Immigration, wages and the future of ‘dirty jobs’

fishCrab fishing in Alaska can be a six-figure job. Workers in fish processing factories there earn solid middle class wages. Processing workers who work on a ship often get the opportunity to earn a share in the profits of the voyage, occasionally taking earnings much higher.

Fish processing at a catfish farm in Alabama seldom earns a worker more than minimum wage. The work is long, dangerous, and miserable. All across the south, agriculture and food processing are a big business, but hard work earns lousy money, abusive treatment, and minimal benefits.

We could end illegal immigration with a simple market solution – impose a premium on immigrant labor. The reason we are not going to adopt this simple solution becomes evident by comparing labor conditions in Alaska to the economics of work in the Deep South.

Debates over immigration often pivot on the belief that Americans are not willing to do dirty jobs. The reality is that Americans commonly perform harsh, dirty, dangerous work. They just insist on getting reasonable compensation and decent treatment. They are not sufficiently desperate and powerless to submit to the kind of abusive, semi-slave employment terms endured by illegal immigrant laborers.

In the Mississippi Delta, employers have ready access to a pool of politically powerless illegal migrants willing to endure almost any form of abuse. Employers in Alaska have relatively little access to desperate foreign labor. Until recently, they were able to use a limited supply of “student workers” on J-1 visas. That sham was shut down by the Administration as part of the wider crackdown on immigration abuses. Getting from Latin America to Alaska means crossing three international boundaries and thousands of miles. Alaska is not a realistic option for mass illegal immigration.

To further complicate the picture for employers in Alaska, permanent residents there also benefit from a modest minimum income derived from their share of the state’s massive oil and gas revenues. People there have enough power over their own lives to resist enduring terrible treatment and exploitation. Ask them to do a dirty job and they may do it, but they will insist on getting paid.

The situation in Alaska has an impact on consumers. How much does catfish cost at the grocery store? How much will you pay for king crab or Alaskan salmon? We can and should fix our problem with illegal labor. We should realize, though, that ending this problem will mean changing the shape of our economy in important ways that will cost us money. Finding a reasonable solution requires us to recognize the true scope of the effort.

Across vast segments of the economy, the availability of exploitable illegal immigrant labor is a fundamental assumption of many business models. These laborers are reviled, tormented, and harassed. Ugly cynics build successful political careers stirring up hostility against them. Their children are locked out of access to education and basic community resources wherever possible. They are kept poor, powerless and – most importantly of all – available.

No solution to this problem is waiting on the border. “Border security” is a cynical ploy, a way to score political points without having to change anything. America’s illegal immigration problem is just like its drug problem. It has nothing to do with security or law enforcement and everything to do with economics and demand.

The solution is simple, immediate, and final. Change the economic incentives and the problem becomes an opportunity. Open access for people to come here and work, but make their labor relatively expensive. It is a simple solution, easy to implement, and it would work.

Politicians are not even considering this approach because solving the problem of illegal immigration would upset powerful interests all over our economic system. The kind of simple, minimum-wage based solution that would end the problem of illegal immigration would also radically shift the balance of power in our economy. Imagine how our lives would change if dirty, dangerous, miserable jobs commanded the wages it would take to hire American workers?

Ending the flow of semi-slave labor into our dirtiest, most miserable industries will impose some hefty costs on consumers in the short run that will probably flatten out or drop in time. Along the way, that shift will open new opportunities in higher-wage careers and revive the fortunes of our disappearing working class.

In the short run, some products might disappear completely from stores. Many mass growers might stop planting strawberries or other fruits and vegetables altogether. Apples, blueberries, oranges and other foods might become much more expensive. A large number of restaurants would see their business models become immediately unsustainable and close. Labor shortages for work like roofing, janitorial services and other labor that is currently very cheap would have serious effects on consumers.

What might emerge in the wake of this shift are different business models for food processing, agriculture, construction and restaurants that pay workers much more than in the past while employing fewer people. There would probably be many more restaurants in which you clear your own table while a traditional high-end restaurant experience might become far less common. Smaller scale urban farms might find themselves facing much more favorable economics as the mass farming of certain crops dependent on underpaid labor disappears. Home building and maintenance would require new innovations to remain affordable.

Workers who perform dirty, dangerous, difficult work not easily automated would probably begin earning much higher incomes and enjoy a great deal more power over their own lives. Some products would cost more. Some products would disappear. Some new types of work and new innovations would emerge that we cannot readily anticipate. Ordinary Americans who struggle to earn a living today would make a lot more money. In short, we could move on to face new, better problems.

We could accomplish all of this by harnessing market forces to work their magic. Mandate a higher minimum wage across the board, an even higher wage for non-citizen labor, and place easy, enhanced wage enforcement power in the hands of the workers themselves, legal or illegal. Such measures would, for the most part, price illegal workers out of the job market and make labor exploitation too risky for the market to bear. Illegal labor would still exist around the extreme margins but it would cease to be a mass phenomenon.

Don’t expect to see anyone proposing this approach anytime soon. Decisively shifting power toward workers would change the relative power and rights of low income, low skilled workers all over our economy.

Preventing Mexicans from coming to America is a policy that appeals to Tea Party fanatics. Giving workers, regardless of where they come from, more power over their own economic futures absolutely does not. That’s why Rick Perry is posing in front of machine guns instead of proposing solutions that would end illegal immigration.

Real solutions are available that would bring substantial benefits to accompany their costs. If we are ready to pay $1 per strawberry or buy them from a local grower only available in season, we could have a very different labor market and a very different, more prosperous country. Demogoguery is cheap. Solutions are expensive.

Chris Ladd is a Texan living in the Chicago area. He has been involved in grassroots Republican politics for most of his life. He was a Republican precinct committeeman in suburban Chicago until he resigned from the party and his position after the 2016 Republican Convention. He can be reached at gopliferchicago at gmail dot com.

Tagged with: , , , ,
Posted in Economics, Immigration
680 comments on “Immigration, wages and the future of ‘dirty jobs’
  1. ask says:

    Greetings from Los angeles! I’m bored to tears at work so I decided to check out your site on my iphone during lunch break.
    I really like the knowledge you present here and can’t wait to take a look when I get home.

    I’m surprised at how fast your blog loaded on my cell phone ..
    I’m not even using WIFI, just 3G .. Anyways, excellent site!

  2. John Galt says:

    This comment landed far below in a long back and forth about the death penalty and why conservatives are comfortable handing that power to a government they distrust. Sternn punted that, saying this penalty is chosen by juries, which is true but improperly absolves governments from responsibility in this matter. By coincidence, there was a column in today’s Houston Chronicle detailing a rather startling instance that should give one pause before deciding that juries are always impartial or always given all the information. Bubba asked if I would repost it so that others could read what was perhaps lost in the flotsam that has become this blog entry, so here goes…

    An interesting story appeared today in the print Chronicle (yes, I’m old school and still get a newspaper delivered to my house) in Lisa Falkenberg’s column. It’s behind the paywall currently, but the link is below. It concerns the interrogation by a grand jury foreman of a witness in the murder of a police officer. The witness, a 27 year old mother of three, was testifying that her boyfriend could not have been the killer because he was asleep on the couch at her apartment at the time. The foreman begins essentially threatening her, asking about the penalties for perjury, telling her she’s going to jail, to have her kids taken away, for protecting him. She eventually recants, says she wasn’t sure if he was there or not, and the guy ends up convicted and sent to death row. She was convicted of perjury anyway.

    The catch: the jury foreman was an active duty police officer on the same force as the victim. He was appointed to this role by the DA. The judge who empaneled the grand jury (but did not oversee this case) was shocked. Remember, there is no counsel for witnesses or the defense in a grand jury.

    Later, as the guy sits on death row, some new evidence magically surfaces in, I kid you not, a homicide detective’s garage containg exculpatory phone records. To their credit, both the DA and trial judge agreed to a new trial but, a year later, the case has not been heard by the Court of Appeals.

