Another year, gone.

Today is the last day of hurricane season. We dodged another one.

Not to jinx us or anything, but if you look at the historical record, you have (recent memory now) Camille in '69, Frederick in '78, Elena in '86, Georges in '98, and Katrina in '05. God willing, our next direct hit named storm should be three to eight years away.

Which will be just enough time for a lot of the people who survived Katrina to leave, and a new crop of storm rookies to stand in front of a camera and brag about how they're not leaving. They'll be standing in front of a home that has been rebuilt and sold three different times before they got it, and tell everyone that "This house survived Katrina, we'll be fine."

At least I KNOW mine did. And thus the age old question rears its head again. Do I evacuate?

This answer changes all the time, but sitting comfortably at my desk on 11/30/07 at 8 AM, drinking my coffee and watching the kids get ready for school, I'd say that yes, I'd evacuate for a Cat 3 storm or higher. Not because I fear for my safety in my home. There is nothing I can do once the storm starts if, say, the roof peels away again or a tree takes out the window. I may as well be somewhere with electricity and drinkable water and air conditioning.

Now, if the budget office grants my request for a release of capital funds for the purchase of generators, now we're discussing an entirely different set of circumstances. But that budget meeting won't occur until spring of '08.

And lucky for me, neither will any discussion of evacuation.

HAHAHA

I'm posting from work, tonight! Somehow, I managed to log on to Blogger in spite of the corporate filter.

HAHAHAHA!

That's it... nothing else to say.

MRAP continued

Well as I promised I finally made it to my office at the base and found my october 2007 copy of Defense Technology International magazine.

There are 3 catgories within the MRAP program

Category 1: 7-15 tons, 4 passengers and 2 crew. Primary duty is urban transport
Category 2: 15-25 tons, up to 8 passengers and 2 crew Primary duty is road escort, ambulance and bomb disposal
Category 3: 25 tons 4 passengers and 2 crew primary duty bomb disposal. (Marines and Navy are the only branches that have ordered this category)

Right now there are 7 different versions and or manufacturers of the type 1. There are 6 different type 2's and only one type 3 called the buffalo.

They range in price from $475,000 to $856,000 a copy depending on the manufacturer and configuration.

There is plenty more, the link to the article is http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/aw/dti1007/


Baddboy

Bring It!!!!

I Ain't Skeered!!!

Thanks for the invite to the group officially. I'm not sure who you guys have had playing in your sandbox before me but I don't scare easily so take your best shot, HEHE.

So what's up with Trent Lott? He just gets reelected and just before the new anti lobbying rule goes into play he decides to retire, hhhhhhmmmmmmmmm. Guess we know what he plans on doing. The initial rumor was he was going to be the new Chancellor at Ole Miss but guess that was just a rumor.

If you guys hear anything more let me know, this could get interesting here in Mississippi.

Baddboy

Our group grows...

Today I invited Baddboy to participate on the blog as an "author", meaning he will be posting his own thoughts and dreams, instead of simply commenting on those posted by others.

I have expanded the "Who's Who" to include him (if you don't like the blurb... feel free to offer suggestions. My first impulse was to use "token veteran", but there might not be enough South Park fans out there to appreciate the reference), and I will add space for any links he might want to post or add later.

This certainly isn't the first time we have extended our "fraternity" to those like-minded people that might have something to add... but very few have stayed the course. Wait... none have stayed the course. We have chased all the rest away. It seems that the first time someone posts something that one of us disagrees with and rebuts, people get offended and stop coming or reading (I am referring to people on our old mailing list, of course). This can only mean one of two things:

• We are too harsh in our rebuttals
• We are to lax in our choice of Bund associates

Me? I blame Ryan.

Welcome, Baddboy!

Damn, I'm good...

Two nights in a row, a perfect meal!

Last night, the best deep-fried turkey this side of the Mason-Dixon... and tonight a "from the hip" Turkey ala King that is to die for!

Liz just read the title of this post over my shoulder, and said I should change "good" to"gay"... obviously far too influenced by the slander and lies of both Jambo and F Ryan. It seems she thinks my efforts on this blog should be more self-depricating... and I suspect James and Ryan will no doubt agree with her.

Damn it, this is my blog, and I will post as I feel fit! I am a damn good cook, and more the Man because of it.

Philistines. I'm surrounded by Philistines.

A question for you Conservatives out there...

So, after more than a year, I FINALLY got the new antenna for my Sirius Satellite Radio, and I'm back in the loop, so to speak.

Anyway, I'm setting my presets... ESPN, HairNation, EWTN, Classics, et al ... and I plug in Sirius Patriot 144... the Conservative Talk station. Mike Church is on, so I listen for the ride home from running errands in town.

The entire 15 to 20 minutes of what I listen to is Church ranting about the Liberal LIES of global warming, national healthcare, amnesty for "undocumented immigrants"... you know the schtick. Babbling on about how twisted Clinton, Gore, Biden, Kennedy and the rest really are, and how they are the root of all evil in America.

Now, don't get me wrong... I'm not DENYING that these people are wrong, or idiotic, or inherently evil deep in their souls. I don't know them well enough to make that determination. I'm simply giving you the context of the "show" as I heard it for just under 30 minutes.

My question?

Why are so few "mainstream" Conservative commentators and pundits openly backing Ron Paul as the ONLY Conservative choice for President in 2008?

They constantly play his radio adds, in which he (Ron Paul) clearly states that those adhering to "conservatism" as a political ideology MUST, by definition, reject the GOP hopefuls and their calls for "nation-building" in Iraq, ANY increase in the budgetary size of the Federal Government... including Homeland Security and a LARGER Armed Forces, any institutional intrusion into public privacy by a Federal agency without a Federal warrant (meaning the complete repeal of the Patriot Act), ABSOLUTELY ZERO tolerance of or considerations to illegal aliens currently in the country, an instantaneous US withdrawal from Iraq, Afghanistan, NATO, the UN, NAFTA, CAFTA, and the G8, and the end of the Federal Income Tax as the primary means of Federal revenue.

So, how is it that the greatest "pundits of Conservatism" like Limbaugh and Hannity and the rest won't give the guy the time of day? Paul's right, you know... the nation-building efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan are antithetical to the very heart of conservatism, yet every GOP PotUS since Reagan has exercised that effort somewhere in the world, and all with almost zero success. No GOP President since Hoover has advocated AND delivered "small" government in the face of a growing economy, yet every GOP President since Hoover has seen a growing economy during their administration (even if only shortly, as in Ford's case). Every GOP worth his salt cod has decried the loss of American sovereignty to foreign interests like the UN and NATO... yet none has ever even considered an actual withdrawal from either of those organizations... or any of the other groups mentioned above. The President has declared the "end of major hostilities" in Iraq years ago, and the Vice President has said the same about Afghanistan... "mission accomplished" in other words... Saddam is gone, as is the threat of his propagating WMDs to terrorists and jihadists, and the Taliban is out of power, paving the way for a democratic Afghan nation!

If what I have written here isn't the case, then I think I am going to insist that commentators and pundits like Limbaugh and Hannity et al need a new label... because they are NOT conservatives. Ronald Reagan might have been one of the greatest Presidents in US history, but he was NOT the father of the Conservative movement in America. I think we all agreed that Hoover gets that title. Advocating an ideology based on Reagan's politics (juvenile in the extreme, but that's an aside) can be called many thing... but I am inclined to agree with Paul when he says it ISN'T Conservatism.

Response?

Thanksgiving, et al

I, too, hope all here (participant and visitor alike) had a happy, safe and satisfying Holiday!

My holiday was rather typical of that experienced by casino personnel everywhere... I worked. This would not be a factor were it not for the fact that my girlfriend-fiance, Elizabeth, is NOT used to the casino lifestyle and its requisite holiday schedule.

For the last 7 months, I have had a relatively easy day-shift schedule... 7:30 am till 4 pm. When I finally got my supervisor promotion, I was forced to go back to graveyard (11 pm till 7 am). This is a difficult schedule regardless of the industry it is conducted in... especially with kids involved (of which there are three), but when it is couped with the fact that I am forced to work the occasional holiday as a matter of course, then there is bound to be some unhappiness somewhere, right?

To put it mildly, I dropped the ball... big time. As the children were with their father and family all day, I thought that the big dinner (deep-fried bird, taters, trimmings) should wait till the family was together... say, the weekend. Liz had "mentioned" getting some work done, and I had taken that to mean nothing special or extravagant was required (HUGE mistake on my part). So...

I slept. From 9 am till about 12:30. Then the fun started...

Don't worry though... I'm not out on the street looking for a new place to live. We seem to have reached an understanding (which is the really wonderful thing about this woman... we fight, but at least there is RESOLUTION to an issue in the end!), and we salvaged the remainder of the day rather nicely, I think.

So, I hope all here enjoyed the food, fun and family that this uniquely American holiday brings to our homes each fall, and that if you were lucky enough to spend it with your loved ones, that you cherished the moments and memories... and if you couldn't spend it with those loved ones, then you anticipate the chance all the more next time.

Here's hoping I get Christmas right!

What a little research will show you...

Yep, that's right. I woke up this morning and read Baddboy's comments, and took up the challenge: research violent crime in the DC area in search of trends that MIGHT be associated with gun-control laws.

