday, I believed that those people in this country illegally knew that they didn't have a right to be here, that they had slipped through the cracks of a faulty system. Now, I find out that instead, they believe that the border shouldn't exist, that they have every right to be here. Think about that for a minute. Just over 3% of the US population, and by some estimates 11% of the work force, is here illegally, and many if not most of them believe they have a right to be here, no matter what the laws say.

Really think about that for a minute. What is the correct term to use for millions of people crossing a border to take what they want in defiance of the laws and customs of the land they've entered?

I'll give you a hint; it isn't immigration.

Invasion seems more like it.

Yeah yeah, I know, I'm being overly dramatic; this isn't an armed invasion; Mexico is not looking to capture the US.

Except, if you read history, you find example after example of invasions that look a lot like this. There are no armies marching to conquer anything, just a steady flood of people crossing the border and taking up residence in a new land. If you think about it, Europeans who settled the US did exactly that, displacing the former residents, who lacked the means to defend their borders.

We have the means; the question is, do we have the will?

And now you know why my position has changed, and why I said earlier that if you believe our borders are not worth defending, then it's time for you to study Spanish. Nations survive only so long as their citizens are willing to defend them; those whose citizens become weak and decadent will not fall to a conquering army, but will collapse from rot within.

Now, I don't know about y'all, but I'm not ready to throw in the towel. I still believe that America is worth preserving. Despite the signs of decadence rampant in our culture, I still believe that America stands for something unique on this planet, and it would be a dman shame to see it fall apart. Because I believe that, I stand against the invaders, even though they come unarmed, looking only for work, and a place to raise a family, not because of their race, but because of their disregard for the laws and customs that make America what it is.

That, by the way, is the key difference between immigrants and invaders and why this has nothing to do with race. A person who immigrates to the US in full compliance with the laws, bringing his strength, his will to succeed, his drive to make a life for himself and his family, this person strengthens our nation, regardlss of his race. The guy who sneaks in, who works to circumvent the law, who seeks to succeed in spite of the law, he weakens us, again regardless of his race.

So, damn me for a racist if you must, call me a hardliner or a xenophobe if you like. I now believe that all people in America illegally must be deported. I believe that our borders must be adequately defended, which I define as reducing the current flood of illegals to a trickle. (True story. A renter of one of our apartments was picked up by police for a traffic violation, A routine check found that he was in the US illegally and he was deported. He was back in East Tennessee within three weeks. It only took that long because he visited family in Texas for two weeks before coming back.)I belive that companies who knowingly hire illegal aliens should be punished for doing so, and that punishment should be more than a slap on the wrist. In short, I believe that the strict bill passed by the House, criminalizing illegal entry and aiding illegal entry, and the hiring of illegal aliens, is the way to go. A guest worker program, while desirable, will have to wait until after we get our borders under control.

Downloading and Copyrights

I admit it; I download content all the time. I'm a "pirate." Of course, I mostly download current TV shows, since it's more convenient for me to watch them on my PC than using a VCR or Tivo, and with the wireless network in my house, way more flexible. I can watch Numb3rs when I want, where I want, and commercial free.

According to Hollywood, that makes me one of the bad guys.

But here's a puzzle for you:

I set my VCR and taped Numb3rs the other night because I was busy doing something else, and I wanted to watch the show. Yesterday, I sat down and watched the show.

Have I violated copyright law?

The obvious answer is no, absolutely not. Under fair use, I have the right to time shift programming. In fact, I have the right to archive that programming as long as it is for private, noncommercial use.

Now, suppose my son Adam also missed the show, and I give him the tape to watch in his bedroom.

Am I in trouble with the law now?

Nope. That is still fair use.

OK, now assume my son is deployed overseas, and I send him the tape through the mail since AFRTS isn't available.

I'm still in good shape with the law because it's still private, noncommercial use.

What if I convert the show from a VHS tape to a digital file and email it to him? Now, where do I stand?

I'm still OK, because the show was freely available over the air.

But what if I recordeed the exact same show off of Comcast Cable and then sent it on to my son. Now I'm a criminal. I'm doing the same thing I did with the video tape, yet according to the DMCA, I am now a pirate.

Something stinks here, doesn't it?