    I’m sure this story will not penetrate the warm blanket of self-assurance in which you [Sternn] wrap yourself, but it demonstrates how the deck is stacked against some defendants (do you even need to ask the demographics of the defendant?). Juries make decisions based on the evidence presented and if that is biased or incomplete, then wrong decisions are made.

    http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/columnists/falkenberg/article/Cop-was-foreman-of-grand-jury-in-cop-killing-5645494.php

    • CaptSternn says:

      There is a major difference between a Grand Jury and trial by jury. I ma suprised you didn’t know that, John. I thought your were smarter than that. Then again, maybe you think I am not?

      Here is your link, John …

      http://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/get-informed/federal-court-basics/jury-service-federal-courts/comparing-trial-juries-grand-juries.aspx

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Well Captain Semantics, did you even read the article?

        “After the group threatened Dockery, she changed her story. She was charged with perjury anyway for good measure, locked up away from her children until she agreed to become the prosecution’s key witness against Brown.

        Her testimony helped seal Brown’s conviction and death sentence in 2005.”

        From which he was later (thankfully) exonerated (for now, retrial still to be ruled upon) due to possible suppressed evidence found in a police detective’s garage.

        I think you answered your own question Cappy.

    • bubbabobcat says:

      Thanks for reposting JG! Very eye opening.

    • John Galt says:

      Sternn, don’t be an idiot. I fully understand the process. Charges are brought (or not) by a grand jury, whose foreman, a walking, talking conflict of interest, browbeat a witness into giving the testimony that suited his desire for justice. He was put into that position by a DA who wants to show he’s tough on crime for his next election. When it went to trial, the jury was not given the authentic testimony of a threatened witness, was not given phone records that potentially would exonerate the defendant. The police and DA largely collaborated to get a guilty plea, convinced they had the right guy. Juries don’t work correctly under these circumstances and do not get the right answer. Your cavalier attitude towards jury manipulation in a capital case is unsurprising but nonetheless disturbing.

    • Bart-1 says:

      see, OBVIOUSLY Bubba doesn’t initiate anything! He is wrong (as usual) that I repeatedly named him by name (once is not a definition of numerous, KC) and i never believed you were banned. Weak justification for your justification that you “only retaliate in self defense.” Does ANYONE believe that? I’d love to take poll here.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Waaaaaaaa. Bart you are a consummate whiny lying troll and everyone, even your online buddies know it. They just excuse it.

        Does ANYONE believe that you created multiple simultaneous online ID’s posting on the same blog as some type of “virtuous” act? Let’s take THAT poll bart.

        Especially with this evidence:

        USincrisis 7:30 PM on March 2, 2010 wrote:
        Bozo, that was Serious not Chronic, not that you passed reading comprehension

        Followed immediately by:
        seriouscynic 7:41 PM on March 2, 2010 wrote:
        Thank you US, here are some more links to REM if he doesn’t know of any Obama promises that have been broken Hmm remember the 5 days on line before signing any legislation? How about the ALL Health care meetings would be held on C-SPAN? Or NO lobyists in his administration? Did you really need them listed for you REM or were you actually totally in the dark? Here’s a link from the Huffington Post (not Fox, Rush, whatever you might cavalierly dismiss if you (honestly) wish to be enlightened and weren’t just trolling.

        And even more sockpuppet bullying:

        Comment on Patriot Act Extension Hidden In Jobs Bill
        seriouscynic 2/11/2010 9:42 PM CST wrote:
        Thanks USincrisis, Bubba’s obviously got some anger issues. Did you notice his comment about not having anything relevant to add?

        And here is where bart can’t even keep track of which sockpuppet he is flaming under and inadvertently outs himself:

        seriouscynic 8:12 AM on May 1, 2010 wrote:
        use this for those lines. BTW, Arizona has amended the law to further remove the “racial profiling” argument specifically but that won’t change anything since that isn’t truly their motivation.

        Followed by this smoking gun cryptic diatribe:

        USincrisis 6:33 PM on May 2, 2010 wrote:
        Did you in your usual hostile way look at the link I provided and the lines I indicated so that you could see them for yourself? It is on PAGE 1! I thought I made it simple enough for you but you somehow managed to ignore the lines. Wonder why?

        So bart let’s see who believes if the above jibes with your pathetic excuse that it was a “heroic” action to:

        Bart-1 says:
        July 22, 2014 at 9:59 pm
        “K.C., I’ve posted repeatedly why I did that to get you to actually ‘man up’.”

        Let’s see THAT poll bart-1/seriouscynic/usincrisis.

        Multiple instances of multiple sockpuppet troll bullying to get someone to “man up”.

        Bwahahahahahahahahaha.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Well bart-1/seriouscynic/usincrisis? Still sticking by the pathetically weak “man up” fantasy story to justify your sockpuppet troll bullying? Or will YOU man up and just admit the truth that everyone knows already – that you are just a pathetic “Keyboard Coward” attacking others with the cover of online anonymity that you hypocritically rail against and accuse others of? Is THAT what your church taught you was “good Christian values” that Jesus would approve of? Really?

        Keep digging that hole for yourself bart as you keep making up more twisted and convoluted cover stories to justify your “scintillating” character.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        You know bart I would have had some measure of respect for you if you had just once come clean and just admit, “I screwed up; I had a moral lapse and trolled you.”

        Nope. Instead it’s one fantastical convoluted and morally cowardly excuse after another to whitewash your actions as somehow “it wasn’t wrong” or “it was a noble act” even.

        And that is why I have no respect for you at all and you deserve none, not one iota whatsoever.

  3. objv says:

    Has anyone besides me read Juarez’s book “Tree of Knowledge” yet? I started reading it late one night while in Pagosa Springs and became so intrigued that I read until my sleep deprived mind couldn’t keep track of the Doppelgangers about two thirds of the way through. I finished as soon as I got a chance the next afternoon.

    I’d highly recommend “TOK” to anyone who hasn’t downloaded it yet. Besides the highly interesting plot, characters like Owl, Cap and Sassy are recognizable. (Tutt, I saw there was a “Middle View” but Juarez/Scott said that Middle View was a composite character that incorporated traits of several people.Whew! I’m in the clear. 🙂 ).

    • tuttabellamia says:

      No, I haven’t read it yet. Am I in there? Does it paint Cap in a positive light?

      • objv says:

        Kabuzz, I saw that you also had a book available and I downloaded it as well. I will start reading it soon.

      • objv says:

        You’ll have to read the book, Tuttabella! Yes, Cap is painted positively. In fact, everyone recognizable on this blog is respectfully portrayed. The discussion is more intellectual and there is none of the bickering. 🙂

      • objv says:

        Tutta: That is not to say there aren’t differences of opinion on the TOK blog… but I think you know what I mean.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        If I’m not in it, I’m not interested. 🙂

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Thank you objv.

    • Owl of Bellaire says:

      I bought and skimmed *Tree of Knowledge*, and found it interesting, though a bit clunky in parts. And “Owl” wasn’t nearly as caustic as I suspect most people find me….

      (E-publication is interesting. My spouse has a cousin who wrote fan-fiction for herself, then e-novels for boutique online publishers, and came to fame with recent real-print “steampunk smut”, recently parlayed into a contract with Harlequin for other works. So I’ve ended up reading a few e-novels and the like along the way… but quickly. 🙂 )

  4. Owl of Bellaire says:

    Norm Ornstein on the parlous state of the modern Republican Party:

    http://www.nationaljournal.com/washington-inside-out/what-happens-when-extremism-becomes-mainstream-20140723

    “The most interesting, and important, dynamic in American politics today is the existential struggle going on in the Republican Party between the establishment and the insurgents—or to be more accurate, between the hard-line bedrock conservatives (there are only trace elements of the old-line center-right bloc, much less moderates) and the radicals.”