In less than 10 minutes, I had determined the following:

Washington D.C. is a very violent place, and has been for the last 38 years. In 1969, that's when the violent crime in the metro area surpassed the national average for the first time, and it hasn't gone below that average since.

In 1975 the Firearms Control Regulations Act went into effect in DC, and the city then went on to see the violent crime rate rise every year until 1994. Much of this Act was later deemed unconstitutional and rescinded or repealed, but much of it is still in place, and I am assuming that the current mayor is trying to get some teeth back into it.

Since 1994, there has been a marked and rather steady decline in violent crime (and petty crime) in the city of DC. No substantial easing of gun control legislation has occurred in the metro area, so one cannot attribute this reversal to gun control removal, but it certainly can't be attributed to gun control itself, either.

It is my opinion (after only an hour of research) that the decrease in crime is DIRECTLY related to programs of urban renewal and "gentrification" of neighborhoods like the Shaw, Le Droit Park, and Columbia Heights (I am only passingly familiar with these neighborhoods... my experience in DC is very limited, and then mostly in the Georgetown district). Extending metro rail services into the Shaw and the Heights can be directly connected to the increase in interest in run-down property and its renewal and improvement... and I'm sure the other neighborhoods can show similar results, as well.

I am the first to admit that I was an ardent believer in the fallacy of the "Right to Keep and Bear Arms" argument, always making the case that the prerogative of the State (read Nation) to maintain a standing, uniformed Army superseded the right of the individual to keep arms for the protection of the same State. In the years since 9-11, I have read an awful lot on this issue, and I have become convinced that the letter of the Law is correct, and the Right guaranteed in the 2nd Amendment applies to all US citizens equally, regardless of enlistment in a standing Army.

(NOTE: My "conversion" was not some magical, Loyolan experience of epiphany-like enlightenment... so Ryan can stop gloating. While I may now agree that the Constitution does guaranty the right to keep and bear arms, nothing prevents the government from looking to register these said same arms and require manufacturer safety measures (like trigger-locks, etc), nor from determining that certain types of weapons do not constitute "civilian arms"... fully automatic weapons, explosives, rocket-propelled weapons, et al. This is simply common sense, and I'll hear no "slippery slope" arguments to the contrary!)

Federal or (outside of the DC area) State programs of incentive and assistance in renovating, updating and improving existing property in problem neighborhoods is nothing new, but what it is is a constant target of GOP budgetary cuts in the most troubled sectors of our society. Were the Feds to focus such efforts in places like DC, East St Louis, Miami's north side, all of New Orleans, Kansas City (near the river, both banks), Atlanta's south side, Detroit, et al... I am convinced that violent crime in ALL these cities would drop dramaticly, while municiple revenues would go up and racial and ethnic economic disparity would go down.

This should not be considered a government "hand out"... but instead, it should be considered an investment by the Government in communities and municipalities across the country, with the rewards reaped in the gradual but eventual reduction in expenses over the short course of 5 to 15 years.

Win-Win, with no losers in the equation. How is this bad?

Testing ...

This is a test. Were this an actual emergency ...

Seeing if this works ...

This is test. Were this an actual emergency this message ....

I've been quite busy ...

Well, late last month my ability to log on was functionally disabled, Jambo has since told me a way around that. Also, my significant other had her purse stolen while shopping, with no less than $875 in it ... don't ask me why she was carrying that kind of cash, and undoubtedly this will get an "I told you so" from Badboy with his disdain for this, the only city you can see from space.
At any rate,

Ron Paul ....

We've discussed this. The first 80% of what he says is a fantastical journey in conservatism, then the last 20 is mayor of a little place I like to call "suspended reality." Now, your primary beef is that if we, as so called "conservatives" do not support the Ron Paul then we must find a name other than "conservative", because what he espouses is the text book, historical definition of a "conservative." Okay, fine. And some have labeled our brand as "neo-conservatism." But what you're forgetting is that the definitional goal post for these terms, "conservative", "liberal" etc, has constantly moved throughout the political history of our nation. I could make the same accusation of the term "liberal" in its classical sense. The Democrat presidential hopefuls, and many others on that side, are sounding more like Buchananite isolationists rather than classical interventionist democracy spreading liberals. "A threat to democracy anywhere is a threat to democracy everywhere " rings a bell. If we are to suspend the reality of constantly shifting definitions, and insist that classical descriptions be adhered to then I will be forced to demand that Hillary, Franken et al cease from identifying themselves as "democrats", let alone "liberal."

****
The cooking stuff T ... sooooo gay. I'm aware that the best chefs throughout history have been men, but anyone subject to the occasional "Trevor" or "Niles" joke should perhaps rethink being braggadocios with his apron strings.

****
As to "blaming Ryan." I can think of no higher honor within our group then to be repeatedly referred to by name when assigning blame for running people off. This is my territory, my group (ours), and if you, Titus, are going to insist on routinely introducing people that show up for a battle of wits unarmed, then I'm going to slam them. Not to mention, "they" need to understand that when I take time out of my busy day in order to respond to leftist rantings (like that kid), it is a compliment ... to them. There are scores of people I run into that have these rather insane, "Bush & Cheney were in frog suits setting detonations on the leveys" theories, that I don't even bother engaging. There's no fun in that, they're not operating from the same reality playbook and they might as well be speaking to me in Mandarin. So, for all those that have or will venture on to our site that ideologically oppose me (neo-conservatism with a dash of moderation), my advice is to suit up in your steel bloomers, and quit crying like a girl. We've had these fights face to face - no electronic medium as a barrier - how do you outsiders think that went? Tea at high noon? Hardly. Try Miller High Life and horse throats at 2 a.m.

****
On Hannitty's "hypocrisy", or his inability to "fess up" to associating with Coulter's brand of political rhetoric ... you asked how it could help the GOP to engage in the same extremist trype that we so often (and accurately) point out the left is guilty of? I can only say this ... YES Ann Coulter, while cute, is a political shock jock, no question. She's sells a lot of books and gets very wealthy that way. Faldwell, quite frankly, is dead. The difference is that Coulter is not considered the mainstream or primary voice of our movement. The fringe doesn't run our side as it does the left. There is no equivalent to the Code Pink's or "Move ons" that garner presidential hopeful attention. Hillary et al attend rallies of these extreme elements, bend to their will, and are careful;l not to offend them. In contrast has even ONE GOP presidential candidate been on Savage, or appeared jointly with Coulter? No. And there's my only point here - the extreme left runs that party, the extreme right does not run ours.

****
Global warming ...
A Manhattan style project for new sources of energy is fine, and has in fact been advocated by me. The rest of what you wrote is Carteresque nonsense Titus. Price regulations have been tried and met with disastrous results. I no more want to bring that 1970's disaster back then bell bottoms, disco's or bad adult films.
The man-made global warming frenzy, and it is a frenzy, is fueled by a previously established template - in other words if you (I'm talking about people in general) are prone to think that companies are "evil" entities, that capitalism is the lowest form of human behavior, and that rich nations like America are full of greedy, heartless fat cats that get rich on the backs of poorer nations then you will be prone to "believe" in the religion of global warming. It fits the template and guess what, you get to attack from a position of "do-gooderness."
It's fake, it's a farce, and it's widely believed, and that makes it dangerous. The next president (it clearly won't be this one) should push a "moon shot" agenda for alternative fuels and new technologies, absolutely, and he should base it and publicly sell on national security. About half our country believes in this farce, but I would presume around 90% would agree that dependency on energy from the Middle East is dangerous. I'm telling you, this is a gimmie for any politician with presidential aspirations. In the mean time, if you want to ACTUALLY lower the cost of gasoline, forget price controls (I'm having trouble believing you even suggested that "malaise"), and suspend the gas tax for the coming winter - what's that, like an immediate 50 cents a gallon drop? And cut down on the federal purification blend standards, that another roughly 40 cents off the top of my head. THAT is how the government should affect the price, not setting arbitrary price controls just because bashing oil companies is popular, and easy.

****
On Naomi Wolfe ....
I spoke to Jambo on the phone earlier, he was averting my breaking the key board by putting the post in a proper context, so my response will be shorter since we talked for about an hour. I understand his point that the book was historically rooted, thus interesting, and this gives him hope that the Dems will drift toward a more civilized, intelligent conversation of the issues. However, if she, whom draws clear comparisons from Bush to Gobbles or Hitler himself, is the best example on the left of a mature and responsible discourse, then that is an indictment of the entire party. And unfortunately for her people like Jambo quickly point out that bonifide American icons (i.e. Lincoln and FDR) fit her description of "despots."

****
Badboy - excellent post on the cyclycal nature of freedom to bondage. I found that quite interesting, and disheartening.
FR

I've been busy ...

Well, late last month my ability to log on was functionally disabled, Jambo has since told me a way around that. Also, my significant other had her purse stolen while shopping, with no less than $875 in it ... don't ask me why she was carrying that kind of cash, and undoubtedly this will get an "I told you so" from Badboy with his disdain for this, the only city you can see from space.
At any rate,

Ron Paul ....

