GeorgiaDon

Out of curiosity, how do you define having "control of the border", and how do you propose that might be achieved? Don Good question Don. Short of using the military I'm not sure. If you are saying we can't control it then we need to quit making sneaking across the border Central America's version of hitting the jackpot.It's an important question, because if we can't even define what we mean by "control the border" then we will never be able to agree that that has been achieved, or what to do to get there. That means "controlling the border" will continue to be used as an excuse to delay other needed measures. It simply is not realistic to define "control" as "not one person can possibly get in or out of the country without us knowing about it". Even if a 100 foot high steel wall was built along the southern border, people would still try to get in by boat. No-one, I think, would like to see the entire country, including every foot of coastline, ringed by barbed wire fence and machine gun posts. No more sea-shore hotels, no beach vacations, just endless fences. Hurricane wire and guard posts across the middle of Glacier National Park. You also have to consider that much of the border is private property. Ranchers all along the Rio Grande depend on access to water for their livestock. Building a fence along the entire border means confiscating vast amounts of land from American citizens and ruining their livelihood. Big Bend National Park would have to be turned into an armed camp. All of that would still only impede people from sneaking across the border. About 40% of the people in the country illegally entered legally on visas and then just stayed when their visa expired (source). This is not a simple problem to fix. We can't just stop issuing tourist visas, as foreign tourists bring about $10 billion dollars a month into this country. About 5 million US jobs are dependent on tourism. It would not make economic sense to lock out foreign tourists and devastate that whole industry to keep out the small percentage that overstay. I have long argued that the most effective measure would be to have an efficient and extremely accurate system to determine who is authorized to work here, and penalize employers who don't use the system more than they would hope to gain from employing illegals. If that was coupled with reasonable "guest worker" visas for certain groups, such as agricultural workers, we could "secure the border" by taking away the economic incentive to enter illegally for employment. That would not address the issue of would-be terrorists trying to enter. However, such people have never yet been found to have entered by crossing the desert. All the 911 terrorists entered on student or tourist visas and overstayed. Better tracking might help there. For example, since 911 schools have to keep tabs on foreign students, and report quickly to USCIS when they stop attending class or can't be accounted for. 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)

What would you suggest Cosby could possibly do to prove, to the satisfaction of either the law or the "court of public opinion", that he is innocent (assuming he is innocent)? To me it seems that this is a "when did you stop beating your wife" situation. Even if he had signed, dated, and notarized consent documents from every woman he ever had a consensual interaction with (which of course no-one would ever have), surely he would not have such written documentation from every woman he ever encountered and didn't have sex with to verify that no hanky-panky had occurred. Nothing he could possibly say or do would be sufficient to satisfy people. Perhaps saying nothing, not even dignifying the accusations with a response, is the best course of action. Who (of the people who have already decided he is guilty) would be convinced by a denial? If he were to sue the women for defamation, challenging them to prove their claims, wouldn't he just be accused of being a bully? It's too easy for people to make unprovable and also undefendable allegations thirty years after the fact, and the media is all too ready to reward that with attention. These days it seems being "famous" is reward enough, and the reason for the "fame" is irrelevant. That doesn't mean the women are lying, but if there is no way to tell who is being truthful I suppose anyone who says Cosby must be guilty is reflecting the prejudices they bring to the table (not necessarily racial, but perhaps biases such as "all men are predators" or "all women are truthful"). Sometimes "there's no way to tell" is the most honest answer. 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)

Out of curiosity, how do you define having "control of the border", and how do you propose that might be achieved? 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 that is a left-over from the days when evidence was more perishable, mainly witness memory. After a long time memories are no longer reliable, and much of the evidence (especially evidence needed to prove an alibi) is no longer accessible. If you were, today, to be accused of committing a rape exactly 30 years ago, would you be able to prove you were somewhere else and could not have committed the crime on Nov 20 1984? What is the right thing to do when a fair trial is no longer possible? That being said, certain forms of forensic evidence, such as DNA, can be stored indefinitely. Such improvements in technology may (where such evidence is available) make the logic behind statutes of limitation moot. 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 situation here in Georgia is instructive. In 2010 the state passed a law that significantly broadened police powers to demand proof of citizenship (similar to Arizona's controversial laws), and increased penalties on employers who hire illegals. The result was that in 2011 $140,000,000 worth of agricultural produce rotted in the fields because not enough workers were available to harvest it. The same issues were seen across the country in the agricultural sector, causing massive crop losses, and they continued through 2012. In Georgia, the state tried to alleviate the situation by forcing inmates and probationers to pick crops. The plan failed because the inmates refused to work, or worked too slowly to harvest the crop. For example, this grower (Berry) told the state legislature: "Berry said he pays his laborers by piece and that the immigrant laborers pick fast enough to make $15 to $20 per hour. The probationers and local workers were so slow they only earned $2 per hour and by law he had to pay them a “wage makeup” to get up to the minimum wage." In 2013 and again in 2014 the situation has not been quite as bad for farmers, but the reason is that the state has stopped enforcing the law and so more of the migrant farmworkers are returning. Picking crops might seem the epitomy of "unskilled labor", yet it seems these illegal farmworkers are somehow able to work in 100 degree/90% humidity conditions and achieve more than 10-fold the efficiency of American workers ($25/hr vs less than $2/hr based strictly on amount of crop harvested). US agriculture is dependent on these workers. Perhaps US workers could do the job, but it seems that would require a major (~10-fold) increase in the cost of harvesting. Are you prepared to pay for your shut-the-borders policy with a substantial increase in the cost and reduction in the availability of the food you eat? 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)