    Lots of good history (of the sort our more muddled conservatives really ought to master, so they don’t sound so ridiculous). And then:

    “What began as a ruthlessly pragmatic, take-no-prisoners parliamentary style opposition to Obama was linked to constant efforts to delegitimize his presidency, first by saying he was not born in the U.S., then by calling him a tyrant trying to turn the country into a Socialist or Communist paradise. These efforts were not condemned vigorously by party leaders in and out of office, but were instead deflected or encouraged, helping to create a monster: a large, vigorous radical movement that now has large numbers of adherents and true believers in office and in state party leadership. This movement has contempt for establishment Republican leaders and the money to go along with its beliefs. Local and national talk radio, blogs, and other social media take their messages and reinforce them for more and more Americans who get their information from these sources. One result is that even today, a Rasmussen survey shows that 23 percent of Americans still believe Obama is not an American, while an additional 17 percent are not sure. Forty percent of Americans! This is no longer a fringe view.”

    And an awesome hit parade of truly moronic quotes from Republican office-holders. (Yes, yes, Sheila Jackson-Lee has said some jaw-droppingly stupid things, too. But even she can’t compete with the scale of this collection.)

    • texan5142 says:

      Sorry to post this here, too long to get to the bottom. Mankato is were I work.
      http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2014/07/24/mankato-ranks-3rd-on-forbes-list-for-business-locations/

    • CaptSternn says:

      What happens when extremism becomes mainstream? We get somebody like Obama as president, a president that appoints self-avowed communists to positions of power. We get things like the PPACA and a president that makes and/or changes laws with speeches and by decree. We get senate leaders like Harry Reid that won;t even allow bills passed by the house to be debated or voted on. We get spoiled, petulant democrats that would rather shut down the government if they don’t get their way. We get a president that goes out of his way to make people suffer as publicly as possible because of his own sequester.

      • Crogged says:

        Thank you Senator Joe McCarthy. Next on Meet the Press………

      • texan5142 says:

        Something is wrong with you, very wrong, you should seek help for your mental delusions.

      • John Galt says:

        The inversion of reality here is amazing.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        But how will extremism change our consumer experiences?

      • Crogged says:

        Pass the severely organic butter please.

      • texan5142 says:

        I know right, bizzaro world.

      • texan5142 says:

        What extremism Tutt, the extremism is in the Captains mind.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        I am tired of partisanship. I want to talk about quotidian, societal changes.

        Thanks, Crogged, for attempting to answer.

      • GG says:

        I think it’s called paranoia Texan. I’m not surprised he doesn’t socialize much. He’s probably frightened of meeting “leftists” out in real world.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        The extremism is on both sides. For anyone to think it is just on one side shows just how partisan they are.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        GG, don’t underestimate him. A lot of his friends are leftists.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Dan, we miss you and hope you return soon.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        Sternn, though your brain might vaporize were you ever to admit being wrong (not that such will ever happen, nor would it have a noticeable effect), Obama is actually a very centrist Democrat.

        The reason he looks so leftist to you is that you’re viewing the entire universe from your own cramped, cranky corner of the ideological spectrum, while wearing those bizarre party-issued sunglasses that distort everything even further.

        Rejoin the real world, even if it hurts. It’s much healthier.

      • CaptSternn says:

        You prove my point, Owl. Obama looks like a centrist to those on the extreme left, that what happens when extremism becomes mainstream.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        So, Sternn, what’s your response to the litany of ridiculous quotes that Ornstein presents from elected Republicans? Aren’t those indications of extremism and separation from reality?

        Or did your own intellectual endurance flag before you were able to read that far?

      • rucasdad says:

        Capt, we know that it’s easy to keep repeating these untruths that you so often do. However, the only problem I see you having (which is a major problem for you) is, who actually believes it?

      • desperado says:

        “Dan, we miss you and hope you return soon.”

        I don’t know who “we” is but I vote nay on that motion.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        I was referring to the royal WE. Or maybe the insane WE.

      • GG says:

        I’ve got to agree with Des, Tutt, Dan is not missed. The discourse so far has been MUCH more pleasant with him gone. His whole point in being here was to sow so much discord the blog would be shut down.

      • GG says:

        Tutt, my sweetie is conservative. Nowhere near as far right as yours. He gets so mad at me when I laugh when he’s bitching about “those damn liberals”. I’ll laugh and tell him he’s been watching too much Fox News. Actually, he doesn’t watch as much as a lot of others.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        GG: Cap and I rarely discuss politics when we’re together. He reserves his rants for this blog and chron.com. If anything, we gossip about the people on the blog. He doesn’t watch Fox News and will only occasionally listen to conservative talk radio, just to see what the fuss is about. He gets most of his news online.

        I really like Dan. He’s a hoot. But when he says something particularly offensive, like what he said to you, and something he said recently to HT, I won’t hesitate to tell him he crossed the line.

      • Crogged says:

        “Quotidian”-cool word, had to (and will again) look it up. It seems partisanship is more of a way to kill time at work and make friends in the virtual world and I’m tired of it too. It’s a biological signal akin to flashing red feathers and bobbing your head up and down to signal the other members of the flock. Cher said, “I’m too hip for the squares and too square for the hip”, which is meaningless, except for describing how I feel every time with my Austin, or Houston, friends.

      • GG says:

        We don’t really talk about it a lot either only when he hears a news blurb. He is very old-school tech wise. He has an old flip phone (actively resisting a smart phone), only uses the computer at work and hates even that. He doesn’t blog, facebook or use any modern social media. He’s a face to face person. Besides, which he has his Harley and lives aboard his boat so that keeps him busy plus the biggest social circle of friends of anyone I’ve ever met. He never meets a stranger. Definitely a people person, unlike me, who is much more of a misanthrope.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        GG: Cap works in IT but also prefers a flip phone for personal use and just recently had a smartphone forced on him at work. He doesn’t do social media like Twitter or Facebook (neither do I), but he’s been posting comments online about politics for 15 years, and before that, he was posting comments about video games.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        “[Sternn has] been posting comments online about politics for 15 years, and before that, he was posting comments about video games.”

        So far as I can tell, the intellectual depth and real-world relevance of his commentary probably haven’t changed much at all, despite the shift in regular topics.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Crogged, as for “quotidian,” I was thinking in Spanish when I used that word.

      • Crogged says:

        Several years ago I was dating–using Match and one could choose a word for describing your politics.

        I chose, extremely liberal.

        Am I ‘really’-no- but in Rome be obviously Greek is my philosophy. With one woman I had several email exchanges, then she apparently ‘read’ my profile and said, “You are ‘extremely liberal’ and I’m conservative, how’s that going to work?” I said, “As long as you don’t want military action against Canada because of low prescription drug prices we can get along”.

        I never heard from her again, but didn’t see a story in media about her getting caught invading the Northwest Territories either. Married a teacher and found that education simultaneously makes one much more liberal and conservative. Maybe life beyond a screen does that too……

      • Crogged says:

        And Dan should be welcomed back, if you don’t read crazy, how do you know you aren’t?

        You want to know how to read his comments? Imagine Charlton Heston (Jack Black for our younger audience) bellowing “Goddamn THEM” every time

        Yes, I have used this, analogy, metaphor- whatever it is, before, particularly when watching Republican presidential debates.

      • GG says:

        Crogged, liberals and conservatives can indeed have relationships. That woman had a personal problem. Sounds like you dodged a bullet. My dad is old school republican and my step-mother is a Boston liberal. Couples don’t always have to agree on everything. A little disagreement can be exciting.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Some of you guys (Sassy) seem to think that I tailor my views to Cap’s, or that he doesn’t let me express my views, but that is so far from the truth.

        We usually listen respectfully to what the other has to say, maybe throw in the occasional challenge to a comment, but for the most part, we acknowledge each other’s words and then move on to another topic, like what to order for lunch, or where we should take our next road trip. Politics plays a minor role in our lives.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Crogged: Cap and I actually met on chron.com. We have radically different posting styles, he is WAY more conservative than I, but we turned out to be surprisingly compatible.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Yes I am definitely not in the “we” that misses Dan. However I don’t feel the need to ban him but it is Chris’ blog and his prerogative he rightfully determines/sets/moderates the tone of his blog to his preference.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Bubba, hasn’t Chris banned you on a couple of occasions, too? I guess you were not fitting into his desired tone at that time.