We've discussed this. The first 80% of what he says is a fantastical journey in conservatism, then the last 20 is mayor of a little place I like to call "suspended reality." Now, your primary beef is that if we, as so called "conservatives" do not support the Ron Paul then we must find a name other than "conservative", because what he espouses is the text book, historical definition of a "conservative." Okay, fine. And some have labeled our brand as "neo-conservatism." But what you're forgetting is that the definitional goal post for these terms, "conservative", "liberal" etc, has constantly moved throughout the political history of our nation. I could make the same accusation of the term "liberal" in its classical sense. The Democrat presidential hopefuls, and many others on that side, are sounding more like Buchananite isolationists rather than classical interventionist democracy spreading liberals. "A threat to democracy anywhere is a threat to democracy everywhere " rings a bell. If we are to suspend the reality of constantly shifting definitions, and insist that classical descriptions be adhered to then I will be forced to demand that Hillary, Franken et al cease from identifying themselves as "democrats", let alone "liberal."

****

The cooking stuff T ... sooooo gay. I'm aware that the best chefs throughout history have been men, but anyone subject to the occasional "Trevor" or "Niles" joke should perhaps rethink being braggadocios with his apron strings.

****
As to "blaming Ryan." I can think of no higher honor within our group then to be repeatedly referred to by name when assigning blame for running people off. This is my territory, my group (ours), and if you, Titus, are going to insist on routinely introducing people that show up for a battle of wits unarmed, then I'm going to slam them. Not to mention, "they" need to understand that when I take time out of my busy day in order to respond to leftist rantings (like that kid), it is a compliment ... to them. There are scores of people I run into that have these rather insane, "Bush & Cheney were in frog suits setting detonations on the leveys" theories, that I don't even bother engaging. There's no fun in that, they're not operating from the same reality playbook and they might as well be speaking to me in Mandarin. So, for all those that have or will venture on to our site that ideologically oppose me (neo-conservatism with a dash of moderation), my advice is to suit up in your steel bloomers, and quit crying like a girl. We've had these fights face to face - no electronic medium as a barrier - how do you outsiders think that went? Tea at high noon? Hardly. Try Miller High Life and horse throats at 2 a.m.

****
On Hannitty's "hypocrisy", or his inability to "fess up" to associating with Coulter's brand of political rhetoric ... you asked how it could help the GOP to engage in the same extremist trype that we so often (and accurately) point out the left is guilty of? I can only say this ... YES Ann Coulter, while cute, is a political shock jock, no question. She's sells a lot of books and gets very wealthy that way. Faldwell, quite frankly, is dead. The difference is that Coulter is not considered the mainstream or primary voice of our movement. The fringe doesn't run our side as it does the left. There is no equivalent to the Code Pink's or "Move ons" that garner presidential hopeful attention. Hillary et al attend rallies of these extreme elements, bend to their will, and are careful;l not to offend them. In contrast has even ONE GOP presidential candidate been on Savage, or appeared jointly with Coulter? No. And there's my only point here - the extreme left runs that party, the extreme right does not run ours.

****

Global warming ...

A Manhattan style project for new sources of energy is fine, and has in fact been advocated by me. The rest of what you wrote is Carteresque nonsense Titus. Price regulations have been tried and met with disastrous results. I no more want to bring that 1970's disaster back then bell bottoms, disco's or bad adult films.
The man-made global warming frenzy, and it is a frenzy, is fueled by a previously established template - in other words if you (I'm talking about people in general) are prone to think that companies are "evil" entities, that capitalism is the lowest form of human behavior, and that rich nations like America are full of greedy, heartless fat cats that get rich on the backs of poorer nations then you will be prone to "believe" in the religion of global warming. It fits the template and guess what, you get to attack from a position of "do-gooderness."
It's fake, it's a farce, and it's widely believed, and that makes it dangerous. The next president (it clearly won't be this one) should push a "moon shot" agenda for alternative fuels and new technologies, absolutely, and he should base it and publicly sell on national security. About half our country believes in this farce, but I would presume around 90% would agree that dependency on energy from the Middle East is dangerous. I'm telling you, this is a gimmie for any politician with presidential aspirations. In the mean time, if you want to ACTUALLY lower the cost of gasoline, forget price controls (I'm having trouble believing you even suggested that "malaise"), and suspend the gas tax for the coming winter - what's that, like an immediate 50 cents a gallon drop? And cut down on the federal purification blend standards, that another roughly 40 cents off the top of my head. THAT is how the government should affect the price, not setting arbitrary price controls just because bashing oil companies is popular, and easy.

****
On Naomi Wolfe ....I spoke to Jambo on the phone earlier, he was averting my breaking the key board by putting the post in a proper context, so my response will be shorter since we talked for about an hour. I understand his point that the book was historically rooted, thus interesting, and this gives him hope that the Dems will drift toward a more civilized, intelligent conversation of the issues. However, if she, whom draws clear comparisons from Bush to Gobbles or Hitler himself, is the best example on the left of a mature and responsible discourse, then that is an indictment of the entire party. And unfortunately for her people like Jambo quickly point out that bonifide American icons (i.e. Lincoln and FDR) fit her description of "despots."

****
Badboy - excellent post on the cyclycal nature of freedom to bondage. I found that quite interesting, and disheartening.
FR

Wrong with blog ...

I just posted a few minutes ago ( the Happy Thanks Giving post) and it keeps recording my post as of 11/20 (It's 11/22 now), below "What A Little Research Will Show You", which is an 11/21 post.

I've tried a couple of corrections, and to no avail. I keep getting a red "ERROR" code asking me to please try again - I do, and it's the same - recorded as 11/20.

If anyone can fix this (Titus/Liz) ... by all means do so.
FR

Happy Thanks Giving ...

... and Titus, FUCK OFF.

You don't do shit like this ...

Nope. YOU are wrong. So, I stopped reading at this point.My point was that the GOP wins from both ends of the spectrum if it takes on just a few of the “green” issues, but the biggest wins come with the issues that bring us closer to energy independence.That’s it. Nothing else. And I am still not going to read anything that you wrote after what was clipped here.

I spent time and energy in producing a sound argument - REGARDLESS of whether I made the correct assumption of your thesis, and you damn well better read it. Do you know how many mindless quasi-socialist rants on taxes, the New Deal, and the 2nd Amendment I have sat through out of simple RESPECT for you??

By the way, on the 2nd amendment .... I TOLD YOU SO !!!

You deserve that ... militia "only" my ass. The Grand dice pit is still echoing with that argument ... so let it die a slow death, my ears and near yelled out voice earned that much.

And FYI, saying that the GOP should embrace "GREEN ISSUES" is exactly what I wrote about, and you'd know that were you to "honor" me with your humble indulgence of my presentation ... ass wad. Don't ever lecture me about reading as much as you again. I concede you read more, but at least I read 100% of what you write, pampas prick that you are.

If it's Trevor that's jealous of my good looks and solid pecks, and has forbade you from reading posts submitted by "F.Ryan", then too bad. Slap him in the ass and show him who's the woman!!

A very pissed,Ryan.

Mail this guy a copy of the constitution ...

The mayor of DC, I don't know his name so lets just call him "jack ass" (all do apologies to Johnny Knoxville), got a city wide resolution passed that bans ALL privately owned legal guns in D.C. I mean no guns in your private residence! They are all illegal as you read this. And in typical moronic reasoning he quotes statistics that 90% of homicides in his city are due to handguns. Like the gun grew legs, a motive, and killed somebody. In the words of Archie Bunker, "Would it make you feel any better little girl if dey was pushed out of windas." It has been clearly demonstrated in study after study that communities whom have the loosest legal gun ownership restrictions have lower crime rates than those cities with strict gun ownership laws. And does the good mayor think that criminals will abide by his new law, and check their guns at the edge of town? What, will he hire Wyatt Earp to ensure this? Is he crazy? The ONLY private citizens with guns in D.C. will be the killers, thugs and thieves. Not to mention, I've always considered the hand gun in the purse to be the ultimate in making a woman equal to a man.

A security guard (private citizen) filed a suit, a gun toting woman signed on and the Supreme Court will hand down its ruling sometime next spring - the arguments concluded as of today. The mayor says (reminiscent of Titus' old argument) that the 2nd amendment only guarantees "militias" the right to bare arms. Never mind that it reads (and I know it by heart thank you very much), "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bare arms, shall not be infringed."

What part of "the right of the people" is unclear. The amendment hands down TWO garuntees in that atatement: the people's right to have a well regulated militia to ensure the security of a free State, AND the individual's right as a citizen to keep - stress KEEP - and bare arms.

And even if you take the mayor's narrow, and incorrect, interpretation, that only militia's are reserved that right, he must then ask himself, "what is a militia?" I'll tell you what it is not - it is not people whom are prohibited from owning fire arms, and then show up in a time of crisis and are issued weapons by the government. They are private citizens who show up with their OWN guns and preform military actions in emergency circumstances.

This is insanity.

And if the law stands (I highly doubt it will - this is an obvious breach) will they come door to door and collect the guns? Try that in Texas, in Mississippi, in Tennessee. You want to see a highly motivated, let alone "regulated" militia, try this in the South.

THIS is the very type of "tyranny" our forefathers warned of and fought against.
FR

It's apples and Cadillacs ...

... that's what I so frequently say. It's a quote from a Soprano family cappo.

