Undocumented Immigrant

I am so annoyed with the phrase "undocumented immigrant."It is like saying "unauthorized, non-customer withdraws" to describe bank robbery.

The liberal position is irrational. This nation has laws on immigration that are being violated rampantly, and it seems like the liberal party line is that we, as a nation, should ignore the violation of those laws.

The conservative leadership is even more vacuous than the left.  While talking about the importance of securing the borders, they do as little as possible to tharwt the onrushing tide of illegals.

I am not debating the current immigration system at all.  I think it is broken, and broken badly.  No, what I am talking about illegal immigration.  If our  laws are wrong, we should change them not ignore them.

Ignoring the law devalues the rule of law and creates a  subclass of people to whom the law is not a protector but a persecutor. These people are open to abuse and oppression because they fear going to the law for protection because they are in violation of it.


I hear sorrowful voices on the left crying out about the "destruction of families" caused by deportation of an illegal arrested for a "minor infractions." These voices conveniently ignore that those arrested are already lawbreakers by being here illegally.

Neither major political party gives anymore than lip-service to the problem.  Both have a vested interest in keeping the status-quo.

The Democrats like illegal immigrants because it builds their political base.  Typically, illegals congregate in lower-class neighborhoods, increasing the population of these areas.  When determining representation in the U.S. House, the census counts all population, not just legal residents.  Oh, and remember that the children of these illegals people are citizens, and can vote.  When they vote, they usually vote Democratic.

Republicans like illegal immigrants because they represent business owners and business owners like low-cost labor. Illegals come from lands where the daily wages are a fraction of what a documented worker can demand, and are happy to be abused.  They can even be paid less than minimum wage, because who are they going to complain to, the wage and labor board?

We need to take sensible steps to fix this problem.

1. Immediatly seal the borders. We need to finish building the fence across our southern border.  We need to apply enough resources to be able to intercept and repel all border crossings.
2. We need to seriously address our immigration policy, and reform it such that immigrants who wish to migrate legally can do so (within reason, of course.)
3. We should hold the current employers accountably for breaking labor law, and employee illegals.  If the penalty is sever enough and enforce consistent enough, all current illegals will leave on their own when their work drys up.  Once they get home, they can apply for a visa like everyone else.

Teen Pregnancy

I read an article in the Charleston Gazette Mail about teen pregnancy rates in WV that left me dumbfounded.  I have several problems with the attitudes revealed in this article.

First, While I agree that it's a problem,  I think the article oversimplified the problem.  Births to unwed mothers in general and teenager unwed mothers in specific are a problem.  Married 18 and 19 year-old mothers are not the problem. It isn't just age.

Second, the article talks about pregnancy and birth  as if they were diseases.  Pregnancy is the rational, expected outcome of the activity designed to produce it.  Birth naturally follows pregnancy.  Nobody works out in the gym, and wonders why she looses weight.  Nobody goes to a tattoo parlor, has needles stuck into his arm, and wonders why he  have a tattoo.  Nobody goes to work and wonders why she gets a paycheck.

I find some of the comments laughable.  Like this one.

Although one particular reason cannot be pinpointed for West Virginia's teen birthrate, Pomponio said poverty might be one factor.

Sure, I'll grant that poverty may have something to do with it (there's a joke about not affording cable TV), but I can pinpoint one reason for the high teen birthrate, actually stated it in the article.

The CDC's Youth Risk Behavior Survey of 2009 indicated that West Virginia has a higher rate of teen sexual activity than the national average: 54 percent compared to 46 percent.

The big news is that teens are getting pregnant because they are having premarital sex.

Note:  WV Free, the organization which published the report that the article addresses, is a pro-abortion organization.  The organization is a champion of "reproductive justice."

Searching is for Chickens

I was doing some research on COOP plans, which are Continuity of Operations plans.  It's the idea of planning how your organization will stay in business when emergencies or disasters strike.

I kept getting results about nesting chickens and chicken coops.  My mind was a million miles away from chickens, so it took me a second to realize that coop and C.o.O.P mean the same to Google.  Goes to show, you can get some really fowl results from searching.

Sallie, you're screwed up!

I was stupid.  I went into debt to get my degrees.  I owe a little over $20,000 to Ol' Sallie Mae for an Associate's and a Bachelor's degree.  I freely admit I was stupid.  No shock there, for I'm frequently stupid.

That disclaimer said, I went to answer some love-mail from ol' Sallie, and tried to log into my account.  I forgot my password.  Easy enough to do, I know.  I dare not even count the number of different web sites, accounts and services for which I must remember passwords.  But I digress.

I forgot my password, but there was an easy, simple little button that says "forgot password."  I clicked it, believing it would be simple. 

It was.  Simply frustrating.  I typed the password I wanted.  It was a nice, juicy 18-character complex password that makes computer-security types sleep well at night.  An error came back that said...

Invalid password.  Passwords must be between 8 and 32 characters long, contain at least one number and at least one letter, and must not contain the word 'password' or your user name.

Maybe the password was too long?  I counted the symbols.  Nope, less than 32.  I looked at it clsoely, and could see at least a number, and a letter, and that it did not contain 'password' nor did it contain my user name.