yup, I am sure that's the only reason.Just trying to maintain some symmetry in this thread. Wouldn't want to risk having the interverse get unbalanced or anything. All jesting aside, though, it does seem to me that there are quite a lot of people for whom "collateral damage" is not a mitigating factor for their ODS. People who would prefer a kinetic war with Iran over allowing Obama a foreign policy accomplishment, for example. 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 scientists should just shut up, and publish their findings in technical journals no-one except other scientists ever read. We can leave all the policy decisions to the lawyers, because (as they are apparently taught upon admission to law school) lawyers are actually superhuman and are capable of perfect understanding of any subject, no matter how complex, often without needing to read anything produced by those pointy-headed scientists. Perhaps the next time I notice someone with their chest strap undone I should not say anything, as I am not an AFFI and therefor unqualified to have an opinion about what is dangerous. If I am lucky there may be a lawyer on the load, in which case I could quickly write up my findings (Bob's chest strap appears to be misrouted) and pass it to them to read and make a policy decision. 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)

There are very few ways to legally immigrate to the US: 1. You can be sponsored by an immediate family member or a spouse who is a US citizen. This is the "family reunification" program, and it accounts for the majority of green cards that are granted. There is no need for the applicant to demonstrate that they have any skills that are needed in the US, they only have to show a close blood relationship (parent, child, or sibling) or marriage to someone who is already a US citizen. 2. You can be sponsored by an employer. This is expensive (thousands of dollars) for the employer, and also they have to prove that they have searched in the US and have not been able to find anyone with the needed skills. Typically these will be people with a PhD and highly specialized skills. This is how I was able to obtain a green card and eventually citizenship. 3. You can "buy" a green card by agreeing to invest at least $1,000,000 in targeted US industries. This is the EB-5 program. 4. A very limited number of green cards are awarded under a "national interest" designation. These are restricted to people who are at the very top of their field in science, sports, or the arts. For example, foreign athletes who are being "head-hunted" for inclusion in US Olympic teams can be admitted this way; Nobel prize winning medical researchers would be another example. 5. A limited number of green cards are awarded by a lottery system. Citizens of countries that already contribute a significant number of immigrants are not eligible to apply. This means citizens of Mexico, most Central and South American countries, Canada, all Western European countries, Russia, China, and others cannot apply for the lottery. That's it. No other paths to immigration leading to the possibility of permanent residence and eventual citizenship exist. As far as the "illegal immigrants" who come here to pick crops, pluck chickens, reshingle roofs etc are concerned, there is no legal door for them to enter through. In some cases, especially for agricultural workers, there are temporary non-immigrant work visas (H-2a visas), but these are expensive (for both the employer and the worker) and exceedingly complicated. Specifically, these are initiated by the employer, who must follow this procedure: "Step 1: Petitioner submits temporary labor certification application to the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). Prior to requesting H-2A classification from USCIS, the petitioner must apply for and receive a temporary labor certification for H-2A workers with DOL. For further information regarding the temporary labor certification requirements and process, see the Foreign Labor Certification, Department of Labor page. Step 2: Petitioner submits Form I-129 to USCIS. After receiving a temporary labor certification for H-2A employment from DOL, the employer should file Form I-129 with USCIS. With limited exceptions, the original temporary labor certification must be submitted as initial evidence with Form I-129. (See the instructions to Form I-129 for additional filing requirements.) Step 3: Prospective workers outside the United States apply for visa and/or admission. After USCIS approves Form I-129, prospective H-2A workers who are outside the United States must: Apply for an H-2A visa with the U.S. Department of State (DOS) at a U.S. Embassy or Consulate abroad, then seek admission to the United States with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) at a U.S. port of entry; or Directly seek admission to the United States in H-2A classification with CBP at a U.S. port of entry, if a worker does not require a visa." Obviously your typical farmer who needs some people to pick onions for a couple of weeks, or the landscaper needed people to mow grass, and so on will not go through such a complicated process involving thousands of dollars in fees. Similarly, the foreign worker will not find it cost effective to pay the equivalent of a month's wages for a work permit that is only good for a month or two. Americans like to believe they have a generous immigration system, virtually an open door. In reality, if you do not have a close relative who can sponsor you the door is open just a tiny crack, designed to admit only those with advanced skills or lots and lots of money. The days are long past when "your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses, yearning to breath free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore," need apply. 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)