Before I get to that - the NY Times above the fold headline: "Security Improvements In Baghdad For Real." With accompanying pictures, and admissions that at least 20,000 displaced residents have returned to their neighborhoods thus far. Now, lets avoid the "Titus urge" to lunge into a rant about how Rummy should of, could of, would of done better and achieved this earlier had he gone in with more forces and more versatile weaponry to begin with -we've covered that - and just acknowledge just how WELL things must be going if the Times is forced (and undoubtedly they waited until it could no longer be ignored) to print such positive news in Iraq. And to Col. Oliver North's credit, he noted more than a year ago that if you control the violence in Baghdad, you control the perception of how the war is going. I'm sure that idea was not singularly his, but I happened to hear him say it long before the surge was even proposed.

To the last post .... I assume your point, Titus, was that if the administration, or the US govt in general, would embrace, i.e. compromise, on some of the "Algorian" so called "environmental reforms" that we would engender both international good will and have the added benefit of becoming less dependent on foreign oil thus addressing national security concerns. In a word, WRONG!

The UN advocated/Kyoto/Gore "reforms" being proposed are recipes for US economic disaster. And I think (my opinion) that it's no coincidence. The level of anti US (and to an extent anti-Semitic) sentiment within the gaggle of thugs and despots known as the UN, desires with these reforms to do nothing more than level the economic playing field in their eyes. The US is the strongest and most powerful economic engine in this race, and everybody knows it - being "on top" has its price, and being "liked" is often a casualty of being #1. That may sound simplistic, but it's accurate. And keep in mind, we ARE liked. The rest of the world worries about being in our good graces, not the other way around. Conservative, or moderate-right chief executives have been elected in Canada, Germany, Australia, FRANCE, and we have "war on terror" ideological allies in the UK - ALL during Bush's tenure. And that has less to do with his leadership in the war on terror, and more to do with his tax cuts and the economic force that the US is, causing it to be very costly not do business with the US. Sarkosy, the president of France addressed congress recently ....

The United States and France remain true to the memory of their common history, true to the blood spilled by their children in common battles. But they are not true merely to the memory of what they accomplished together in the past. They remain true, first and foremost, to the same ideal, the same principles, the same values that have always united them...

... Upon first meeting Washington, Lafayette told him: "I have come here to learn, not to teach." It was this new spirit and youth of the Old World seeking out the wisdom of the New World that opened a new era for all of humanity.

... America did not tell the millions of men and women who came from every country in the world and who—with their hands, their intelligence and their heart—built the greatest nation in the world: "Come, and everything will be given to you." She said: "Come, and the only limits to what you'll be able to achieve will be your own courage and your own talent." America embodies this extraordinary ability to grant each and every person a second chance.

Here, both the humblest and most illustrious citizens alike know that nothing is owed to them and that everything has to be earned. That's what constitutes the moral value of America. America did not teach men the idea of freedom; she taught them how to practice it. And she fought for this freedom whenever she felt it to be threatened somewhere in the world. It was by watching America grow that men and women understood that freedom was possible.

What made America great was her ability to transform her own dream into hope for all mankind....

That of course is just a few excerpts ... he went on to pay homage to the US fighting man in WWI, and WWII. It was quite moving and I wish more of our leaders painted this grandiose, and accurate, portrait of our nation as Sarkosy did (http://www.nysun.com/article/66054?page_no=2).

My point is this - he went on to urge the US to "lead" in the fight on global warming. Which got standing "O's" from the democrats. BUT he said that after he lavished us in terms such as 'the greatest nation" on earth. He didn't say "we would be the greatest" if only we would compromise on the belief in man-made climate change. And what has made us great? What has fueled our military and influence in the world? The size and scope of our wealth. Compromising on consumption (the green point of advocacy) would threaten that, and thus our "greatness" as a world power.

And remember, that's from France, after all our "Kyoto rejection" (done 99-1 in the Senate by the way), all of our very necessary, while unpopular, war making, and some vicious dislike of Bush, WMD, etc. Despite all that France elects this guy - openly pro American. It, economically speaking, costs too much to be on our bad side for very long. Do you see what I am saying? The biggest international goodwill "engenderer" we have is our economy. To implement, even a compromised version, that which Gore et al are advocating would harm our biggest asset. You want to see our allies running for cover every time we make a "controversial" decision, make doing business with the US in order to be successful as a nation, optional. Then we are up that famous creek with no arms, let alone a paddle.

And you're coming at this from the wrong direction. How many, if polled, of the American voting populous believes in man induced global warming? Lets say you get a few Republicans to say yes, and a few Democrats to say "no", and you end up with about half. Now ask if our dependency on Middle Eastern oil is a national security risk? What do you think? 90% or so would say "yes.?" THAT is the rallying point. You should be saying to the "greenies" that if they want the fringe benefits of alternative energy (in their mind a cleaner world) then they need to come on board with us, in the "national security advocacy" of alternative fuels. Not to mention - I can demonstrate unequivocally in about ten minutes that our security is at stake by importing 11.7 million barrels a day, where as there "science" is inconclusive (at best) and consensus lacking amongst our own population. Their version of compromise focuses on limiting what we consume, thus damaging our economic leadership in the world (and like China, second, according to the UN in CO2 pollution, would EVER concede to any of this compromising business). We (with the focus on security) on the other hand say "consume all you want" while we enthusiastically push forward on searching for a viable, renewable, domestic alternative. And brother, solar panels and windmills ain't gonna cut it - not for the level at which the US consumes. Furthermore, I believe that in a few years (10 to 20) science will illustrate that man made global warming is a farce. If we proceed in search of a viable fuel alternative based on that premise, then what will happen if it turns out to be a hoax? Perhaps a dry up of federal funding (and our much lauded multi-trillion dollar contract prize). At the very least there will be a decrease in our sense of urgency - and dependence on Middle eastern oil will remain unabated, now with no real enthusiasm for that to change. Where as if national security is the reasoning all along, "who cares" the feds and companies will say to the discovery that the "green science" was bogus, "that's not why we're doing this anyway." You have to concede that this is a plausible scenario. In contrast we will NOT some day discover that foreign dependency on oil was in fact "no threat" to our security.

Let's go back to China for a moment. They will never, and I mean never, concede to any compromise in any way shape or form that at all hinders their booming economic growth. At current their economy is about one-fifth of ours, with what, three times the population? If we were to implement consumption decreases - a part of any green compromise, they're emphatic about that - we will be handing them (China), non participants in that compromise, a strategic and economic advantage, which they will press hard. Suddenly in 25 years worth of this compromise their economy is four-fiths ours, with the same population (both providing the world's most lethal army), and they're dicating international policy to the world, rather than us. It's a disastrous scenario. If you go with national security, limits on consumption ceases to be a focus, and our economy hums along in the meantime while we invest financially and emotionally in a "energy moon shot" program.

What is needed, I concede, is for a GOP president (it won't be the other side) to use the bully pulpit he has to rally the country around the national security angle so that it can have the press, notoriety and flat out "fame" that global warming currently enjoys. THAT is the lynch pin. Leadership on the issue, with the reasoning of security.

Those whom advocate changing our economics and energy consumption based on global warming concerns are setting us up for real time financial ruin, and potentially (a certainty in my eyes) a lack of enthusiasm for finding more "security sound" energies in the future, by way of their "science" being debunked.

They would do well to sit at our feet with the intent to "learn, not to teach." And that goes for any future Republican president as well.
FR

An example...

Recall, for a moment, our discussion about the Administration bucking "green" legislation based solely on a disdain for anything stemming from Al Gore. In that discussion, we determined that... perhaps... it is worth considering a compromise position when so much "extraneous" benefits can be achieved with so little effort or expense.

We can now see an example of this in our friend and ally, Japan. A weak and insecure PM has allowed the harvesting of as many as 50 humpback whales... with no other purpose than to feed the nearly insatiable appetite of the Japanese exotic food market, which is willing to pay $200/lbs for whale meat.

Now, Japan is facing enough heat from the world in general (all over the interests of better business and the almighty "yen") to warrant calls for boycotts and protests from such diverse organizations as Toyota-America and Sony Entertainment, along with the usual tree-hugger crowd like the Sierra Club and Green Peace. It isn't going break the bank, of course... I'm sure that the sushi bars of Tokyo will pay out enough cash to make the effort worth every copper penny for the Japanese whaling fleet. It is simply enough bad press to make the already "elitist" Japanese government seem even more aloof and above reproach.

It is such a waste! While I am perfectly aware that the US interest (or lack thereof) in "green" alternatives to fossil fuels is a completely separate matter (apples to oranges, as Ryan so frequently says), the basis for the argument is the same... it is an unnecessary waste of international goodwill and cooperation, and furthers a nation's dependence on finite supplies of commodities that could be replaced or substituted with something else.

When is it in the best interests of a government to "limit" or "regulate" an industry away from commodities or resources that directly effect that nation's ability to conduct the vast majority of its business and operations?

Ahem...

I hesitate to post this... my Liz is constantly harping about how my trivia fetish keeps setting of her Nerd-o-meter.

None the less, I choose to embrace my true self, and admit that I frigging LOVE kicking the bejesus out of dozens of my under-educated and un-read fellow men at a time!

Last night, I had two hours at the end of the shift with NOTHING to do. The computer system at work tends to filter out the most interesting sites, so I am limited to Wikipedia and a few of the major news sites for reading at work. However, I did find a trivia site...