Don't even try to think logically about it because there is no logic. The only difference in the two scenarios is that I'm copying the content from a different signal. It's the exact same content, right down to the commercial breaks, but because the signal is different, I could go to jail.

How did we get to such a ridiculous place?

Well, you have to remember about 30 or so years ago, when people began buying VCRs in large numbers. At the time, Hollywood studios opposed the VCR, saying it would devastate their revenues for reruns. If you remember, they even wanted to put a special 'piracy' tax on video cassettes to compensate them for their lost revenue.

They lost the fight.

Then video stores began renting out copies of movies, and Hollywood had another conniption. They sued, saying that their rights were being infringed, because nobody would buy a movie they could rent.

They lost that fight as well.

Remember when movies started coming out with different pricing structures? Some would be priced to sell to the consumer, at $25 or so, while the popular ones would be priced at $100 or so, for the rental market. They soaked the rental store owner untill they figured out that people would in fact buy movies even if they could rent them, as long as the movies were good.

Then came the satellite dishes. Not digital, like DirecTV, but the big, 10' analog jobs that moved with a hand crank. Cable was hard to find outside of major cities, and for many people, the only way to get the programming was to buy a C-band dish, similar to the ones the cable companies and network affiliates used. Dish owners were able to pick up most cable channels, as well as network feeds and live feeds from sporting events, etc. (I can remember one Monday Night Football broadcast, hearing Don Meredith threaten to dangle Howard Cosell out the window of the broadcast booth by his ankles if Howard interrupted him one more time. This was during a commercial break and obviously didn't make the air. Unless you had a dish.)

Once the dish owner base grew large enough, the programmers started crying foul, claiming that using a satellite dish was piracy, and trying to haul the dish users into court. Their contention was that they owned the broadcast, and that their copyright meant that the simpple act of receiving an open signal was piracy. The son heard the book without paying for it. HBO and ESPN both began airing messages saying that their signal was only available to subscribers, and unauthorized reception was a crime. To make a low tech analogy, it would be like the copyright holder of a book saying that a father could not read a book aloud to his children because they hadn't paid for the book.

Pretty silly, right? They lost this fight as well.

The courts decided that if the signal was transmitted in the clear then those with satellite dishes were not breaking the law by receiving the signal. The courts went even further, and declared that if the programmers wanted to encrypt the signal to keep it secure, they could do so, but they were required to provide a way for dish owners to receive the programming at a cost commensurate with that of a cable customer.

In short, they had to play fair. The programmers began encrypting their signals, and selling decoders, and everybody was happy. In fact, most programmers significantly discounted satellite programming packages, recognizing the additional up front equipment expense faced by a dish owner. (In an amusing development, cable companies began suing satellite providers for encroaching on their territories, because suburban customers began installing dishes instead of cable, preferring the extra value the dish added. cf the Howard Cosell dangling by his ankles story) I can remember in 1995 paying just under $200 for an annual package that included everything, every movie channel, both east and west coast feeds, every sports channel, satellite radio, the whole shebang. You couldn't get basic cable for that.

While the courts had made their decisions, ruling against Hollywood irtually every time, the content providers refused to give up. They searched for a way to roll back the decisions, and with the DMCA, they found their vehicle.

While the law clearly indicates that taping or ripping a program off the air and then sharing it for noncommercial use is allowable,(Note carefully, I'm not talking about ripping TV shows from DVD collections, or movies, games, or music. I am specifically talking about TV shows ripped from a broadcast.) under the DMCA, if the signal has been encoded in any way, this is no longer true.

Now. let's examine this "encoding" thing. What does it mean? In the old C band days, it meant VideoCypher I and II and their successors, i.e. encryption specifically meant to prevent open broadcast. Today, however, we get a different answer. Today, "encoding" is defined as any signal processing whatsoever, including analog to digital conversion. And since this conversion lies at the heart of most cable systems and all satellite systems, if you have watch TV by any method other than rabbit ears, then by the DMCA definition, you can't copy diddly squat without their permission. In fact, the terms of the DMCA are so broad that TIVOing a show is illegal unless you use a DVR approved by the content provider. And you might as well forget the VCR, pal.

It gets worse.

