GeorgiaDon

Well, O.K. So by now we have 65 years of experience with the stimulus/response model. Can you point out to me how this has been successful at defusing tensions in the area? Can you offer any evidence to suggest that Hamas and like-minded groups are about to change their tactics and policies, in favor of peaceful co-existence, as a result of Israeli military responses to their actions? Or, can you suggest a possible Israeli military move that would have any significant chance of destroying Hamas and the other Palestinian "resistance" groups without creating yet another generation of anti-Israel radicals? What I see going on between the Israelis and the Palestinians looks like a self-sustaining chain reaction that will continue forever, or until there are too few people left alive to carry on the feud. I can't believe that Israel wants to carry on the next 1,000 years like this. Sooner or later Hamas, or some similar group, will move on up from 99.9% ineffective missiles to something really scarey, like biological weapons or maybe even nuclear. Somehow I can't see the current military strategy, which generates 1,000 dead Palestinians for every Israeli civilian casualty, as doing anything to defuse the likelihood of that occurring. Where do you see this conflict going in the next 65 years? 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)

Perhaps. At the same time repeating exactly the same pattern over and over, and expecting that the outcome will somehow be different this time, also doesn't make sense. Hamas cannot be defeated militarily, without killing off the entire Palestinian population, because they are masters at snatching some shred of victory from the ashes of what any reasonable people would call defeat. When they are beaten on the battlefield, they win support because they are "the little guy who is being picked on by the big Israeli military" (who are backed by the evil Americans of course). When Israel responds to a blatant attack, and civilians also die (which is inevitable considering the population density of Gaza), Israel is seen as the bad guy. One way or the other, whatever Israel does ends up increasing sympathy and Palestinian support for Hamas. How people feel is not necessarily driven by logic. No matter how solid your justification, Palestinians will always hate you when their children are being killed. The fact that you fired in response to Hamas firing a rocket is one step too removed from the immediate emotional response to seeing your family dead and mutilated, for almost anybody. a) the basic ones they manufacture are notoriously inaccurate. This means that most land in unpopulated areas; only those that happen to head to populated areas need to be shot down. While the Hamas stockpiles are large, I would be surprised if Iran and others would continue to spend a lot of money to supply weapons that have been shown to be quite ineffective. b) the message we get here is that the US bears most of the cost of supplying the Iron Dome system. Anyway there is no evidence that the Israeli response, firing back at launch sites, has had any effect at reducing the number of rockets Hamas fires. I think it's likely there would be little cost difference on the Iron Dome side of things no matter how Israel responds to the provocation from Hamas. c) you say not responding sends the wrong message. I say, whatever message you think you are saying is not what Hamas or the Palestinians are hearing. You think you're saying "stop firing missiles at us". They are hearing "Israel wants to kill all Palestinians". When it comes to the Palestinian people you are losing. Yes, but the message is being drowned out by the louder message of dead civilians. "Terror tunnels" designed to let terrorists sneak into Israel must have an opening in Gaza territory and an opening in Israeli territory. Why cannot the opening on the Israeli side be discovered and the tunnels destroyed? Why does Israel have to enter Gaza to find the openings on that side? Clearly the tit-for-tat stimulus/response model is not working. Clearly keeping the population of Gaza locked up in a small territory with little food, little access to medical care, and an economy so destroyed that 2/3 of the population lives off international aid is not working. When people are desperate they will support anyone who promises them a way out, even if the promise is not credible. Hamas lives, draws its power, from the desperation and suffering of the Palestinian people. Even if there is some risk, Israel needs to cut off the source of Hamas' power. Israel should (in my opinion) stop allowing itself to be manipulated by Hamas. I know this is much easier for me to say from the comfort and safety of the US. I just wish the hatred in the Middle East would stop, because it is poisoning the world. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