FunTrivia

Check it out. You can sort the quizzes by category, and with very little effort, you can find tests that are truly challenging! I took a Tolkien test last night that rung my head for 30 minutes! Fantastic! The nerd that put that together was a peer of anything I could hope to be...

Literature, history, sci-fi, TV era, 70's and 80's music, movie, religion (James MUST take the Catholic tests... not all are as good as others, but some are damn challenging... as good as the paper ones we took at the Cathedral before the storm!)

It's free, it ISN'T mindless, and it can be (I guess) interactive and even team-oriented (imagine that! A group of 12 like the four of us? We'd OWN that competition!).

Check it out if you're bored or unchallenged after a mind-numbing evening on a $5 snapper game doing 40 on and 40 off.

MRAP

I really have to admit a fascination with all things military... historical, tactical, strategic, logistical... it all fascinates me. Call it the "Armchair General" in me, I just can't help it.

MRAP: Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle. Produced for the USMC by FPI as the Cougar HE. Crew 2+4, Engine 330+hp Cummings Diesel, Armor 7.62 ball-round rated, mined protected wheels and center line carriage, Armament (primary) remote weapons platform capable of numerous variants including TOW, .50 cal auto-machinegun, 40mm autocannon, twin .30 cal machineguns, Cost aprox. $500,000 ea.

This peach is already slated to be the primary urban and urban assault vehicle of the USMC. Only possible short-comings I can see is the fact that it is only 1/3 the troops capacity of an M113, and half of the Bradley. Top speed of 65 mph and (seemingly) top-notch design and engineering seem to make this a hot item for combat troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Big ticket seller? The price tag. This vehicle is easily just as versatile as the JEEP was in WWII, and just as economical to build and operate. 1/6 the cost of a Bradley, and half the cost of a M113... half a million for one of these is as cheap as any budget-conscience politician can hope for.

Gotta see if Jambo and my friend Rick has had a rise in one of these...

For Baddboy, et al...

I found these beauties last night... thought I'd dedicate them to Baddboy, our only contributing Veteran... he can act as "proxy" for all our proud service men and women.

The first is the new MRAP vehicle... aprox. 7 years late, but who's counting, right? From reports in the Stars and Stripes, this thing is a huge hit with the boys in Iraq, and it will undoubtedly service mighty nice in the "Stan" too. Can't tell you how much it pisses me off that Rummy held up this vehicle as "un-needed" (NOT "un-tested" as the White House has stated time and again... read the Stars and Stripes article!), even after the press made such a flak about the lack of vehicle armour in the face of determined IED attacks in the months IMMEDIATELY preceding the invasion. THAT man has a lot of F***ING questionable decisions to answer for, and I would be willing to bet my bottom dollar that if a Dem wins in '08... the FIRST thing they do is sit him in front of Congress to answer some of those questions. Any takers?

Baddboy's comments concerning monetary contributions to the historically, as well as politically, questionable regimes of the United States of Mexico over the last 20 years were not new to the Bund... but they were very topical to our discussion. The "Nada Peso" bill I got off another GOP-leaning site. Very nice, and quite in step with Baddboy's comments!

Enjoy!

Live long and prosper - just do it legally please....

Just a couple of points.

One of the reasons I have always enjoyed our friendship, and the spirited arguments, is that each of us, when it finally hits that our argument or position is untenable, just comes right out and says it - I know I have had to more then a couple of times.

On the US military. There have been instances, Haiti etc, where the police function went array - I get that. I just believe that if they were stationed with the mandate to protect their own soil, they would be fantastic. And in California, where Swarschenegger sent his state guard (to a high traffic access point) the spot all but dried up. Undoubtedly they went somewhere else, but the point is it was effective. On that we will just agree to disagree until when and if it is implemented and one of us is shown to be correct.

On the English proficiency. Even every Democrat's plan includes this. And while your point about the proficiency in English of natural born citizens is well taken, I would add that an even more extreme example would be the inability for high school students and probably 80% of the populous (a generous number) to understand basic civics, government or naming the states and presidents - yet we require that knowledge of new immigrants, they even take a test on it. And as far as I know, those tests are in fact prepped with multi week classes, as are English classes - although I don't think the English is required like the history/government classes. See, you put in a multi step citizenship program - they pass the medical examination and background check, and get issued a temporary visa i.e. "entry"- they then have X amount of time to learn English in these provided classes. I'm fine with that. And the "who" whom would judge the proficiency is easy in my eyes. The same instructor that teaches civics and US history undoubtedly "grades" the test - the English instructor would do the same. Use the same scale that they implement in grading "proficiency" in history , have a test after the weeks of classes, and bingo. I hope you didn't think I meant they had to recite Poe's The Raven at the border check point before they are admitted. The medical exam and background check for entry, yes - the English is for citizenship (with a solid expiration date on their Visa to encourage this followed by an actual deportation if they just let it lapse). I think we have some common ground there.

But the bottom line, as I and James have advocated, is that ANY program that does not first stop the leak, will doom the boat to sinking. And I will just simply have to disagree with you on our ability to do that - the real and virtual fence, with an enormous increase in man power and I it can be done. And remember - you don't have to police or fence every square mile for a huge effectiveness rate. Some of that area is very rough terrain, and nearly untraversable. So you focus on the main (and sub-main) traffic areas and you can make a large dent very rapidly because you force them into areas that will cause some simply to not try. At any rate I find the project very doable, and much less costly then the status quo (that's guess on my part, but even if it's a net cost, it's the right and "secure" thing to do). Not to mention - if you perceive a slight hostility towards Hispanics over the "press 1 for English", what do you think could happen if a suicide bomber takes out just three or four people in a shopping mall and his steps are traced back to crossing that border illegally? Let alone a suitcase nuke coming over the Rio Grande. Draconian won't even begin to describe what would be the outcome then.

Also, I'm fine with sanctioning Mexico - just remember, they have some sweet light crude they might dangle in front of us if we do ... I still say screw em' - they've been screwing us on this issue (govt printed pamphlets on how not only sneak in, but avoid detection once you're here) for a long time.

In closing I'll repeat that I think my plan would work - but I don't see the political will arising to prosecute it. I think there's enough "testicalage" to build the real/virtual fence and man it, and if it's Republican presidency in 08' he'll more than likely have to do it before he's up for reelection. Let's hope so. At least that's a start. That and Titus conceding we are right in principle, even if he wishes our "fellow man" sensibilities were a little more "finely tuned."
Later.
FR

Inarguable...

I am forced to admit that it is impossible for me to maintain an argument based on the rights of individuals (and, in some cases, entire societies) that have gained access to the US illegally. My contention has always been that the system that makes them "illegal" is so flawed as to be non-functional. Since it is something the US has only had in effect since 1952 (the McCarran Walter Immigration Act), I feel that correcting the errors and flaws of current immigration laws and regulations is hardly the impossible task that Ryan seems to think it is... just as securing the border might not be the impossible task that I am inclined to think.

When I use terms and phrases like the system that makes them "illegal", I am not suggesting that it is the LAWS fault they are illegal... only that we are trying to enforce laws that are impractical and probably unenforceable. An example of another such law would be the crime and lawlessness that followed the implementation of the Volstead Act of 1919. This does not mean, however, that I think Al Capone wasn't guilty of murder and violence because I think it is wrong for the Feds to regulate morality... only that what the Volstead Act did was to increase the occurrence of very crimes they were trying to eliminate.

I understand the need of a "secure" border... I even support it. I simply haven't heard a viable, practical suggestion as to how to achieve that goal. I still maintain that the use of US active-duty military personnel "shoulder-to-shoulder" across the US-Mexican border will result in nothing more than massive expenditures of money, manpower and equipment in a time when it is vitally needed elsewhere and the increased possibility of the death of those trying to illegally enter the US (admittedly, a chance they take themselves... but resulting in even more bad press for the US).

Some kind of increase in manpower and expense is undoubtedly needed, I don't deny that. All I am saying is that in the world of realpolitik, no current US President or presidential candidate is going to promote the kind of effort Ryan is calling for in securing the border... for exactly the reasons I have given: alienation of huge portions of the voting block, expense, bad press, et al. It simply won't happen. Some other answer or compromise measure will have to be found. Undoubtedly, it will be a combination of what we have discussed and suggested here... comprehensive immigration policy reform with increased security at the border and more stringent enforcement of deportation policy for those deemed habitual or dangerous offenders.

The last point I wanted to touch on was one brought up in comments on the previous posts numerous times... English proficiency as a requirement for applicant immigrants.

At no point in the past 231 years has the US required immigrants to speak English. I find it difficult to understand why that is such an issue now. Yes, more than 15% of the current US population do not speak English as a first language... I know that. I simply can't understand why that is "bad" to the point that it must be mandated by Law to force that 15% to conform. In a world where English is the largest spoken language on earth (and the language of business and technology globally)... followed closely by Spanish, how can it be a bad thing to have a population that so closely reflects the actual spoken demographics of the globe? Where do we see examples of ethnic societies in America where English doesn't emerge as the primary language of the population after only ONE generation?