Our caring government, who wants nothing but the best for us, is requiring that all broadcast programming be done in High Definition, possibly as early as 2008. HDTV is, you guessed it, a digital signal and therefore "encoded." That means that all programming, whether over the air, cable, or satellite, will meet the definition of protected content. And if you think I'm exagerrating the threat, programming providers are pushing for the adoption of a "broadcast flag" that will tell your modern HDTV receiver to prevent any recording of the content whatsoever, even on authorized equipment, unless the copyright holder authorizes it.

Between mandating HDTV and the DMCA, not only will the program providers have reversed their losses from the C band wars, they will have gone a lot further, basically eliminating the Fair Use provisions of copyright law. They will have complete control over what you watch, when you watch it, whether you can skip the commercials, and the equipment you watch it on.

How does pay per view everything sound? With commercials no less!

The day I can no longer control what I want to watch, when I want to watch it, and where, that's the day the TV becomes a damn fine boat anchor, and I get a new aquarium.

Why Do They Do It?

In a time when violent crime rates are actually falling, why is it that tales of school shootings are becoming more common? I'm not an expert on teen violence, like Dr. Smith and I'm pretty sure she'll have a different take on this than I do, but the question of why kids are killing teachers is something I want to address as a parent.

Why are kids taking guns to school and shooting up the place? I know when I went to school not too many years ago, this wasn't an issue. You may have not liked a teacher or two (I had a fifth grade teacher I couldn't stand) but you never even dreamed about shooting them. Well, I didn't at least, and even if there were kids who thought about it, they never did it.

Why not?

What was so different then?

First, let's eliminate all the usual suspects. It's not rap music, or violence on television, or violent movies, or books, or any of these thing. These are all symptoms of the same underlying phenomenon, effects, not causes. It's not right wing conservatism or liberal permissiveness, it's not atheism or religious dogmaticism. The true culprit is a profound and pervasive lack of respect for the value of life that has become integral to modern culture. A product doesn't sell unless there is already a market for it. Movies, music, books, and games don't make out culture; they are reflections of it. They are indicators, not instigators.

Instead of placing a value on life itself, we've shifted over the years to placing a value on the quality of life, as if that is something that can be measured, when in truth it is an unmeasurable and intangible quality that can never be quantified; it's subjective. But by pretending that we can assign a value to the invaluable, we allow room in our ethics to do things previously considered beyond the pale and still call ourselves ethical.

Abortion. Capital punishment. Euthanasia. Assisted suicide. Fetal research. Eugenics. What do these all have in common?

All of these practices reduce the value we place on life, yet each and every one is ardently supported by one group or another. Some of them are claimed as rights, some treat life as a commodity, while others are said to be duties of the state in taking care of the general welfare. (And if you don't think that eugenics belongs on the list, then you haven't been paying attention to debates over mandatory sterilization for the mentally handicapped, among other issues.) When the leaders of a society signal so clearly and consistently that the value of life in no longer an absolute, it should not be surprising that some mebers of that society will show a decreased reverence for life, making it more likely that they will kill for lesser reasons than previous generations.

So that's the first factor; kids are more likely to kill today than 20 years ago because we've told them that life is less valuable.

The second factor is that we as a society have deliberately become less judgmental and more permissive. Morality has been replaced with behavioral norms. An action is no longer wrong, it is "inappropriate." While many folks feel that this is a step forward, it also enables those who do not share the cultural norms increased freedom to act outside the bounds of those norms. While listening to callers on the radio today talking about the shootings, I heard one caller blame it on the principals for being to strict. I heard several others claim that the shooter was just as much a victim as those who were shot.

We are no longer comfortable passing judgments on actions regardless of how extreme they are. When Andrea Yates drowned her five children, family and supporters wanted to blame her husband, her preacher, her doctors; everyone had blood on their hands except for the hands that held the babies under the water. She was a victim.

When actions are no longer good or bad, or even normal or abnormal, but merely appropriate or inappropriate then there is less of a societal restraint on those actions because the consequences are reduced.

These are the twin engines driving the school shootings. Combine a reduced respect for the value of life with a more permissive society, and increased violence is the logical result. We don't see this in the adult community because most of us were raised differently, in a society where life had a higher value, and where there were real consequences for our actions.

Like I said, these are the things I see as a parent, and they are things that I've worked at combatting within my family. I've tried to teach my kids, not by words, but by actions, that all human life has an innate value, that right and wrong are concepts with real meaning and are not relative, and that there are consequences for their actions.