      • GG says:

        How do you get un-banned?

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        And what keeps someone from coming back? Like Sternn, I own my own Internet domains (though I don’t make personal information available through their WHOIS records), and can generate as many email addresses as necessary to easily create a new *Chronicle* account when one gets mass-flagged and banned.

        But probably Dan is not as resourceful.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        You’ll have to ask Chris if I was actually banned or if even Dan was, Tutt. I was referring to the desire to ban him which I disagree with. I have had comments removed by Chris in the past and have acknowledged that. I also can read the handwriting on the wall and voluntarily stopped posting for a period and ignored the speculation.

        I even noted to some during my downtime that since I was off the blog (but still reading) I would wait to see how some coward trolls would respond with the belief that I was “banned” and true to form, bart-1/seriouscynic/usincrisis didn’t disappoint as he started repeatedly bashing me by name online in his mistaken belief I could no longer respond and defend myself. Coward trolls don’t change their yellow spots do they bart?

        Now, who is the proven hypocritical keyboard coward yet again bart?

        So Tutt, et al, if you don’t like my posting here, you can blame your bully troll buddy bart who couldn’t leave well enough alone. Another truly gutless and failed badass wannabe.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Here on GOP Lifer’s blog I think it’s simply up to Chris to reopen the gate. What from I’ve been able to tell, he will ban people temporarily as a warning, but he usually lets them come back. He’s done it to Kabuzz, Bubba, and Dan.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Bubba, I’ve wondered if that also might be the case. Chris has confirmed that he deletes some comments, and right after that happens, I notice the poster will disappear for a while, so perhaps it is voluntary as in your case.

        On other occasion he did tell Kabuzz, “You are hereby banned . . . until you can come up with an example of a Tea Partier who is not socially conservative.”

      • CaptSternn says:

        Owl, there is no need to own domain names to create as many email addresses as you want. That can be done through services like Yahoo and G-Mail. But I see no point in doing so.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Actually, Bubba, you and Dan bring out the worst in each other, but your exchanges are a delight to read. You guys should have your own TV show.

      • Crogged says:

        Siskel and Ebert, Carville and Matalin, DanMan and Bubba.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        I remember that exchange Tutt but I thought it was more tongue in cheek by Chris as kabuzz was “banned” until he could provide some type of supporting data and he never formally announced an “unbanning” before buzz started reposting.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Bubba is correct Tutt. Chris was inserting his tongue in his cheek when he challenged me.

        The bans before came about not by Chris but by the Chronicles stupid ‘report abuse’ function that some on both sides of the partisan divide used. If you were reported too much, you were banned. Happened to Owl, me, Turtles I belive and others.

    • texan5142 says:

      So says the partisan.

  5. Tuttabella says:

    I wish we had addressed the possibility of disappearing foods, new business models, new consumer experiences that might result from Lifer’s proposal on immigration and minimum wages.

    I’m fascinated by the idea of new consumer experiences, not in economic terms, but from the sociological standpoint, how our daily lives would be affected.

    • Crogged says:

      People have fretted two and three dollar minimum wage increases as destructive of Western civilization, the author proposed doubling it here because it is a backdoor socialist plot to have a ‘minimum income’ in the guise of dealing with illegal immigration. It appears to be working and I agree with the idea, maybe I should be quiet and hope they don’t notice.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        LIfer has learned not to let the illegal immigration crisis go to waste. You notice that with his proposal, illegal immigrants would get priced out, and US citizens and legal residents would be the true beneficiaries of the new, improved minimum wage.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Citizens and residents would never put up with a minimum wage higher for “migrants,” so they would demand and get the same for themselves. Illegal labor would go on as usual, so the only change that would result from this “immigration reform” is the higher minimum wage for citizens and residents. Very clever of Lifer.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        I’ve enjoyed some of the proposals for a “bad business” tax, which charges businesses a portion of the social costs they impose upon the state (welfare, etc.) through their low hourly wages and/or benefits for employees. If we can’t manage a minimum wage, perhaps that’s another way to produce some of the same effects.

    • CaptSternn says:

      I think it would depend on other factors as well. Sugar is a good example, we have to put heavy tariffs on imported sugar just so U.S. sugar companes can compete. If we were to do away with tariffs and subsidies we would probably pay a lot less for many items, including produce that would be imported. But that would cost U.S. jobs.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        So why do we support domestic sugar producers rather than, say, domestic cloth weavers or electronics manufacturers?

        One might claim that we shouldn’t have any tariffs, on any goods whatsoever, and embrace “free trade”, to let wages and expenses engage in a pell-mell race for the bottom. Of course, no-one ever points out that it’s not much loss to be left behind in a race for the bottom.

        We should impose tariffs, not simply to protect domestic industries, but rather to ensure that foreign competitors must bear the expense (either through actual production standards or through payment of tariffs) of equivalent labor and environmental protections to those we impose in our own nation.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Tariffs also destroy U.S. jobs, Owl. Especially in tha manufacturing areas. B ush43’s steel tariffs very nearly drove the company I work for to Canada and Scotland. We got a waiver just before the point of no turning back.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        Perhaps you’d like to explain the process in a more logical sequence than your usual disjointed, afactual rants.

        But probably not.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Sure, Owl. The company I worked for would import steel from France, then manufacture a product, coiled tubing, and export it for a decent profit. Then the tariffs hit and drove the price of the raw product through the roof, nobody could afford the end product. U.S. steel companies could not or would not produce the steel with the chemistry we needed.

        We set up a manufacturing facility in Scotland, and once that was up and running the U.S. plant would be disassembled and shipped off to Canada, taking hundreds of manufactring jobs with it. We got a waiver just before that Scotland plant was fully functional, so the plant and the jobs stayed in the U.S..

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        Now, can you present evidence that your purely anecdotal evidence represents a real, systemic problem, rather than a merely personal experience?

        Why, you might even be able to argue logically, someday.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Owl, there were a whole lot of waivers being issued for those very same reasons, not just for the company I was working at during that time. That’s probably why the tariffs were finally repealed.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        All right, Sternn. So now let’s return to my original point. Are you still able to recall it?

        Does France have similar labor and environmental laws to our own? Why, yes. In fact, some might call theirs superior, and justify them placing tariffs on *American* steel for just such reasons.

        But, in any case, under my imaginary tariff scheme adjusting for equivalent labor and environmental regulations, steel from France would not have suffered any additional tariff, so your job would have proceeded even more smoothly than in the throes of a much blunter trade policy. Steel from China (Hebei Iron and Steel, Baosteel Group, Wuhan Iron and Steel, and on down the line in volume) would have increased vastly in price, but your French metal (from ArcelorMittal, perhaps?) would have changed not a whit in expense.

        So, now, would you care to argue about the actual point I was making, or continue with irrelevant nay-saying?

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Aren’t we already overrun with “faux foods?” aka processed foods?

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        Sternn’s responses would appear to be “faux foods”, since they seldom pertain to what’s actually being discussed and thus don’t prove to be either filling or intellectually nutritious.

        What the matter, big boy? Can’t ever admit you’re wrong?

      • CaptSternn says:

        Poor Owl, just cannot bring himself to admit he was wrong when trying to have a discussion with me. And no, I really wouldn’t care to cause mass starvation in China just to make things mre expensive here.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Owl, my post about faux foods was misplaced. It was a reply to your comment about disappearing foods below. I reposted in the right place.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        It was taken out of context, but it sounded funny here.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        Sternn, you have long since crossed over into the pathological.

        I offered a proposal in which tariffs were imposed to ensure that domestic producers, subject to regulations and expenses for worker treatment and environmental protection, weren’t penalized against foreign competitors who weren’t subject to such curbs.