We have all lived among the vast Asian population of the Mississippi Gulf Coast for more than a decade... did we experience the refusal of that population to "conform"? Did we not work with second-generation Vietnamese that were fluent in BOTH tongues, very nearly equally? Of ALL the Vietnamese people we dealt with on a daily basis in our chosen profession, what percentage of those people were we UNABLE to communicate with at all? In my 14 years on the Coast, I would say I encountered that kind of language barrier in no more than 1 in 100 cases... and I am not exaggerating at all.

Perhaps the most telling point is one that Daydream Believer made in her comment... who is going to determine "proficiency" in a time when one in four high school graduates can't find their home state on an unlabeled map... or cannot read even one act of a Shakespeare play (written in their NATIVE tongue!)? How many people do we work with on a daily basis can't write a proper letter to the editor of the local newspaper without spellchecks or grammar guides (myself included)?

I do not refute the argument that some degree of ability is needed to promote functional literacy in American society for non-English speaking immigrants (legal immigrants, mind you). All I am saying is that if the onus of proficiency is dropped on the applicant's lap, it is simply one more hurdle to citizenship when I can't help but feel that it is the hurdles that are prompting illegal attempts at entry rather than legal ones.

Why, then, can't basic language (English language, obviously) be provided as part of the citizenship class that ALL citizen applicants must take anyway? Rather than a one-week course, make it a four week course that includes 3 weeks of class and material to make the application of even limited English skills more practicable for immigrants... this extra course could be waived if the applicant can show adequate skills prior to applying, of course (no sense wasting time and money on an immigrant with a PhD in English language studies).

I guess I keep asking myself which is the greater threat to an America embroiled up to its ASS in the War on Terror (with theaters in Iraq, Afghanistan, and very possibly Iran and North Korea sooner or later)... a pourous border OR 20 million undocumented aliens residing illegally in the country? I think I would agree with Ryan and say a pourous border is the greater threat, and having said that, I think Baddboy's suggestion of playing hardball with Mexico about policing thier side of the Rio Grande is an excellent idea. Cut off the $110 billion dollar support and assistance checks until such time as we can see that Mexico is doing all it can to stem the tide of illegals from their end of the field. That amount alone is more than twice what the PotUS has asked the Congress for in War funding over the last 14 months... and that kind of action on our part could go a long way to changing how Mexico City feels about the "immigration" status of the 2,000 Mexicans crossing the border every day.

Now, if I had to guess, I'd venture to say that with the implementation of THAT kind of hard-ball play, we wouldn't NEED 5 divisions of US Army and Marine troops on the US-Mexican border to stop the flow... Mexico would post 5 divisions of their own troops there instead, with guns pointed south instead of north.

This is a pro-active response to the problem, where I still insist that Ryan's initial suggestion to "secure" the border with Federal troops and National Guard personnel is reactionary at best... and a flat-out recipe for disaster, at worst.

So, to wrap up... I am still more than a little pissed off that every single thing I write or say on this topic is dismissed out of hand as "liberal bullshit" time and time again. I question failing immigration policy, and I'm labeled a "moron"... when in 1938, FDR kept in place an immigration policy that REFUSED entry and immigrant status to 500,000 German and central European Jews... and history is very clear what their fate was over the course of the next 7 years. I question the suggestion to use active duty military as a police force, and I'm called unpatriotic and anti-military... when all I have to do is refer to such historical events Kent State, the military occupation of Mississippi and Alabama during Reconstruction, Wounded Knee and Rosebud Reservations, and MacArthur's attack of the "Bonus Army" to show that the US military make lousy policemen... especially in the US itself.

I have readily admitted that my position is nearly impossible to defend outside of the realm of moral emotionalism... NEVER a good position to make political opinion from. That does not negate the moral side of the issue, however. Labeling an argument "irrelevant" because of emotional attachment is as untenable as arguing from a purely emotional position alone. My concern for "poor kids" of illegal aliens (whether or not those children are US citizens) is as valid an argument as any in an age when one side of the "isle" pits public perception and emotion against the other on a minute to minute basis. I still stand by the premise that ANY US policy that risks the rights and liberties of even ONE innocent citizen risks the rights and liberties of ALL US citizens... this is the very heart of Ryan's favorite "slippery-slope" argument in any number of his favorite political "hot topics". The Gonzalez-Reno affair is an excellent example... Reno was RIGHT in what she did, and nothing she did to enforce her determination was ILLEGAL or WRONG... yet the country, the world, and very probably history itself will vilify her and the Administration she was working for because of it. All the world will recall is that she was "pandering" to the evil Castro in giving up the child Elian into his Communist regime's hands. The moral issues of the affair had far-reaching and tangible effects on the outcome of the affair... this is undeniable, and unfortunate... especially since the Administration had in its power to stop the disaster before it exploded.

Am I really THAT out of line in hoping that the same (or worse) can be avoided in THIS situation?

Once more unto the breach, dear friends!

First of all, it's rein in. Reign is the term a monarch rules.

Second, we have covered this EXHAUSTIVELY! I can't believe we're back here again!

Titus says that historically, not just in America but world wide, closed borders do not work. Despite the fact that Japan did okay as a closed society for almost a thousand years, they did better after Perry knocked the door down. I do not deny the historical validity of Titus' claim. Closed borders do not work.

I checked again. I cannot find a Ryan post, idea or rant that says "We need to lock the border and not let one more immigrant in, period."

What time and time again both Ryan and I have advocated is a SECURE border. Build the fence. Build the wall. Build the gates. Defend both. Don't stop the legitimate, legal immigration of people from Latin American nations. Stop the illegal entry and employment of undocumented illegal aliens. Once the border is secure the deportations can begin. The prosecution of private individuals and companies hiring illegal aliens (we have discussed the oxymoronic use of illegal immigrants as a term in previous posts, I believe) can begin today if someone exercised some testiclage on the local, state and national level. What is heartless about that?

And when I say "secure" I know we're all on the same page. One doesn't need to build the Berlin wall by a factor of 600. Existing technology, expanded manpower, various holding sites for prisoners, and transportation to the border and across it. End of story.

WHAT IS SO HARD ABOUT THIS? Why is this so difficult?

Here is an unfortunate loophole in my master plan. The only "amnesty" I can see working, for obvious reasons, is that short of a retroactive amendment to the Constitution, the guardian or parent of the aforementioned children, citizens of the United States due to geographical location of their birth, need to stay with their child/children. They stay. I can't see an alternative. That doesn't mean they're granted immediate citizenship, but it creates an Eleon Gonzales/ Janet Reno confrontation on a scale that boggles the mind. And we all remember how that ended just one on one.

I do not see how the American military (never mind that it wouldn't BE the American military unless they create my HDF, per New Deal 2008, unless the SeaBees and the Army Corps of Engineers are building the wall/fence/barrier) would fail in SECURING the borders. Both borders. It is not IMPOSSIBLE.

As a close, think about this. The Soviet Union had easily triple the mileage of border, just with "friendly" countries. They had fences and "secure" borders with western nations like Norway, Sweden, and not so western but not so hostile to the West countries like Turkey. Were they bleeding people like the East Germans were? Were their borders "open" in any way shape or form? They exercised a WILL to secure borders and made it happen. Granted, ten divisions of KGB troops scattered over tens of thousands of miles but they still did it. What we lack is the will.

Cuidado mi amigo.

First off ...

Regardless of whom you feel the SCHIPs question was directed at… illegal parents or illegal children… government applications requiring ANY information that might implicate the parents as "illegal immigrants" has been deemed "UNCONSTITUTIONAL" by the US Supreme Court since its 2000 Reno v Condon ruling.

It's not open to an interpretation of my "feelings", it's what I read. It's there in black and white. The application caters to illegal children as well - I gave you the link, you can check it if you'd like. I'm unaware of this ruling, however, I am very aware that the Supreme Court is more than capable of making bone head decisions (see Roe vs Wade), especially when in 2000 it was still a majority leftist court (in practice regardless of which president originally nominated it). And if you're telling me that they ruled detecting parents as illegal during applications for their legal children is unconstitutional, then that was boneheaded as well. I understand that makes the application , "legal" (with the parental part - that's still no excuse for the illegal children's accessibility) but it's wrong in my opinion.

****
The number I used in referring to the number of LEGAL children of ILLEGAL parents is NOT something I simply made up…...... If showing a little concern for 4.5 MILLION US citizens that might need BASIC health care assistance that they can’t provide for themselves (because they are MINORS) constitutes just one more example of "bleeding heart" liberalism… call me guilty as charged. Just don’t get offended or act surprised when I start referring to you as a "bigot" again.

I'm really not sure why you keep bringing this up, other than you see an advantage in trying to triangulate this conversation into my defacto criticizing of legal US children - I have not and am not saying they should be denied services because of their parent's status. So my advice is to stop bringing it up as a point of debate as if I had contested it - I did not.

While we're on it, this phenomena is referred to as "anchor babies" (I'm sure you'll find that term sufficiently obnoxious, so I had to use it). An illegal 9 months pregnant slips across with the express intent of popping her bambino out on US soil (hospitals are not allowed to deny emergency services, nor do I advocate that be changed). Bingo - she's the immediate relative of a US citizen ... let's start the paperwork. It's a symptom of the problem of an open border, not the problem itself. Some have advocated amending the constitution so that being birthed does not grant citizenship - we are the only 1st world nation that accommodates that. I don't endorse the amendment route if for no other reason it's a bandaid, and doesn't address the real problem of no security to our south.