It seems to me that what is different this time is that Israel has "Iron Dome", which has been remarkably effective at preventing Hamas missiles from reaching populated areas. Of all the thousands of missiles Hamas has fired in this conflict, how many did any damage or caused casualties? They could be counted on one hand. In responding with overwhelming force, as they have always done, Israel can argue justification but they play into Hamas' goals. Who thinks that a Palestinian who sees his family killed by an Israeli bomb will tell himself "It isn't Israel I should hate, I should hate Hamas". If I was put in that situation I doubt that I could bring myself to overlook the fact that it was an Israeli bomb that killed my children, at best I'd end up hating both Israel and Hamas equally. That is not a recipe for peace. The only way to defeat Hamas is by undermining their public support within the Palistinian population. The only way to do that is to show Palestinians that Hamas is the source of their problems regarding the embargo, lack of economic possibilities, freedom to travel, etc. Instead of responding the same way they always do, given the effectiveness of Iron Dome maybe the Israelis could consider not responding to provocation from Hamas. When they respond, they legitimize Hamas (by treating them as an adversary that needs a response), and inevitably (given the population density of Gaza) they cause civilian casualties that foster anti-Israeli and pro-Hamas sentiment. Imagine instead Hamas firing off thousands of missiles, and Israel just ignoring them (well, other than shooting down the missiles of course). Hamas would waste their stockpile of missiles, and be seen to be no more significant than an annoying little fly to be shooed away. Then Israel could say to the Palestinians "See, this is why we have to block shipments into Gaza. This is why you don't have enough food or medicine, because Hamas uses the opportunity to import missiles not food. Hamas uses concrete to build tunnels, not schools. Get rid of Hamas, stop importing missiles, and we will be able to lift the blockade." There is no good reason for Israel to believe that tactics that have failed for decades, meeting force with massive, overwhelming force, is not moving the situation towards any hope for lasting peace. As long as Hamas is unable to reach populated areas with their missiles, it is an option for Israel to try another tactic. Military tactics will always win the battle for Israel, but lose the battle for the Palestinian people. 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 that exactly what you did with this thread? So you think Jimmy Carter is an "idiot". Well, lets make a quick comparison. Carter: Graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis Qualified as submarine commander Lead cleanup of nuclear reactor accident at Chalk River, Ontario After leaving the navy, built a very successful farming business Twice elected to Georgia Senate Elected Governor of Georgia Elected President of the US since leaving the presidency: Worked extensively with Habitat for Humanity Founded and directs the Carter Center, which is highly active in combating several tropical diseases including malaria, trachoma, river blindness, lymphatic filariasis (elephantiasis), Guinea worm, and schistosomiasis. Several of these diseases (especially river blindness, lymphatic filariasis, and Guinea worm) are expected to be completely eradicated by 2020 due in very large part to the efforts of the Carter Foundation. The Foundation also actively and vigorously promotes democracy and human rights around the world. Carter himself is very much involved on a day to day basis with the activities of the Center. Was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for the work of the Center, and for his work negotiating alternatives to war in several conflicts around the world. (Unlike Obama, who got the Nobel for not being Bush, Carter has done an unbelievable amount of work since leaving office to fight disease, promote human rights, promote democracy, and negotiate alternatives to war). Now people may take issue with Carter's effectiveness as President, though it's not clear to me just how he was responsible for OPEC's oil embargo, or the Iranian hostage crisis, or the fact that the rescue failed because US military helicopter pilots were unable to avoid flying into one another. We should also keep in mind that he deregulated the beer industry and made it legal to sell malt, hopps, and yeast to home brewers for the first time since Prohibition; I think that offsets at least some of the bad stuff that happened during his time in office. airdvr: accomplishments??? Since you assert all that Carter has done was accomplished by an "idiot", I'm sure you will be able to provide us with an even more impressive list of accomplishments that establish your intellectual superiority. I'm sure you have something to show, besides promoting a travel agency, to establish your credentials to proclaim Carter an "idiot". Personally, I would have thought a discussion of the merits or lack thereof of talking to Hamas would have been more interesting than denigrating Carter's intelligence. However, you (airdvr) chose the topic for the thread. I hope you can defend it without showing yourself to be even more of an "idiot" than the messenger you chose to attack, rather than attack the message. 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 logical problem with this, at least from the perspective of Judaism/Christianity/Islam, lies in the assertion that God created the Universe, and specifically created humans. If God is an "emergent property" of the universe, or of our collective consciousness, then the universe (or we) created God and not vice versa. If our collective conciousness = God then prior to human evolution (or another self-aware entities) God could not exist. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