        You offered an anecdote which, when finally teased out of you, referred to a past experience in which tariffs were about to be imposed on French steel, and thus would have destroyed the company for which you worked.

        I pointed out that France *does* have comparable worker and environmental protections, so that your story really wasn’t relevant to the original point, and your complaints were invalid.

        And now you’re doubling down in dumb distractions. “Faux food” indeed.

        How about just reading and thinking, for a change? I believe I’m more than polite in discussion when people actually stick to the point and rely on facts. I’d love to be able to treat you as more than a deluded, dense dope. (And that, I think, probably more than fills my d-alliteration allotment for the day.)

      • bubbabobcat says:

        And Tutt, since you miss Dan so much, let me repost what he would say when one of the “opposition” (but never his brethren) posts in the wrong thread:

        DanMan says:
        July 7, 2014 at 5:22 pm
        “dumbass is lost again”

        or the more pointed:

        “Bubba grade dumbass!”

        Feel happier?

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Bubba, it seems you will only be happy when you find perfect, absolute fairness on this blog, and that will never happen.

        Yes, if you mispost a comment, Dan will call you names. If I mispost a comment, he says nothing. You know why? HE DOESN’T LIKE YOU.

        As if you haven’t figured that out already.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Well Tutt, not that I would ever expect Dan, OV, buzzy or any of my “fans” to conform to my values by as you can tell, hypocrisy is a sore point (one of several) with me so I like to point it out.

        I mean no one is changing anyone’s minds here yet we all post ad nauseum… 🙂

      • tuttabellamia says:

        But Bubba, you’re so obsessed with pointing out hypocrisy (and cussing out the perpetrators in the process), it seems most of your time on this blog is devoted to doing only that. You’re a one-note poster.

        You did post that interesting link from the NY Times about religious leaders calling for sympathy towards the kids from Central America, and you posted that nice comment to Cap about how to introduce a stray cat into the family. More of that would be a nice change of pace.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Yes Tutt and I would like a lot of other posters to post or not post a certain way and people in Hell want ice water.

        That’s why we have the debates. Thanks for pointing out that I can be civil when warranted. I thought Cap could use information I had from lots of personal experience with strays so I provided it, especially since he was nice enough to take him in and I wanted for it to be a positive experience for Cap and all to be happy with the new arrangement. Hope all is well with the kitty by the way.

        But where we disagree and disagree strongly, I word it “strongly”. And as I noted to Crogged further down, the reasoning behind my rationale for my various “debate styles” and everyone on both sides of the aisle can agree or disagree, but if they can’t convince me in “my” logic and world view, then I continue in my various “styles” as I feel appropriate.

        And as I noted, Chris is the final arbiter of what is appropriate and what is too far for his blog. Which I do my best to respect (really, I do) but don’t always succeed as all can note by the deletions. Which by the way, I do not consider “censorship”. His blog, his standard. I didn’t like Sparkle’s “standards” and complained about it but ultimately it is her blog and if I felt strongly enough, my option was to stay away for good, which I did. I did not have the right to tell her how to run her blog.

      • CaptSternn says:

        The cats have a functional relationship, though not really friendly. The older cat stays over at my mom’s house most of the time. In the yards she knows she is dominate, and when she does come to my house I try to make her understand that she is still the queen of the roost. If she wants to come in, I usually put out the young tom so she has the place to herself as long as she wants it. Thanks for remembering.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Thanks for the update Cap and glad you made a go of it. Are they at least each friendly with you? The age difference and that they are not spending a large amount of time together may keep them indifferent to each other but at least they are not killing each other or driving you nuts with their differences.

    • Owl of Bellaire says:

      Tutt — If you’d like to talk about those issues, by all means offer your own views on the subject, as seeds for the discussion.

      For example, which foods do you think might disappear? I’ve occasionally pondered whether removing agricultural price supports for massive factory-farming might energize smaller, local producers (read about some of Chicago’s “vertical farms” where they raise, as I recall, tilapia and tomatoes for supply to nearby restaurants) who could then reap the benefit of lower transport costs and higher “heirloom” crop quality in a way that’s far more difficult today, even with mass-produced tasteless tomatoes.

      Yes, food would get more expensive. Of course, you might end up merely transferring budget priorities from corporate agricultural subsidies to individual food-stamp payments… though I’d love to see a federal program encouraging and educating the urban poor to develop urban farms, whether on rooftops or vacant lots. Houston has some great urban farming efforts around. There’s a church south of here that used to grow crops for a food bank in the right-of-way for neighboring high-power electrical lines. Would that we could use even more of that otherwise empty green space for just such purposes.

      Curtailing illegal immigrants and their cheap labor would also increase housing prices. There’s already a significant federal effort to encourage home ownership, through programs like mortgage deductions on taxes, Fannie Mae, etc. So, would increased labor costs generate more federal support, or would it shift us back toward being a “nation of renters”? And what would that do to Chris’ much-beloved “ownership society”?

      Is that the sort of discussion you’re desiring?

      • tuttabellamia says:

        I just wrote a reply to you but it said “failure” when I hit Post Comment and I lost it. I will have to recreate it. It was nothing fancy.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Ok, here goes:

        As a strong animal ethics supporter, I am all for improved conditions on factory farms, but I was thinking more of personal changes in daily life, how going out to eat and trips to the grocery store would be affected. Lifer mentioned going out to eat less, or we as diners becoming more involved in the restaurant experience by clearing away our own tables. Moves away from fast food. You touched upon how the new technology has changed the restaurant ordering experience, in your example of the sign at Cafe Express that said “call first.” Things like that.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        I would also welcome a return to a time when things were appreciated as valuable, before they become disposable.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        If traditional food sources get more expensive, it will speed development of artificially produced food: cultured meat, and the like. I recall an *Analog* sci-fi magazine from years back in which geneticists had developed the “McLarkie” for a certain franchise restaurant: vat-grown larks’ tongues to be arrayed on a bun for fast-food customers to enjoy…. Obviously, that’s a utopian (?) conception of the outcome; we could just as easily end up with a society where the poor eat “faux flesh” meat paste in assorted standard flavors (with soy filler), because that’s all they can afford, while the wealthy eat “real” meat raised in small, humane, ranching conditions for ridiculous prices.

        If housing labor gets more expensive, it will speed development of robotic and mechanical assistance on that front. I’ve seen work on a massive “3d printer” that uses concrete to output a house. Apparently, in Europe they do far less lumber framing (though that’s bog-standard here in the U.S.), preferring steel skeletons and/or massed concrete. (I may be wrong on that, and would love the perspective of those better traveled than I.) So that could definitely produce architectural and economic changes.

        There are already muttering about “the new urbanism” in neighborhood construction, desiring fewer vast expanses of cul-de-sacs and more integrated neighborhoods where homes, grocery stores, schools, and workplaces are in more walkable configurations. That said, even if we began such a shift today, the vast supply of suburbia based solidly on the automotive lifestyle will resist such cultural changes for decades to come.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Aren’t we already overrun with “faux foods?” aka processed foods?

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        Tutt — Sure. But processed beef, even “pink slime”, still comes from cows.

        What if you could get beef without needing to slaughter a cow, because it was grown in a factory vat from a genetically engineered cell sample? Would that kind of “meat” be acceptable to vegetarians? (Would cultured pork, coming from no “animal”, let alone one with cloven hooves, be kosher?)

        It would be very difficult to get the kind of internal structure necessary for a good steak, for example — heck, current efforts at the task are hard-pressed even to pass for reasonable ground beef — but such technology could produce a way to generate protein-rich food sources without the necessity for space and resources (food, water, electricity, etc.) that current ranching techniques impose.

        Is the possibility of such cheap but low-quality food a boon or a bane? It would certainly increase respect for “real” meat, since it would become comparatively expensive. But it might also, for example, end the danger of overfishing. Of course, that then puts a lot of fishermen out of work, which is the pattern of technology-mediated unemployment Chris has been mulling for several months now….