****

"Non-lethal force" is NOT a facet of our armed forces...’

That's fair enough - however, were they charged with that task - policing/enforcing our border, I have no doubt they would be overwhelmingly successful. If you want to play "ask a vet", then ask them if "failure" is even a part of their vocabulary. As I said, to argue that using the military in that fashion is a "misuse", fine, that's a reasonable position - but to conclude they would fail is asinine in the extreme. I simply will not EVER write the words you did, under any circumstances - I think the US military has earned that level of respect for their ability and knowing the esteem you hold them in I am utterly shocked - I truly didn't think you would write it. Regrettably, I was wrong.

As for actual enforcement, putting the border guards in place to feel as if there was a military style presence (as Mexico does on their southern border I might add), combined with the technology of a virtual and real wall is just common sense. I find it fascinating that you agree we can move off of fossil fuels - a MONUMENTAL task - if only the PoTUS would lead in a moon shot, Manhattan Project fashion, but that we are incapable of sufficiently securing our sovereignty on the southern border. How is it the genius and determination of the American people to accomplish "anything" is acknowledged by you in one "against the odds" instance, but is absent in the other? It can be done, it will be done. The only question is will it take an attack - in which it is shown the southern border was the access point of the perpetrators - before we do.

****

What sitting Senator or Congressman has submitted for consideration and debate anything even CLOSE to what you are advocating?

None. And it pisses me off. An unfunded wall is as far as it's gone. But my guess is that this issue has hit a critical mass and if the next president is a Republican he will have to implement some version of my plan or face losing reelection. So I'm holding out hope for that scenario, but I admit, it's just my guess at what will come. As for the cost, you may find this trite, but it will cost more if we do not. Not to mention, no matter how many of these "stations" you set up (and I still don't know how you plan to make them any more efficient than the DMV, and they don't even do back ground checks or medical exams), it still won't be faster than jumping a fence, and this is a CRITICAL POINT Titus - unless you sufficiently close that border, no matter what "station" plan, no matter how well intentioned or run they are, nothing will be faster then illegal entry. Furthermore, those who know full well that they won't pass whatever background check system you set up, won't bother with your "be an American today" clubhouse, and they will still cross illegally - drug smugglers and terrorists will hardly stand in your line. So you can call my measures "draconian" all you want, but the success of ANY, and I mean ANY plan of yours will be dependent upon a secure border. No plan will be effective without it. And that's something you're just going to have to come to terms with.

****

Granted, they broke the law. Laws that history shows are impractical, at best… and unenforceable at worst.

You might as well come to terms with something else - you just advocated an open border policy. What you truly want is as many little processing shacks as it takes set up on the border, and with no medical exams, no English proficiency tests, just a photo ID made, a copy made, and send them on their way north. Let me tell you something - that will NEVER happen, and I mean NEVER. My plan may be unlikely to happen, but at least there there's hope. Yours, as I have laid out, is a non starter.

****

Yes, a million people protested the bill, from CA to NY, because it DIDN’T include an amnesty clause… not because it did. Now who wasn’t reading the news? Sheesh…

You're not understanding me here - I'll attempt to be clearer. This is the bill that had illegals paying a fine, sent to the back of the line, built the wall, etc, had thousands protesting, that Bush advocated but failed to pass, right? The problem for him and his advocates was that BOTH SIDES detested the thing. And when I say "both sides" I mean the pro-amnesty crowd on the one hand, and the "enforcement first" crowd on the other. You identified it as if changing the illegal crossing to a felony was it's main focus or largest identifying aspect. It was not. This bill, the one which garnered the protests, had a focus, according to its advocates of "comprehensive immigration reform." It was going to be the catch all for all that ailed us on this issue. But, only beltway types were its advocates. And here's why - the illegals and their pro-amnesty advocates found it too heavy handed. The fines, back of the line, go back to your country of origin first, etc was what they opposed - you're right, they wanted blanket amnesty so there's your protests. My side detected a loop hole in the bill. An illegal could simply reapply endlessly for what is called a "Z Visa." They would never become an actual citizen, but this Z Visa was renewable for eternity and involved no fines, back of the line etc, it was defacto amnesty. So in the conservative media it was dubbed "the amnesty bill." We protested in a different fashion - we called and emailed our representatives by the millions and demanded they kill this bill. They did. Thus, my point was that those who called their reps - middle, mainstream America, i.e. "the majority" - is with me on this issue. Enforcement first is the majority opinion in this country, and your approach is a clear minority. I refer you to the following ....

Zogby poll: Americans fed up with illegal aliens.
Majority against Bush plan for workers, 81% think local police should help feds.

A new opinion poll by Zogby International indicates Americans are hardly pleased with the Bush administration on the subject of illegal immigration.
The poll, cited on CNN's "Lou Dobbs Tonight" program yesterday, noted a huge majority – 81 percent – believes local and state police should help federal authorities enforce laws against illegal immigration. Only 14 percent disagreed.
Voters were also asked, "Do you support or oppose the Bush administration's proposal to give millions of illegal aliens guest worker status and the opportunity to become citizens?" Only 35 percent gave their support, and 56 percent said no.
"A majority opposed illegal immigration," pollster John Zogby told CNN. "In fact, when you combine those two terms, 'illegal and immigration,' it really conjures up a considerable amount of negatives. And, in fact, we find that it's really across the board."
According to the report, the greatest opponents of illegal immigration are Democrats, African-Americans, women and people with household income below $75,000, those with the most to lose in the job market.
When it came to the status of the nation's borders, respondents were asked, "Do you agree or disagree that the federal government should deploy troops on the Mexican border as a temporary measure to control illegal immigration?" A clear majority – 53 percent – agree, while 40 percent disagree.
"The Minuteman program highlighted the fact that we need more tighter border security," Phil Kent of American Immigration Control Foundation told the network. "So I think these numbers again are good. It's a good civics lesson for the American people. It shows our elected leaders that we want action."
In summing up her report, CNN correspondent Lisa Sylvester noted, "So, while the public wants tougher borders, politicians are pushing to leave them open. A real disconnect."
Dobbs responded to that statement, saying: "The disconnect that you referred to, Lisa, between our elected officials and the people of this country is in no – on no other issue any more dramatic than on the issue of illegal immigration. The Zogby poll is just simply the most recent in a string of polls that show that the American people want their borders secure, they want immigration laws to be enforced, and to clean up what has become an atrocious mess on the part of our elected representatives serving better the interests of U.S. multinationals than the people who are working for a living in this country."

Do you understand what I am saying now? When you wrote: If, as you have said in the past, the US public is as frustrated and angry over the illegal immigration problem as you are, then why did H.R.4437 get so little support from middle-class white America?,you were talking out of your ass. You have no idea what was going on with that bill. The American people didn't offer "so little support" to that bill because they thought it went too far, or because they weren't as frustrated as I am - they gave it so little support because they in fact are VERY frustrated and thought that bill didn't go far enough! You are WAY off the mark here and obviously don't understand what majority opinion on this issue in this country actually is. But don't use my poll - google "polls on illegal immigration" and CBS, ABC, CNN - they all say the same thing - the majority, across the political spectrum, want a crackdown involving enforcement of our current laws, a real enforcement, first. THEN we will deal with those there.

****

Enforcement first. Fine, I can live with that. Let’s watch Thompson, or Obama, or Clinton enforce these existing laws. The cost to enforce these laws will break a budget more surely than any spending we may make in places like Iraq, and we will do nothing more than divide a country at war even further than it already is.

Divide the country? If anything, an "enforcement first" policy would UNITE this country! This issue polls around 70 - 80 percent and covers people of all races and all political stripes. It's the single greatest missed opportunity by this administration that I can imagine. What do you think Limbaugh, Savage, Hannitty have been screaming about - we are mystified at why beltway politicians have a "gimmie" issue that bolster their approval ratings, and unite people across the board and they do nothing. It's insanity that here you have an issue, it polls one way at a super majority, people are passionate about it, and the rank and file of both parties agree - and yet no major DC politician is getting on the correct side of it! Chattering heads have been trying to figure out why that is for four years now. The consensus (in the media I expose myself to) is that the only thing that makes sense is that business interests, across the board, depend on the cheap illegal labor and they are pressuring the federal reps not to change the status quo. Apparently, thus far, politicians have been more concerned with crossing those lobbyists (and presumably big donors) then they are the American electorate. But as I said, with an issue -enforcement first - that has this level of support, coming from every corner of American life, it can't be ignored much longer. Of course, that's just my opinion.


****

...regardless of who wins the '08 Presidential election, NO President of the United States of America will follow an "enforcement first" plan because it would alienate 14.9% of the American population... and if 14.9% of the US population got pissed off enough, they'd ALL register to vote, and suddenly they would constitute one of the single largest voting blocks in the nation. What percentage of the country's 48% voter turn-out would be needed to counter 45.2 million pissed of LEGAL Hispanic-American voters

First, you're wrong if you think the legal Hispanic vote is of a monolithic mind. You're assuming, in typical "liberal" fashion, that they are. They are not. In fact, a majority of legal immigrants, even the Hispanics, want enforcement first. The truth is the opposite of what you have written here. If anything, which ever party is perceived as weak on enforcement, a majority of legal immigrants may just register with the opposite party in order to get some actual enforcement, finally.