How do you propose to "blast them back to the stone age" without doing the same to the people they are victimizing? Do you have some super-secret weapon that can tell the difference between ISIS assholes and the rest of the populace? I do wish the rest of the islamic states would show up and put ISIS out of business, but I suspect many of them are all to happy to let ISIS have free reign until the problem reaches their own borders. 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)

Good thing we have strong Presidential leadership No doubt you'd prefer someone more like Putin. 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 reminded of the time, during the 1996 Atlanta Olympics, when people from New Mexico were refused tickets to events and were told they would have to buy them through the Mexican outlet. 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)

While I agree with you, I fail to see why you directed your comments at me. What did I blame BHO for in my post? 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 assume you are prepared to pay unlimited taxes to support that. I hold you, those of your ilk, and those who spread bullshit to the gullible so as to enhance their own bottom line more responsible for the social unrest than I do BHO. 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 know the question wasn't directed at me, but I'll ignore that part for the moment because it's an interesting question. I think there are a lot of things that would be nice but are impossible in any biological or legal sense. Brain chemistry is hugely complicated, and there are many many ways that things can get screwed up, and many of those produce similar symptoms. At the moment the approach is to try one drug after another until something is found that works (at least sort of). A problem is that each different drug tinkers with brain chemistry in a different way, so while the right drug may correct the problem the wrong drug (or the right drug in the wrong dose) can create new problems while not treating the original problem. Much better diagnostic techniques would help here, techniques based on biochemistry and neurobiology and not just symptomology. This will require a significant investment in terms of research dollars, at a time when such dollars are being restricted more than any time since the 1950s. On the legal side, people do not lose their rights because they are mentally ill. Rights can be taken away only if you have committed (and been convicted of) a crime. Unfortunately the great majority of seriously mentally ill people do not recognize that they are ill, and refuse treatment, or don't stick with treatments. Playing into this is the fact that most drugs used to treat serious mental illnesses have severe side effects, which encourages people who don't really believe they are sick to stop taking the drugs. If someone refuses treatment, the only way you can "make" them get treatment is to sign an affidavit that they are an immediate risk to themselves or others. This will get them in for an evaluation, but not guarantee that they will be admitted long term or be forced to take any treatment they don't agree to. What it will guarantee, however, is a life-long stigma that will keep them from exercising certain rights (insert 2nd amendment here) and effectively bar them from many professions. Most family members are extremely reluctant to go this route, except in the most obvious cases of extreme risk of violence, because of the permanent stigma it places on the patient. Even if the patient agrees to treatment, there is a serious lack of facilities to treat seriously mentally ill people. Also, such treatment is very expensive. However, seriously mentally ill people are generally unable to hold a job, and almost always lack the resources to pay for treatment. As a result of several of these factors, our jails have become the "treatment facilities" of choice. Once people with mental illness commit a serious crime, they can be incarcerated, and when in jail they can be forced to take medication. Unfortunately jails are not hospitals, they are not equipped to act as mental health treatment centers, they are not funded to do that, and the staff are not trained doctors. So, instead of treating people, we just warehouse them until their sentence is up, then release them, often still with serious problems. So you ask what can we do? Besides watching for signs of illness in our family, friends, and ourselves, and trying to (gently) intervene before things reach a crisis point, we need (I think) to: 1. Recognize that we all have an interest in effective treatment of mental illness, and insist (including lobbying politicians) that we as a society* invest in research to find good diagnostics and treatments, and provide facilities (hospitals) where those treatments can be given, and 2. Insist that laws be changed to remove the permanent legal stigmas that act to discourage people (and their family/friends) to seek treatment. We do not stigmatize people for life for appendicitis, diabetes, the flu, etc so why do we do that to people with an illness that affects their brain, long after they have been treated? *I know that some here do not believe in anything like "interests of society", but I think treating mental illness as a commodity, something that should be seen only from a profit perspective, is insane. The problem with depending on the ill to pay full freight for their treatment is that their illness commonly prevents them from keeping a job that would allow them the resources to pay for treatment themselves. The alternative to everybody chipping in is to have people with serious illness running around untreated until they hurt someone, then put them away, which is pretty much what we do now. 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)