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Owl, reminds me of the movie “Soylent Green” and Edward G Robinson’s character ogling an extremely rare bar of soap in an overcrowded, resources short apocalyptic future world. It was “science fiction” back then…

      • tuttabellamia says:

        I am quasi vegetarian (I eat dairy, eggs, and seafood), and I have experimented with veganism, with all their faux foods, and I came to the conclusion than I’d rather not eat certain foods at all than eat some of that true garbage.

        I do love Morningstar Farm veggie bacon strips and burger patties, but that’s about it.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        bubba — Absolutely. But *Soylent Green*, a 1973 film based on a 1966 science-fiction novel (by Harry Harrison, also of *Stainless Steel Rat* fame), is a product of its time. It just barely missed the prowess and promise of the “Green Revolution” (a term coined in 1968 to describe the culmination of years of previous efforts). Irrigation, pesticides, synthetic fertilizers, and improved crop varieties revolutionized agriculture worldwide and forestalled the famines that modern-day Malthusians promised were on the way. And our baby steps into biotechnology promise even more disruption in the years to come, to our economy and society as well as our culture and “quotidian” habits.

        (I see *Soylent Green* takes place in 2022, a mere eight years from now. What will it be like to watch the movie then?)

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        Tutt — Sure. But what if you could eat slabs of shrimp, grown from a nubbin of cells on a glass plate, fed with nutrient broth through a tiny capillary in that plate, and stimulated to flex and develop into tasty muscle fibers through regular electrical impulses? There’d be no seine nets harming coastal ecosystems or other wildlife; not even the need for closed-cycle (and capital-intensive!) recirculating pools. But, of course, you’d see the wholesale collapse of the shrimping industry, both on the Gulf Coast and in major export producers like Thailand, Ecuador, etc., in favor of a much smaller workforce of, essentially, bio-tech lab workers and geneticists. Conceivable one could even grow “shrimp” in shapes other than a tapered cone, in case one wanted to raise already-formed “shrimp-burger” patties.

        Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

      • tuttabellamia says:

        It’s good for the shrimp!

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        Heh. Recalling a recent news article, I thought I’d offer some real-world facts to go with our navel-gazing and hand-waving.

        http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21583241-worlds-first-hamburger-made-lab-grown-meat-has-just-been-served

        “The meal they gathered to witness other people digest consisted of the world’s first hamburger made of meat grown from scratch in a laboratory.

        “What the 140-gram patty lacked in heft it made up for in price. At more than €250,000 ($330,000), a tab partly picked up by Google’s co-founder, Sergey Brin, it must rank among the most expensive dishes in history….

        “Carnivores should cheer. The world’s appetite for meat is forecast to rise by 70% by 2050. Nearly a third of the world’s ice-free land is already used to raise livestock or grow fodder for these animals. Without a radical technological shift the new demand will be hard to satisfy. Vegetarians, too, have reason to egg Dr Post on. A single sample of stem cells could, he reckons, yield 20,000 tonnes of “cultured beef”. This is enough to make 175m quarter-pounders, a number that would require 440,000 cattle to be slaughtered.

        “In addition, animal husbandry is responsible for 18% of the world’s greenhouse-gas emissions, since cattle produce prodigious quantities of methane—a gas whose warming potential is 20 times that of carbon dioxide’s over the course of a century. Growing meat in factories would help reduce these emissions. And if home-based meat kits eventually became available, it would give a whole new meaning to the phrase ‘hand-reared’.”

        And I hadn’t even thought of the social consequences of home-based meat kits. Imagine if we could actually become “subsistence farmers” again, but in an urban setting. Somewhere at the bottom of the pantry, in a little vat plugged into the wall for electricity and fluids, a rotisserie-like lump of meat quivers and shakes, building up muscle fibers to be regularly shaved off for the next family meal. Next to it, another machine extrudes prism-like slabs of artificial squash….

      • Crogged says:

        The movie would have disappeared from public knowledge if Charlton Heston had bellowed, “Soylent Green is SHRIMP!”

      • Crogged says:

        Speaking of animals, a friend of mine overheard this conversation–if he said it happened, it’s true.

        “You know how dogs or cats will rub their faces against you as a sign of affection? Well his buffalo did the same thing… crushed his cheek bone and popped an eye out of its socket. And he was just, you know, being a sweetheart….”

        They deserve to be eaten.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Owl, you’re presenting all these sci-fi, sterile scenarios, but I was actually hoping we could hearken back to the past and go natural again as a result of the economic changes mentioned by Lifer.

      • Crogged says:

        We couldn’t support this current level of population without modern techniques, and we may have to develop more because of resistance to pesticides caused by some mysterious passage in the Bible or evolution.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        Tutt, I’m afraid we can only “go natural again” if we reduce the human population to what was “naturally” sustainable.

        Do you want to be the one who chooses the people to be culled? Or shall we leave it to the traditional arbiters, Famine, Pestilence, and War? (I hear the first case of Ebola was just identified in Nigeria….)

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        Hurrah! I may get the chance to try guinea pig someday soon:

        http://www.chron.com/news/local/article/Guinea-Pigs-for-lunch-5644564.php

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Thanks for the background Owl. It would be interesting to see if we have an orgy of “Soylent Green” news coverage, introspection and festivals in 2022.

  6. CaptSternn says:

    Whew! (Whipes sweat from brow.) That was a lot of scrolling to get to the bottom to make a new comment.

    Lifer, seems it is about time for a new entry, even if all you post is “New Entry” to allow the crowd to have an entry that we don’t have to scroll through so much to find the latest replies, if they can be found at all on this format.

    Looks like we will find fresh meat even if you neglect throwing it out. Maybe you just watch to get ideas for your next entry?

    Anyway, congrats on having an active blog, even if it is limited to a few people. Anybody can start a blog. Getting visitors, discussions and having it be active is something most cannot acheive.

    • Turtles Run says:

      Yes, I agree.

      Chris – I hope you know we appreciate your efforts and even though we often go off topic it is because you have assembled a core of loyal readers with very diverse opinions. I have learned more here on this blog than any other even if topics are often repeated.

      As for everyone else I want you people to know that I value your opinions and give me a lot of fuel for thought. Even those I disagree with. I would gladly share a pint of root beer with any of you.

    • Tuttabella says:

      Cap, one good thing about such a long thread is that the risk of accidentally posting a comment at the very top is greatly reduced.

      Yes, I have learned a lot from my interactions with the people here, and the learning continues . . .

  7. Turtles Run says:

    Here is another lovely human being. An 80 year old man shot a pregnant woman in the back killing her. Now this lady is no innocent sh was after all robbing his residence but once she saw his gun she started to run away. The man was clearly in no danger but he still shot her in the back simply because she was slower than the male she was with.

    I am curious if anyone believes this shooting was justified? I am sure I can count on at least one yes.

    “Greer said that he was tackled and thrown to the ground but managed to get his .22-caliber revolver and confronted them as they ransacked a safe containing cash.
    Seeing the gun, the couple ran out of the house and started down an alley.

    “The lady, she couldn’t run as fast as the man, so I shot her in the back twice,” Greer explained. “She’s dead, but he got away.”
    “She says, ‘Don’t shoot me, I’m pregnant! I’m going to have a baby!’ And I shot her anyway,” Greer said.”

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/07/24/hey-gun-nuts-shooting-someone-who-is-running-away-in-the-back-is-not-self-defense/

    • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

      Oh…you are going to have more than one, “Yep, he should have killed her” vote.

    • texan5142 says:

      He is competing with the guy from my state Minnesota that shot a 17 year old girl 3 times with a .45 for asking him to quit tras passing on the property on his riding lawn mower. She step out onto her porch and he was hiding in the bushes and shot her.

    • Turtles Run says:

      texan – I really was not sure which article to use the Minnesota case or this one. The pregnant part put me over the hump.