So I tried a different one, thinking that maybe I used this one before.  I got...

Invalid password.  Passwords must be between 8 and 32 characters long, contain at least one number and at least one letter, and must not contain the word 'password' or your user name.

So I tried another and another and another .... Until I realized what was happening. 

As part of a complex password, I was including a special symbol in each of my passwords.  As encouraged by most security geeks, I was including spaces, dollar signs, and other punctuation marks to make the password that much harder to guess. 

Ol' Sallie Mae choked on special symbols.  Did they say not to use them?  No.  Did they say "Um, here's your problem?"  No.  The web site wasted my time with that inane message that was completely off base.

Not only did they waste my time, but they show how pathetic they really are.  I mean, even Windows supports complex passwords.  Papa Johns, Gmail, and Facebook all support complex passwords. 

But good ol' Sallie Mae chokes on them, meaning that their passwords are less secure than your Speedie-Rewards account.  Great job, Sallie.

Why Facebook is good exercise for self-control

I read a post, today, from a friend on Facebook, lamenting something which needed no lament.  Today is not special.  At least once a week I see a post which tells me the poster either has a serious lack of understanding of the way the world works, or a complete misunderstanding of cause and effect.
These provide wonderful opportunities for my to practice keeping my virtual mouth shut.   Here are some general (made-up) examples of what I'm talking about and, no, I'm not thinking of you, whomever you are taking offense. 

Post:   "We have no money, I don't know what to do"
What I want to say:  "Turn off the x-box, and get a job.  McDonald's is hiring, and you're not too good to flip burgers."

Post:  "We are at our whits-end, we just don't know what to do.  Little Johnny is completely out of control!"
What I want to say:    Well, since you haven't tried it yet, why not try being a real parent?  You know, grown a spine, be the boss, say no, don't give in, and enforce some discipline.

Post:  "Look how tough I am!  Person so-and-so made me mad, so I will try a little spineless, passive-aggressive character assassination behind his/her back by berating them on Facebook without using that person's name!"
What I want to say:  Say it to the person's face, or shut your mouth.  You obviously have the spine of a jellyfish.

I didn't say anything.  I consider that an accomplishment.

PETA

This article in the International Business Times reports that the new xxx top level domain name is causing some porn business to fuss at having to 'protect their brands'.  While my heart breaks for the poor business (please hear the insincerity and sarcasm in that comment), I found this blurb very interesting.

PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) have also signed up and instead of blocking its name the organization will launch peta.xxx as a pornography site that draws attention to the plight of animals, according to PETA spokeswoman Lindsay Rajt.

So, for those of us who detest PETA, we now have a new reason to detest that group even further.   So even while PETA's Wikipedia Article states that

The group regularly protests the use of animals in entertainment, including circuses.

They announce that they don't have a problem exploiting women to help animals.

Response to "Envy"

My blog posts sync with my Facebook account.  My brother responded to my blog post of  4/30/2010 (which finally was posted  today).  He said

Isn't the idea of equality supposed to be a founding principle of this nation? 

To which I reply, "It depends upon which type of equality you are referring."


There is equality before the law, as articulated in the Declaration of Independence.  In it, our founding fathers stated

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The “Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts”, penned by John Adams in 1780 perhaps states the idea more clearly.

Article I. All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness

They wrote this in rebuttal to the idea of the Divine Right of Kings at a time when the law for the commoner was not the law for the royals. Created equal means that our nation does not recognize certain classes to be superior than others and all people in this nation have equal state and standing before the law.
Even though we've veered some from this founding notion of our nation with some of the current class-based politics (hate crimes, protected classes in employment law, affirmative action laws, etc in which one group is 'more equal' than others.) and that wealth and power still create a pseudo nobility which often receive much fairer treatment than the poor and obscure (to the nation's shame), most of our nation's law is based around guiding principle.
But I wasn't talking about that kind of equality. No, I meant the equality of outcome.
My problem with equalizing outcome that I discussed in my blog post is that in attempting to equate outcome, the government must restrict freedom.  It has no other choice. Either it must take from one to give to another, or prevent one from accomplishing his potential so that he will not overshadow those with less potential.
If we are both handed a shovel, one of us digs for ten hours while the other doesn't, the results aren't equal.  We both had an equality of opportunity (the shovel, the dirt, and the ability to dig), but outcome was not equal.  If we were paid by cubic foot of dirt dug, one would make out well, the other wouldn't.
But, equality of outcome means that in the above scenario the government ignores the difference in the amount of effort applied and money it takes from one and give to the other, to make things equal.
Is it fair for you, after toiled in the sun all day to dig that hole, for the government to take your pay to give to me, who found a shady spot and napped?  This rewards my sloth, and punishes your  work.  When the Soviet Union experienced this, they sent men with machine guns to force both do the same amount of work. That's not freedom but oppression.
Furthermore, the highest need in Maslow's hierarchy of needs is self-actualization, which I will define as a human reaching his or her fullest potential based on the skills, desires, talents and abilities he posses. Under a model of equality of outcome, nobody can reach this except, perhaps, the lowest-functioning among us.
The only true way to allow people to grow and nurture the talent they have while being fair is to dispense with the notion of equality of outcome and focus solely on equality of opportunity because attempting to enforce that type of equality leads only to equality of misery and suppression of the human spirit.

new old blog posts

For the past six years, I've been juggling  school, work, family and church, to varying degrees of success. 