****
(Funny thing is... I just re-read the last paragraph. I would be willing to bet that Ryan JUMPED up and automatically assumed I was referring to the previously mentioned ILLEGAL population Hispanics in America. The 14.9% of the population I am referring to, however, is the LEGAL and VOTER ELIGIBLE Hispanic Americans that ALSO protested H.R.4437 last year as not "friendly" enough to the Latino community.)

I did no such thing. I simply, and quite easily I might add, demonstrated just how far out of the mainstream and disconnected you are on this issue. And a majority of that 14.9% of legal voting Hispanics DID NOT participate in protesting that bill in the streets. And I defy you to find one poll, even one credible poll, that shows that they did. In every poll I've seen a majority of Americans (which includes legal immigrants) want border enforcement.


****
I'm confident that you have never even heard of Thomas Robb (especially as you read NOTHING I sent you concerning this topic), but isn't it nice to know that if nothing else... HE agrees with your views.

I don't know who that is. And you saying its nice that he agrees with my views - which he obviously does not - makes about as much sense as me saying it's nice you two share the same first name.
But while we're on this topic - you call me xenophobic, a Pat Buchanite, in earlier posts during our emails you've claimed that I "have a problem with brown skin" - none of these things are true. It makes you feel better to assume that I am all those things, because then you can dismiss any potentially good points I make that might otherwise make you rethink your position. That's what entering in claims of racism do - it's to invalidate my argument and point of view. So, let me ask you - do you think that a person can hold my position - one of law and order when it comes to illegals - and NOT be a racist or have anti-immigration motivations? Is that possible in your eyes? I could just as easily say you're an anarchist, or pro crime because you don't want to enforce our current law, but I don't so fear the lack of strength in my argument that I feel it necessary to call you things of which I have no proof that you are. I simply assume that you are operating out of a sincere desire to do what's best for America, rather than some hidden motivation of lawlessness. So, go on calling me these things if you want, but all you're doing is revealing how concerned you are over the weakness of your own argument.

By the way - America IS for Americans, and I can't think of anything more UNAmerican then groups like the Klan. But isn't it nice that you've brought the conversation down to this level - I'm left needing to denounce the KKK. Nice buddy ... real nice.
FR

Reign in the emotion, amigo!

Whoa, chief… who’s emotional now? Get a grip and stop crying like Nancy Carrigan, please.

Your reference to "Dufus" was very nice. Regardless of whom you feel the SCHIPs question was directed at… illegal parents or illegal children… government applications requiring ANY information that might implicate the parents as "illegal immigrants" has been deemed "UNCONSTITUTIONAL" by the US Supreme Court since its 2000 Reno v Condon ruling. The number I used in referring to the number of LEGAL children of ILLEGAL parents is NOT something I simply made up… follow the link provided and find it for yourself… 4.5 MILLION citizen children in the custody of illegal parents that have no other recourse for health care than programs like SCHIPs. If showing a little concern for 4.5 MILLION US citizens that might need BASIC health care assistance that they can’t provide for themselves (because they are MINORS) constitutes just one more example of "bleeding heart" liberalism… call me guilty as charged. Just don’t get offended or act surprised when I start referring to you as a "bigot" again.

These are AMERICAN CITIZENS… not "poor kids", okay?

The "moron" will now write the words… "THE US MILITARY WOULD FAIL."

This is not an indictment of the US military, as any rational and marginally objective person can see. History is replete with examples of why the above statement is true. The US Military is NOT a "police force"… it has never been successfully employed as such, nor should it ever be assumed that it will be in the future. "Non-lethal force" is NOT a facet of our armed forces’ abilities that I think should become its primary mode of operation. IT IS NOT WHAT WE HAVE A MILITARY FOR! Doubt me? Ask a veteran. Ask Baddboy.

We may be "kicking the shit out of them" now (the insurgents, I mean)… BUT WE HAVEN"T BEEN FOR THE PAST FOUR YEARS… as I said in my post. True, the illegal immigrants of today are not toting AKs or RPGs… but they would still require tens of thousands of US troops THAT WE DON’T HAVE to man posts on a border that is over 13,000 miles long. Again, the cost that this plan would demand is staggering. And if we are talking about plans that have NEVER been implemented or seriously considered in the past, let’s talk about this one. What sitting Senator or Congressman has submitted for consideration and debate anything even CLOSE to what you are advocating? What is their estimated price tag for "securing the border" with active US military personnel? Can you show me it would be cheaper than streamlining the LEGAL immigration process so that we can DOCUMENT and CHECK OUT applicant immigrants to the satisfaction of xenophobes like yourself and Pat Buchannan?

"They are ILLEGAL because they broke the law professor."

Granted, they broke the law. Laws that history shows are impractical, at best… and unenforceable at worst. So, rather than change the laws, even retroactively, you’d advocate the massive expenditure and mind-boggling logistical nightmare of placing as many as 165,000 active-duty soldiers, sailors and marines (along with untold billions of dollars worth of equipment and vehicles) on sentry duty from Nome to Brownsville, and from Honolulu to Key West? THAT’S your "common sense" solution to 2,700 illegal border crossings a day? AND with the guaranty of "non-lethal" enforcement? Please… who’s being "too cute by half" now? The Feds couldn’t even manage the 88 miles between Cuba and Key West in the 60’s and 70’s… and those "illegal immigrants" only numbered in the hundreds of thousands. We’re seeing that MONTHLY now… mi amigo. Remove the reason for ILLEGAL border crossings, and you won’t have any more illegal border crossings. There’s a statement completely lacking in "common sense", huh?

"So take it up with Webster smart guy."

"Smart guy" knows the difference between "civil law" and "criminal law"… but as you don’t, and you trust Webster more than me, I defer to Danny Webster’s opus:

Civil Law

1. the body of laws of a state or nation regulating ordinary private matters, as distinct from laws regulating criminal, political, or military matters.

Criminal Law

1. the laws of a state or country dealing with criminal offenses and their punishments.

Your post then goes into some kind of mindless rant about an "amnesty" bill… I have no idea what bill you are referring to. I was referring to H.R.4437… a bill that would have made illegal entry into the US a FELONY punishable by a fine of up to $10,000 and IMMEDIATE deportation from the country. No "amnesty" was granted or even suggested in the bill (which you OBVIOUSLY didn’t read, although I linked it)… it provided $700 million a YEAR for the design, construction and support of a WALL to be constructed in 3 stages from southern CA to the Gulf of Mexico over the next 11 years. It provided money to expand and improve US Border Patrol and INS operations both on and off the border. It granted individual states greater powers of executive authority to use and distribute funds and equipment to areas most effected by illegal immigration issues (presumably, this means the actual border area). Nearly 20% of House DEMOCRATS supported the bill… but the Senate couldn’t pass it. Yes, a million people protested the bill, from CA to NY, because it DIDN’T include an amnesty clause… not because it did. Now who wasn’t reading the news? Sheesh…

Enforcement first. Fine, I can live with that. Let’s watch Thompson, or Obama, or Clinton enforce these existing laws. The cost to enforce these laws will break a budget more surely than any spending we may make in places like Iraq, and we will do nothing more than divide a country at war even further than it already is. That is the "plan" of enforcement first, I guess.

You want to know what pisses me off most about your last post? That you automatically dismiss EVERYTHING I say as "... liberal, too cute by half redefinition of plain common sense." I have read and re-read what I posted, and have yet to see ONE thing that constitutes outrageous or outlandish claims, dreams or possibilities. I am convinced that the evidence I have presented clearly shows that, regardless of who wins the '08 Presidential election, NO President of the United States of America will follow an "enforcement first" plan because it would alienate 14.9% of the American population... and if 14.9% of the US population got pissed off enough, they'd ALL register to vote, and suddenly they would constitute one of the single largest voting blocks in the nation. What percentage of the country's 48% voter turn-out would be needed to counter 45.2 million pissed of LEGAL Hispanic-American voters?

(Funny thing is... I just re-read the last paragraph. I would be willing to bet that Ryan JUMPED up and automatically assumed I was referring to the previously mentioned ILLEGAL population Hispanics in America. The 14.9% of the population I am referring to, however, is the LEGAL and VOTER ELIGIBLE Hispanic Americans that ALSO protested H.R.4437 last year as not "friendly" enough to the Latino community.)

So, I can now see that my opinion is NOT valid in Ryan's eyes, and that because I voiced an invalid opinion contrary to "mainstream, middle class America" I can now rest assured that the only facet of my comments that Ryan DID approve of was the fact that it was very nearly entirely in English, with no option to press "Dos" for "Espaniol".

Finally, I will assume that your closing line ("it's an American plan ... to save Americans") is not a direct quote or reference to Thomas Robb's speech given at Russellville, AL during an anti-immigration rally in 2006. While I do know that you are prone to fly off the handle and vent anger and sarcasm when frustrated... people reading this blog that DO NOT know you might recognize the quote as coming from the National Director of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. I'm confident that you have never even heard of Thomas Robb (especially as you read NOTHING I sent you concerning this topic), but isn't it nice to know that if nothing else... HE agrees with your views.

Yours truly...

Dufus, aka moron, professor, smart guy