      Houston – Oh, I know. I am sure they will defend his right to the bitter end. Like Joe Horn in Pasadena. Shooting people in the back is honorable to those without it.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Horn’s actions were deemed justified, especially based on the testimony of an undercover cop that saw the whole thing.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        IT doesn’t matter Captain, they even believe she is pregnant.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        Kabuzz, given how you’re almost always wrong (witness your recent claim about a gay mayor of San Francisco), why shouldn’t we believe she’s pregnant?

        I mean, your record almost suggests that, if you oppose it, it must be true.

        But perhaps you can figure out how to do better.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Well, we have an update on this story, a few more facts to bring into the mix. The crime did take place at night, which would make a big difference in Texas but not sure about California. The elderly man had been burglarized three times already and believed it was by the same people every time.

        He came home and found them ransacking his home, and then they both physically attacked and beat him, slamming him to the floor and breaking bones. One continued to beat him, the woman in question, while the man went back to trying to open a safe. The home owner finally made it to where he had a weapon and opened fire while still inside his own home. That’s when the two turned and fled. The home owner persued and kept firing.

        At one point the woman claimed to be pregnant, though the police investigating said she did not appear to be pregnant but the autopsy will be done and they will find out then.

        Her accomplice has been caught and charged with several crimes, including murder, because he was in the act of committing a felony and somebody got killed in the process. No charges have been filed on the home owner as of yet, but they are considering it.

        So yes, indeed, the original link was very biased and left a lot of information out to persue the stated agenda.

    • GG says:

      Unfortunately, I think the Trayvon Martin trial outcome has empowered a lot of these gun-toting sociopaths into believing they can shoot anyonefor any reason with no repercussions.

      • Turtles Run says:

        The Open Carry fools are an example of the need to tighten gun restrictions.

      • GG says:

        Cappy, you ask why I brought up the Zimmerman case? That’s pretty obvious from my statement. I believe it has encouraged gun-toting sociopaths into believing they can shoot anyone for whatever reason. “I’m scared of him”….boom.

      • CaptSternn says:

        GG, I think it is pretty obvious that if somebody is trying to kill you by bashing your head onto a concrete sidewalk you have the right to defend yourself, even with lethal force. The officers and prosecuters saw things the same way. The arrest was political, then the jury saw things the same way as the officers, the original prosecuters and everybody else that used a little common sense.

      • GG says:

        You’re deliberately misunderstanding my statement. Being willfully obtuse is not a good quality to have. If dumbass Zimmerman had minded his own business in the first place he could have avoided killing a teenager and own his subsequent ruin.

      • GG says:

        own his…should be his own. More caffeine.

      • John Galt says:

        We only know what happened that night from Zimmerman’s account, and the 911 calls. Unsurprisingly, Zimmerman said he felt his life was in danger and that he was attacked. Sternn buys that uncritically, because apparently he is fairly unconcerned about shooting people. The 911 call indicates that he was advised to retreat multiple times. That he even had the opportunity to call 911 suggests he was not in imminent danger (hard to dial when you’re fighting someone tooth and nail). He decided for reasons known only to him that shooting someone was a better option that waiting for the police to investigate the teenager with illicit Skittles. His obsession with law enforcement, apparent self-nomination to be the neighborhood watch leader, and history of anger management issues are all cause to doubt his testimony in his self-defense.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Good neighbors watch out for each other, especially when they are on the neighborhood watch and there has been a rash of burglaries. There was no justification for what Martin did, attacking and trying to kill another person.

      • GG says:

        Actually, Sternn, I’d attack someone if they were stalking me. He was stalking the teenager and he was an unappointed neighborhood watch. They didn’t even like him. He was basically a gun happy busybody.

      • John Galt says:

        There is absolutely no evidence, apart from what the person who shot an unarmed teenager said in self-defense, that Trayvon Martin attacked anyone. None.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Martin wasn’t being stalked, he was being watched because he was acting in a suspicious manner.

        John, there was a lot of physical evidence, namely the injuries Zimmerman sustained, and witness accounts of a fight. There was also evidence on Martin that the shot was from a very short distance, just as Zimmerman stated. Maybe you close your eyes to physical evidence because you don;t want to see it?

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        Sternn apparently just wants to justify shooting Black people.

        It’s part of what makes him a racistophile.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Owl apparently just wants to justify beating hispanic people to death.

        It’s part of what makes him a racistophile.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        Who started the interaction by doing wrong, Sternn? Oh, right: not the Black boy carrying Skittles, but the pushy, over-aggressive Hispanic deciding he was entitled to do law enforcement’s job for (if not actively despite) them.

        Absolutely: the busy-body should have died a messy death, as a warning to others like him. That would have been a situation of much greater relative justice.

        But I don’t care a whit that he was Hispanic. Just that he was one of those crazy gun nuts, more of whom should probably be culled from the population to increase its average levels of intelligence, empathy, and virtue.

      • CaptSternn says:

        So your true nature finally shows througgh, people that call the police and report suspicious activity in their neighborhoods are just busy-bodies. Why, it is so wrong for such a person to defend themselves against criminals, they should simply be beaten to death on the spot and the criminal can just go on about their illegal activities. Glad that is not the world we live in no matter how much you wish it was.

      • GG says:

        Sternn, we only have Zimmerman’s story because Martin is dead. People who call police and report suspicious activity are concerned neighbors, people who have a history of calling the police every time a black person walked down the street and who the police say is a pain in the ass is a busybody. The police considered him a repeat pest and, let’s face it, he is an extremely unsavory character.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        But Sternn believe, as he’s clearly stated, that it’s okay to kill criminals (or, in this case, minority pedestrians) in order to prevent future crimes.

        Despite the fact that he regularly rages against supposed punishments carried out without evidence of a crime… such “punishments” apparently being related to being forced to operate a business which doesn’t racially discriminate.

        Hypocrisy and bigotophilia: the potent cocktail known as Sternn.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        GG says:
        July 25, 2014 at 9:21 am

        “If dumbass Zimmerman had minded his own business in the first place he could have avoided killing a teenager and own his subsequent ruin.”

        Exactly GG. That was Cappy’s excuse for legitimizing an old White guy’s killing a (purportedly pregnant) Black woman by shooting her in the back. That she shouldn’t have been in his house and deserved being killed.

        But when a White/”Hispanic” busybody badass wannabe was told repeatedly by the 911 operator to stay away, and he defied that authority’s directive, yet in Cappy’s hypocritical world, he was justified in killing the kid who did nothing to Zimmerman to start with.

        If Cappy weren’t such a hypocrite, he would have the honesty to say Zimmerman deserved to have his “head bashed in” for inserting himself where he shouldn’t be. And charged with murder for being a dumbass wannabe badass with his pathetically fake gun/penis substitute “courage”.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Hey Bubba, the lady that claimed she wqas pregnant was white. More facts have come out concerning that case, I posted them up above. They can also be found on Chron.com, including the mugshots of the whit woman and white man that broke it the home and beat the elderly man.

        Martin stopped being a pedestrian and became a criminal when he tried to beat Zimmerman to death. There was no justification for that action. Zimmerman had the right to self defense and he used it. That’s why he wasn’t originally charged and why he was acquitted by a jury.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Thank you for clarify the woman shot was White Cap. I stand corrected. I still disagree with your premise however.

    • CaptSternn says:

      Lot of information being left out, not much to go on. But in Texas, it is legal to shoot a person in the back in some circumstances, including when the person is immediately fleeing after committing a felony such as assault, aggrivated assualt, robbery, aggrivated robbery, breaking into the person’s home and a few other things, mostly when they happen at night and to prevent the criminal from getting away.

      Even if he is charged with a crime and is convicted, the lady is still dead. It all comes back to the main point, if you don’t think property or assault is worth a life, don’t risk your life trying to steal somebody else’s property and/or assault them, aggrivated or otherwise. She risked her life and that of her unborn child, and she paid the price.

      • GG says:

        Sternn, why am I not suprised you justify shooting an unarmed pregnant woman in the back?