Of course, the mindset of the right is to strip millions of their health insurance just so they can claim a win over Obama. 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)

This is key. We have to stop stigmatizing people for merely being ill. The brain is a physical organ like the heart or kidney, only perhaps more complex, and like any other organ things can go wrong. Unfortunately we as a society still carry too much baggage stemming from the religious idea that the personality/soul is a supernatural being that inhabits the physical body; with this perspective mental illness is viewed as a defect in the personality, not as a defect in the physical structure of the body. Most people won't state their belief quite so bluntly, but it's clear to me that the concept of a dichotomy between the personality and the physical body underlies much of societies attitude towards mental illness. Anyway, I think simply having a process for assisted suicide will be immensely helpful to people suffering from chronic depression. First, to access the process (get a prescription) you will have to consult two doctors, which opens the door to treatment instead of suffering in silence. Second, just knowing you have a way to "pull the plug" sometimes helps people to tolerate a level of pain that would be overwhelmingly frightening if you knew there was nothing you could do to stop it. About half the patients who are issued a prescription for a "suicide drug" end up not using it, but the knowledge that it is there if needed gives a sense of being in control that gives strength to fight a bit more. I recall an interesting article around the time of Robin Williams' death. Imagine yourself as one of those unfortunate people trapped in the world trade center as it burned. Your only choice is to stay in the building and burn to death, surely one of the most painful ways to die that exists, or to jump, knowing you will certainly die but it will be quick and relatively painless. Who blames those people who jumped, or insists they should have stuck it out and burned? Severe depression is that kind of pain; even though it is mental it is no less real to the people experiencing it. The difference from fire is that it just goes on and on without end. What we currently have in most of the US is a system that compels people to suffer miserably, often in agonizing pain and utter and complete dependence on others for every aspect of their lives. The alternative is to be drugged into blissful unawareness of the pain but also of everything else. Either way, people are kept "alive" long enough for the medical system to suck every penny out of their lifetime's efforts to make provision for their loved ones. In all honestly, anyone who makes their dog suffer the way we make some terminally ill patients suffer (under the guise of "compassion" and "respect for life") would be charged with and convicted of animal cruelty. 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)

Are you aware of just how petty and green-with-envy, "my life is a failure and I hate everyone who has done better than me" your post makes you look? I certainly hope that's just your internet persona, not the real airdvr. If you afford to skydive you must be doing OK, and I recall some time ago you posted photos of you and your kids and you all looked, it seemed, like a great happy family. You've got a lot to celebrate and be happy about it seems to me. Anyway, those "overpriviledged douchebags" are willing to pay to be first in line, and that means they are covering much of the cost of developing this technology. If space is ever going to be remotely accessible to people like me, and I assume you, it will be because others have paid to move the technology to where it is reliable and relatively affordable. That probably won't happen soon enough for me to be able to take advantage, but I've high hopes for my grandkids. I think of it much like tandems: how many dropzones could afford anything larger than a Cessna if it were not for the revenue generated from tandems and the associated video business? And, what's so wrong with a profit motive driving space travel? So what if it's not all "high-minded" like space exploration? If tourists can be shuttled to orbit at reasonable cost (eventually) then scientists and explorers can be as well. 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)

This suggests you do all of your "thinking/choosing" with your little head. Others find there is a role for the big head as well. 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)

Is it your argument that the average 18 year old car driver has the same skills as a trained tractor-trailer driver? What state do you live in? I live in a college town and I can assure you most of the drivers around here suck. You're quite fortunate to live in a place where every driver on the road has professional skills. AFAIK we have never met, yet you claim to know my driving history? Perhaps you will be surprised to learn that I drove a concrete mixer truck for a year while saving up money for university. Do you really think your experience applies to everyone else on the road? Are you truly unaware that the world is full of people who have their own experiences and skills, which might actually be different from yours? And what is it that you've got against women? 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)

Who (or where) is "they"? I'm pretty sure the amount of tint, and other issues involving obstruction of vision, vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. It seems quite risky to me to completely obscure the rear and side windows. Risky to everybody else on the road, that is, not just to the driver. However it seems some would say that should not be a consideration. Here is a link to a web site that lists tint laws state by state. There is a lot of variation. I am surprised at the number of states that allow the rear and back side windows to be completely blacked out. 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)