Hey, welcome back. 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 quite certain you are correct about WIC, and suspect you are right about welfare. The point is that welfare is directed towards families with young children, not lazy-ass able-bodied adults who could work/go to school (so they can then get a job) but choose instead to do nothing productive. The point of my earlier (long) post was that reality is complicated, and every "solution" to these problems will have a variety of effects, some good and some bad. Most knee-jerk suggestions (let's make prisoners pick the crops!) turn out to have really bad "unintended consequences". As the saying goes, "for every problem there is a solution that is obvious, simple, and wrong". What we need is an economy that provides an abundance of jobs, and those jobs pay enough for people to actually live off of their paycheck. Also society has to provide people with the opportunity to get training (education) to do those jobs. Instead we have an economy where many jobs (not just the dangerous/boring ones) are being replaced by automation. For example 30 years ago someone with a high school diploma could get a job as a bank teller, and (if they were good at it) could move up from there. Today there are very few bank teller positions, and you have to have a university degree in economics or business (or a good family connection) to get such a job. Thousands of tellers have been replaced by ATMs. It's like that across the board; most "job creation" these days is in service sector jobs that pay at or close to minimum wage. Feeding into that is a mindset on the part of management that they are really worth 400X the salary of the people on the assembly line. I recall an episode I happened to see of "Shark Tank" where an entrepreneur wanted money to build a plant in Mississippi to produce some widgit he invented. One of the "sharks" was insistent that the guy build the plant in China. The argument was that they could produce the widgit for a couple of dollars less, but sell for the same price, and they (the shark and the entrepreneur) could pocket the money. To his credit the entrepreneur guy stuck to his guns, insisting that he owed it to his employees to keep the jobs Mississippi, and the shark guy then backed out of the deal. A year or two later they did an episode where they followed up on some people, including this entrepreneur, and it turned out he had found the money elsewhere, built the factory, was doing well himself, but just as important (to him) he was providing jobs for 25 or 30 people. We need a lot more of that type of thinking. 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)

Well, we might look to history for a relevant example. Have Americans stopped consuming alcohol? Do we still have a lot of violent crime associated with producing, importing, or selling alcoholic beverages? I wonder why we no longer have gang wars over alcohol??? 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 was thinking in terms of routing the pipe into the cab of the truck, and making them drive it like that until they get it fixed. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Maybe you could cut the Australians a break and put up some of those asylum seekers in your 29,062 square foot house. 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 breathe, and this offends me. 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)

"International liberalism" being the notion that other countries might possibly have their own interests, and do not exist solely to satisfy the US's demand for cheap materials and labor. I realize the very idea that other countries might act in their own self interest is an abomination to some. Actually trying to work with other countries, rather than just bullying them and invading/staging a coup when they don't "choose" to bend to our will, is a sacrilege. 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)