Unfortunately, society rarely takes the hard path; more than likely, all we'll see come out of this is a renewed push for more restrictive gun laws, metal detectors in the schools, and clear plastic back packs.

Things I'm Thinking About INstead of Sleeping. (dammit!)

I'm a bit pressed for time this week (2 football programs to write, edit, layout, publish, print and bind; one house to rewire; 5 football games to announce, 3 to write up and add to the website, not to mention the standard load of chores) but there are some things that must be addressed.

• Bush's nomination for Supreme Court Jester err Justice, Harriet Miers Have I stumbled into some alternate bizarro universe where Jimmy Carter put Billy in charge of the ATF because he had so much experience with cigarettes, whiskey and shotguns? This nomination makes about the same amount of sense as that one would have.
  
• Speaking of Carter remember how the dems hollared "Dynasty!" when Bush first got the nomination? It appears the dems have decided if you can't beat 'em, join 'em! Not only are we looking at Clinton v2.0 (New and Improved!! Guaranteed to sleep with 50% fewer women than the first model!), but there's a Carter looking to run for office. Not Amy but Jack Carter, Jimmy's oldest child. (Is this guy like Chuck Cunningham in reverse? If you'd asked me yesterday, I would have sworn Amy was an only child.) He's contemplating running for the Senate because he didn't like the government's response to Katrina. Given that he lives in the desert, I'm sure FEMA is breathlessly awaiting his expertise in dealing with large oceanic storms and massive flooding.
  
• Global Warming: It isn't just our problem anymore! Measurements taken of the surface temprature on MArs show that it has heated up aling with Earth's surface. I knew we wee evil nasty polluters, but I never thought that wewere so bad that we could cause the next plabet over to sta heating up!

  Unless of course, something else is causing both planets to heat up. Like the sun, maybe?
  

• Oregon's Assisted Suicide Law is Challenged at the Supreme Court Oregon State Law says your doctor may prescribe a lethal dose of drugs to assist you in killing yourself. The Bush Administration insists that a doctor's responsibility is to preserve life, not end it. Also at issue is the federal government's ability to regulate how drugs may be used. They reason that if Oregon is allowed to prescribe drugs in contravention to federal laws, then that opens huge loopholes in the War on Drugs.

  As Glenn Reynolds would say, "That's a feature, not a bug."

  Incidentally, Oregon's governor is using an argument fundamentally identical to the one used by George Wallace, and will probably prove equally as successful.

  As for me, well, I just figure if you really want to die, you don't need a doctor's help to do it. But it's nobody's business but yours if you do.
  

• Walmart employees in Florida are organizing. And that's pretty cool if you ask me.

  Why?

  Simple numbers. Look, Walmart is known as a company that is, well, to put it kindly, thrifty. They don't pay much, their benefits are below average, and they routinely treat their workers shabbily. At least, that's what I hear via most news stories and through the gossip mill. SO when I hear that current and past employees are banding together to gain leverage against the retail giant, it warms my heart.

  After all, the only way a union, excuse me, "worker's group", can weild any power is if the employer would have trouble replacing them if they quit. So that must mean that there is a shortage of people available to work for Walmart, which means unemployment is effectively zero!

  Seriously, when I first read the story in the Mountain Press (story not in the online version, I had a positive reaction to it. The AP story I linked to was the basis for the story, but it was heavily edited. The paper made it sound like this was a grass roots groun up type organization, not some union trying to muscle in, or some PAC disguised as a union looking to leach out a few more campaign dollars for their politician of choice.

  Then I read the full piece from USAToday and I find out that it's something completely different. Instead of a grass roots employee driven effort, it's a coalition of unions and interest groups, including ACORN and the United Food and Commercial Workers Union. As you recall, ACORN was implicated in voter fraud in several states during the 2004 election cycle, notably swing states.

  Yeah, I trust these guys.

  And the UFCW, well, I had a brush with them several years back. I was still in the Navy, and my buddy's wife was an RN in a Washington State hospital. The hospital was unionized (a frightening thought in itself) and the nurses were members of a nursing union. One day, UFCW workers showed up at the hospital, performing what they called a 'survey.' One of the questions on the survey asked if the nurses there would like more information on the UCFW and how it worked. What the nurses weren't told was that the question was actually a vote on whether or not the UCFW w