As I said I'm "on the fence", it's not a huge issue to me. However for the sake of discussion: 1. Delivery/work vans have a well known purpose, which often requires shelving/storage on the inside. Requiring them to be made of glass would mean they could not be used for their designed purpose. They do, however, have to have windows around the cab for the driver to see. Discussions about "tint" could apply to those. 2. I mentioned that very dark tints, dark enough to obscure the inside of the cab, will also interfere with the driver's ability to see. To your way of thinking, is it unreasonable to require that the driver's vision not be impeded? Is there any room for the concept of "public safety" in your world view? Or, is it perfectly OK for people to be driving around with most of their vision obscured, so that at night they can only see what is directly ahead in their headlights, but nothing to either side such as parked cars, cars approaching on cross streets, pedestrians, bicyclists, etc? 3. Though you may think it should not happen, it is a fact that police will be more jumpy approaching a vehicle where they cannot see the driver, passengers, etc. Under such conditions it is more likely that overreactions will occur. I don't see how you can reasonably demand that police not be on their guard under these circumstances, given the history of police being ambushed. Of course you can take an all-or-none approach that any limitation on the amount of window tint is unacceptable "big brotherism". The FAA requires rigs to have a reserve, and that reserve has to be inspected and repacked every 6 months. Is that "big brother"? Reserves and repacks are expensive, and containers could be cheaper and smaller (="cooler" to some) if they didn't need room for a reserve. Do you favor repealing the rule, and letting people jump without a reserve if they choose to be so reckless? Would you favor that even if the consequent death toll led to the government banning skydiving altogether? Or is requiring reserves a reasonable compromise (a term I realize does not exist in the libertarian lexicon) that ultimately helps preserve our freedom to jump at all? 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)

They put Sheriff Arpaio in charge of the ebola quarantine program!? 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'm more on the fence about the window tint issue. Enough cops are actually shot/killed during traffic stops that I think a reasonable argument can be made that they should be able to see what is going on in the car. Also when the tint is too dark it compromises the driver's ability to see clearly, especially at night. 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)

Isn't it French for "love"? 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)

What is the worse crime: a) Betting on sports, an activity that people voluntarily engage in and that harms no-one but dumbasses who bet more than they can afford, or b) Trashing the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? I'll be appalled if this tactic stands up in court, and I would hope to see all the "decision makers" in this travesty fired, and ideally arrested and tried for civil rights violations. 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 understand why statisticians are not outraged when made up stats are used.Possibly because 97.2% of all stats are made up, largely by statisticians? 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)

What are you doing about it? What do you expect "feminists" to actually do about how women are treated in the Middle East? For my own part, I suspect the only thing I can actually do is to try to educate foreign students from that part of the world about how to treat women as equals, largely by trying to set a positive example. Those students will return home (well, some of them will) and hopefully put what they have experienced here into practice there. I do not think it realistic to expect people to organize a "feminist army", fly to the Middle East, take over countries that have offensive social policies, and impose our own. 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)

Has there been a recent epidemic of violent incidents involving criminals in body armor that I somehow missed? Maybe we need a law requiring politicians to wear ball gags at all times, just in case they say something stupid. Which seems a pretty high probability event. 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)

A bit over the top I admit. Maybe I need a time out in Hotel Ebola. Disclaimer: the issue is a bit personal for me, as I work with pathogens that cause malaria and Chagas' Disease and am pretty tired of know-nothing fear mongers who constantly agitate to block universities from conducting any research on infectious diseases, in the name of "public safety". The fact that such research has gone on for over 100 years without a single incident of accidental infection of any member of the public makes no difference to these people. Likewise the fact that almost all of the advances in basic science that has lead to the drugs, vaccines, and such that have allowed them to escape most of the diseases that plagued our ancestors have come from university-based research makes no impact. They simply can't see past their paranoid fear that we are all mad scientists determined to inflict "experiments" on the unsuspecting public. Similarly I work regularly with people who have dedicated their lives to combating malaria, schistosomiasis, lymphatic filariasis, Chagas disease, and other diseases. These people spend an astonishingly large fraction of their lives away from home, working under incredibly difficult conditions. To see them written off as "doctor douche" is incredibly offensive to me. Well, off to Hotel Ebola for a good night's sleep. And to everyone who doesn't catch malaria, yellow fever, cholera, typhus, whooping cough, tetanus, or polio, (all of which used to be common in the US) tonight, you can thank some Doctor Douche who put themselves on the line so you could live lives free of those diseases. 'night all. 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)

Now you know better than that! Doctors and nurses that go to a foreign country to treat poor people (for free!!!) obviously cannot be trusted to take their own temperature and come in for treatment if they develop a fever. No, they need to be imprisoned in solitary confinement, ideally in an unheated tent without access to the internet, TV, or reading material. Not that we would want to discourage anyone from going to Africa to help fight the epidemic. 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)

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)