Interesting article. Of course, it's sort of obvious that children are not coming here in large numbers for employment. So these people are fleeing violence, a virtual war zone. How should we respond? In the past we have been generous to some refugees. We also turned away others, returning them to their home country despite knowing they would be killed. Is it relevant that we (the US) have had a large role in creating the existing conditions in Central America? Perhaps some are familiar with the history behind the term "bananna republic". US corporations, with the backing of the US government and military, deliberately kept people in these countries poor and politically powerless, to provide cheap labor for those corporations. When people turned to political parties, particularly leftist parties, who promised relief from their lives of poverty, we (the US) sponsored covert wars and military coups to keep those people subjugated. Now, we provide the market for the drugs that keep the gangs in business. Yet another happy consequence of the ill-begotten "war on drugs". Is it surprising that people want to come here to obtain peace, prosperity, freedom, and (far down the list) a political voice? All the things we have enjoyed here, and worked hard to deny to other countries? 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)

Considering that the great majority of people on welfare are women with children (able-bodied men are not eligible), would your plan include requiring employers to provide day care and schools? Or would you require the children to pick cotton beside their mothers? Most food stamp recipients already have jobs. Here in Georgia most county employees, as well as a large segment of the workforce at Walmart, fast-food places, and such qualify for food stamps. Would you require them to quit those jobs so they could be available to pick cotton? I have no problem with requiring able-bodied unemployed people to show they are actively looking for work, or are in an appropriate training program to upgrade their marketable skills, as a condition of receiving benefits. How about we try this? 1. Fix the e-verify system. 2. Require all employers to verify the employability of anyone they hire. 3. Impose severe penalties for failing to verify the employability of job applicants before hiring them. This would remove the incentive for undocumented migrants to come here. It would also force US employers to actually compete for US workers, instead of depending on a vulnerable immigrant work force. Of course, that would mean they would have to pay competitive wages, and provide a working environment that would be acceptable to US workers. Are you prepared for a dramatic escalation of food prices? In 2011 Georgia enforced strict immigration rules. What happened? "...[In 2011]... the state passed HB 87 - a tough immigration law modeled after Arizona's HB 1070. As a result, many farmers complained they had issues finding the farm labor they needed after HB 87 passed. It seemed that migrant workers didn’t even bother looking for jobs in the Peach State, and farmers were already having a difficult time filling positions with laborers on guest worker visas because of their cost and paperwork. The farmers commissioned a study from the University of Georgia’s Center for Agribusiness and Economic Development to determine the extent of damage the shortage had done. The study examined seven staple Georgia crops, Vidalia onions included. The findings were shocking: 18 Vidalia-producing farms lost an estimated $16,312,345 and 835 jobs. In total, the seven crops studied lost almost $75 million and more than 5,200 jobs because of the labor shortage. " (