Over the course of time, I've written several posts that were left in a draft state because I ran out of time.  I went back today and cleaned and posted several of them.

So enjoy the years old new posts!

Defict

I get so ticked when I listen to the brainless talking heads on the news!  They have these serious-sounding discussions about the Federal deficit and seldom discuss the underlying debt!

The deficit is only the amount by which the Federal Government overspends each fiscal year.  Imagine it like this...

If a family making $55,000 a year, spends $90,400 a year, it's deficit is $35,400. 

Consider the fact that the same family have been overspending for decades, and owe a combined total of  $332,000 of outstanding debt. 

Now throw into the mix a discussion between the mom and dad, about how much money to cut from the budget.  Dad says that they need to cut $5,400 but mom says that's too harsh, they need trim only $3,000.  Any sane human would scream "You morons!  You need to cut at least $35,400 JUST TO AVOID ADDING TO THE DEBT!"


These numbers are in the same proportion as the Federal Budget (with the exception of the proposed cuts, I just made those up for illustration.  Democrat and Republican proposals would cut even less than my illustration)

In 2010, the  Federal tax income was $2.16 trillion.  Outlays were $3.55 trillion with a national debt of nearly $14 trillion.

Folks, this is insane!!  We cannot continue to borrow like this!  If the federal government didn't spend a dime on anything else but the debt, it would take over six years to pay off.

It's worse than you think.

In 2010, Federal entitlement spending (Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, TANIF, etc) was 96% of Federal revenues.  Interest payments on the debt was another 9.9% of Federal revenues.  This means that before we build a road, buy a bullet, pay a solider, hire an FBI agent, or launch a Space Shuttle, we're already in the hole $125 billion!


Our elected leaders have to make tough decisions to fix this mess, and they are unwilling to do so.   Elected officials don't like to offend people. So if they have a decision of doing x or doing y, and the people are going to get up set with either giving up x or giving up y, our brilliant folk just do both and pay for it later!

What we need is a balanced budget amendment to the constitution.  Four-fifths majority to spend more than they take in, authorized only for six months.  The provision would be waved for the duration of a declared war.

What this would do is require the government officials to actually make the hard decisions like raise taxes, cut spending, stop intervening militarily everywhere in the world, and maybe even stop proposing new social programs.
 
This is not a left or right issue.  If nothing is done, our nation will collapse under the weight of its debt, and our people will be subjected to pain the likes of which they've never before known.  After all, somebody has to pay the fiddler for the dance. 

Democracy out of control.

Peter Barca, the Democrats’ Assembly leader said  “Our democracy is out of control in Wisconsin, and you all know it — you can feel it.”


Why?  Because the people voted folks into office that differed politically from him?  Really?  No, Peter.  Democracy is out of control when elitist like you decide they know better than the electorate.  I think democracy is doing just fine.

Wiki leaks - Double Standards

Many  are foaming at the mouth at Wikileaks, going so far as accusing  Julian Assange of treason.

By way of disclosure, I'm a conservative.  I'm right of Fox News.  Rush is a liberal in comparison.  But, this is just stupid.

First, Assange is not a US citizen, so he cannot be charged with treason for making public top secret material.  Federal law states

"whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States." US Code Title 18, part1, chapter 115 paragraph 238

While some may suggest a charge of espionage, he cannot be guilty of treason.

Second, If we, as a nation, put Mr. Assange in jail, we need to do the same to every newspaper and television reporters who has reported "anonymous sources tells us."  In fact, many newspapers have published material which came from Wikileaks! 


Third, this isn't new.  Have you ever heard of "deep throat" of  Watergate fame?  How about the Pentagon Papers?  The Downing Street Memo?  Or remember the thousands of pages of internal documents from a climate laboratory?  Leaking of secrets is not a new phenomenon.

Lastly, Wikileaks DIDN'T LEAK ANYTHING.  Yes, you read that right.  Wikileaks is nothing more than a clearinghouse for whistle blowers, politically disaffected policy wonks, disillusioned ideologues, and troublemakers.

Let me reiterate the point:  Wikileaks does not actually leak anything, but rather, simply provide a safe place where others can do so.


I have no problems with punishing the guilty (e.g. those who actually stole the classified material) to the fullest extent of the law, up to and including execution.  But I think the treatment of Wikileaks in general and Assange in specific is both wrong and stupid.  It is only being singled out for two reasons.  First, they've been successful in landing rather large leaks.  Two, they are new media.  Would Wikileaks have received this treatment if they were a newspaper?

If we, as a nation, are going to target the channels of distribution of the leaked information, we need to do so across the board.  This means going after cable news channels, Newspapers, and magazines, and not just target new media because it's new and unfamiliar.