I read it, and it does an excellent job of debunking the whole issue. Then, it rates the statement "true". WTF? The rating is the opposite of what the article says? Anyway I didn't respond at the time because a point by point rebuttal would take more time than I care to invest. Basically, the whole issue comes down to: "those people have got cooties!" As if we would keep out Israeli or Japanese kids because they have head lice. 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 solution do you suggest? Repeal the 1st Amendment? Maybe a little ethnic cleansing? 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 is no legal mechanism by which the vast majority of people such as the the migrants showing up at the border can immigrate. Interesting system we have in place: we rely on such migrants to provide cheap labor, especially for agriculture and construction, yet we have no legal path for people in those occupations to obtain permanent residence (green card) or citizenship. There are really very few ways to legally immigrate to the US: 1. Family repatriation. If you have an immediate family member who is a US citizen, they can sponsor you to immigrate. If you aren't lucky enough to have a parent or sibling here, your options are: 2. You can be sponsored by an employer. Typically you would enter on a H visa, and after about five years they can sponsor you for a green card. During this whole time (minimally 6-7 years including processing time for the green card) you cannot change employer. Every step of the process costs thousands of dollars in fees. Employers do this only for "high value" employees, typically those with advanced degrees (PhD mostly) who bring specialized skills they have not been able to find in American workers. This is because the employers also have to pay thousands of dollars in fees. No-body does this for workers with expertise in picking grapes or plucking chickens. After another 5 years as a permanent resident you can apply to naturalize as a US citizen. The path to citizenship is long, expensive, and USCIS goes out of their way to treat you like shit the whole way. It's worth it if you're being paid a decent salary as a professional. It's impossible legally, and even if it was possible it would be stupid to pay several thousand dollars in fees for a visa so you can take a minimum wage job. 3. In very exceptional circumstances you can apply directly for a green card under the "national interest" program. This is limited to people who can prove an international reputation for excellence in science, performing arts, or athletics. Basically, if you have a Nobel Prize in medicine, or are a likely Olympic gold medal contender you can bypass the requirement for an employer. A couple of dozen such green cards are issued annually. Otherwise go to the back of the line. 4. If you are rich enough you can buy a green card. All you have to do is invest a minimum of $1,000,000 in a targeted enterprise in a low employment area of the country. Care to guess how many of the migrants showing up at the border have $1,000,000 to invest? 5. If you come from an eligible country (one with a low rate of immigration to the US in the last 5 years) you may be eligible to apply for the green card lottery. A total of 55,000 green cards are awarded by lottery. Citizens of Mexico, Columbia, El Salvador, Ecuador, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, and Jamaica, amongst others, are ineligible to apply. That excludes 95% of the migrants showing up at the border. Incidentally Canadians, mainland Chinese, and many other countries are also excluded. People say those migrants should get in line to come in through the front door, but no door exists for them. 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 assume you are aware that there is no legal mechanism by which the vast majority of these people can immigrate. Interesting system we have in place: we rely on such migrants to provide cheap labor, especially for agriculture and construction, yet we have no legal path for people in those occupations to obtain permanent residence (green card) or citizenship. There are really very few ways to legally immigrate to the US: 1. Family repatriation. If you have an immediate family member who is a US citizen, they can sponsor you to immigrate. If you aren't lucky enough to have a parent or sibling here, your options are: 2. You can be sponsored by an employer. Typically you would enter on a H visa, and after about five years they can sponsor you for a green card. During this whole time (minimally 6-7 years including processing time for the green card) you cannot change employer. Every step of the process costs thousands of dollars in fees. Employers do this only for "high value" employees, typically those with advanced degrees (PhD mostly) who bring specialized skills they have not been able to find in American workers. This is because the employers also have to pay thousands of dollars in fees. No-body does this for workers with expertise in picking grapes or plucking chickens. After another 5 years as a permanent resident you can apply to naturalize as a US citizen. The path to citizenship is long, expensive, and USCIS goes out of their way to treat you like shit the whole way. 3. In very exceptional circumstances you can apply directly for a green card under the "national interest" program. This is limited to people who can prove an international reputation for excellence in science, performing arts, or athletics. Basically, if you have a Nobel Prize in medicine you can bypass the requirement for an employer. Otherwise go to the back of the line. 4. If you are rich enough you can buy a green card. All you have to do is invest a minimum of $1,000,000 in a targeted enterprise in a low employment area of the country. Care to guess how many of the migrants showing up at the border have $1,000,000 to invest? 5. If you come from an eligible country (one with a low rate of immigration to the US in the last 5 years) you may be eligible to apply for the green card lottery. A total of 55,000 green cards are awarded by lottery. Citizens of Mexico, Columbia, El Salvador, Ecuador, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, and Jamaica, amongst others, are ineligible to apply. That excludes 95% of the migrants showing up at the border. Incidentally Canadians, mainland Chinese, and many other countries are also excluded. People say those migrants should get in line to come in through the front door, but no door exists for them. 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)

Polio was eradicated in the Americas (that would include North, Central, and South America for the ignorant) 23 years ago. There has not been a case of polio transmission in this hemisphere since