      • CaptSternn says:

        Why am I not suprised you think I justified shooting an unarmed pregnant woman in the back? I said I don’t know all the facts, the only link was to a left-wing rag that clearly already had a bias and would probably leave a lot of facts out to meet the agenda of said media outlet.

        What did I actually say? That in some circumstances, In Texas, it is legal and justified homicide to shoot a person in the back. What else did I say? That even if the facts prove that the man was wrong and acted illegally in his state, and he is charged and convicted, she and her unborn child are still dead because of her own actions.

      • CaptSternn says:

        GG, did you also go with the story of Trayvon Martin claiming that he was just a child that got shot by a white man because he was black and had a bag of skittles?

        Oh, right, he was fully grown, athletitic, strong and attacked a hispanic man and tried to kill that hispanic man by bashing his head into a concrete sidewalk. But again, the biased media tried to cover the facts up. The jury saw the facts, and they acquitted.

      • Turtles Run says:

        So lets pretend the story is correct. Lets also pretend this locale has the “same shoot them in the back even if you are not in danger” law like Texas.

        Do you Capt Sternn believe this shooting was the right thing to do?

      • texan5142 says:

        I don’t know, shooting some one in the back might feel good to some people, but I would let it ride. Would I feel the prime evil erge to shoot them, yes , but ask yourself this , do you want a society that acts on that daily ? I think not . Spaghetti Mosnter, I do not want to ever shoot someone. Would I ? Yes, but not in the back, maybe a leg.

      • Turtles Run says:

        “Oh, right, he was fully grown, athletitic, strong and attacked a hispanic man and tried to kill that hispanic man by bashing his head into a concrete sidewalk. But again, the biased media tried to cover the facts up. The jury saw the facts, and they acquitted.”

        First, why do you keep mentioning that Zimmerman is “hispanic”?

        Second, if your account was complete then Zimmerman acted in a justified manner. But you forgot to mention that Zimmerman first chased this person Martin down and while Zimmerman was looking for him after Martin was able to hide, Martin decided to “stand his ground” and defend himself from an armed attacker. You are trying to present a Martin as attacking Zimmerman without cause which is a LIE.

        You have repeated your sanitized version before it is is obviously because you know your claim fall apart when it is mentions. The “hispanic” comment well………..I will let your history speak for itself.

      • CaptSternn says:

        What is the story, Turtles? So far we have that two people broke into a man’s home, they attacked an elderly man in his own home and might have beaten him to death. They tried to run away when they realized he had the means of self defense, and he used that means of defense, even if only to prevent the criminals from escaping and attacking somebody else.

        What else do we have? A liberal far left media outet with a clear and announced bias and agenda put out the “facts” that met their liberal far left agenda, but nothing else.

        Oh, and we have the fact that the “man” of the pair ran off and left a pregnant woman behind to take the fall. Sort of like the old saying, “If a bear is charging to attack, you don;t have to be faster than the bear, you only have to be faster than the person next to you.”

        Present all of the facts, then I could give an honest opinion. One thing I do know from the story, the pair of criminals chose to risk their lives to commit a crime and attacked an elderly man. One of them paid with her own life and that of her unborn child. Was it worth it?

      • CaptSternn says:

        Texan, shooting a person in the leg will kill them. Shooting a person in the foot will kill them. Shooting a person at all is deadly force and can kill them. I do agree, I hope I am never is a position where I have a need to shoot a person, but I will do so if there is a need and I will shoot to kill, just as I have been trained to do.

        Turtles, why did you bring up the Joe Horn case? His actions were found justified. Why be offended about the Martin case? Zimmerman was found justified. Why bring up the fact that he was hispanic? Why did the media make a big deal of him being “white”? Martin didn’t stand his ground, he circled back and attacked. He had no duty to flee, but he had no justification for a physical attack to try to kill Zimmerman.

        Facts and reality just are not quite agreeing with you here, and that includes what little facts you present about a couple breaking into an elderly man’s home and trying to beat him to death in order to rob him. You don’t seem to be having a good day here.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Oh, and Turtles, why not ask GG why she brought up the Martin/Zimmerman case?

      • rucasdad says:

        Knowing that your life isn’t in danger and actually seeing the perps run from your property but YET you still shoot one of them (twice) is acting on pure emotion. And here I thought that Capt wasn’t for acting/thinking on emotions….the inconsistency is extremely strong with this one.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Rucas, try to stay within the law and logic ,,, if you can. But probably not, you just go with emotion.

      • Turtles Run says:

        Rucas – Cappy does not realize that the law and what is right are often not the same thing. I may be legally justified to gun people down in the back but that does not make it right or moral.

        Cappy – let me clear, a concept which is completely foreign to you. I do not support the death penalty in any form or fashion. I have no issue with life without parole. Spending the rest of your life in a maximum security prison is hardly the equivalent of a get-out-of-jail-free card, but putting any person to death represents the ultimate application of government power. And unlike virtually every other act by the state, it is entirely irreversible.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Turtles, I do understand the difference between what is legal, what is justified and what is right or wrong. You cannot even reverse putting an innocenmt person in jail for one day.

        You finally admit that it wasn’t an issue with the administration of the death penalty, it is your issue with the death penalty itself. Good for that. It is why I am anti-abortion rather than pro-life.

        I support the death penalty under the right circumstances, due process. But never on an eye-witness testimony alone unless maybe the eye-witness knows the person.

    • CaptSternn says:

      Hey, Turtles, since this guy killed two people, capital murder in some states and worthy of the death penalty, do you think he should be sentenced to death? Or is there not enough evidence to do so? Or do you think it would be cruel and unusual to sentence him to death? Maybe if he actually broke the law he should just get probation and some community service? A slap on the wrist? After all, he is just an elderly gentleman.

  8. GG says:

    Another off topic but interesting. Harkens back to the “whites only” days only this time the hoi polloi doesn’t want to use the same entrance as the peasants.

    http://gawker.com/nyc-approves-apartment-building-with-separate-entrance-1608352680

  9. desperado says:

    Since Godwin’s Law has been mentioned, is there anything more Mengele-esque than the medical experimentation that is being done in the name of carrying out the death penalty, the most recent example being the gruesome, 2 hour exhibition of cruel and unusual punishment yesterday in Arizona?

    • CaptSternn says:

      Successful execution. But they would do better to use the method Texas is using. Even better if the whiners hadn’t caused so much trouble in the first place and caused the states to have to find new methods because the tried and true method has been blocked.

      • GG says:

        Two hours of suffering is not a “successful” execution IMO.

      • CaptSternn says:

        He’s dead. Pretty successful imo.

      • GG says:

        Yes, after suffering for two hours.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Says our resident Constitutional expert who evidently skipped the section on cruel and unusual punishment in the 8th amendment.

      • desperado says:

        Stern’s blood lust was satisfied. That’s all that matters to him.

      • CaptSternn says:

        The governor said medical and eyewitness accounts indicated that Wood did not suffer and he died in a lawful manner in which justice was served.

        Attorney general’s spokeswoman Stephanie Grisham, who witnessed the execution, said Wood “went to sleep, and looked to be snoring.”

        “This was my first execution, and I was surprised by how peaceful it was,” Grisham said in an email. “There was absolutely no snorting or gasping for air.”

        http://www.chron.com/news/crime/article/First-Amendment-fight-won-t-stop-Arizona-execution-5640141.php

      • desperado says:

        What would you expect the governor and the spokeswoman for the AG to say?

      • GG says:

        Yes, the 8th amendment was being discussed on the radio this morning. Most of the caller’s who got through supported the death penalty but were appalled at this mess.

      • Turtles Run says:

        This is an account by Michael Kiefer who witnessed this execution and also 4 others.

        This was the fifth execution I’ve witnessed. They don’t look like much. The condemned person usually wears an expression of dumbfounded embarrassment and stares absurdly at the ceiling. Then, his eyes close slowly and he stops moving, except for a few chest-raising breaths that slow and then stop. The face slackens, the mouth gapes. It’s usually over in 10 or 11 minutes.

        Wood’s execution was no different — at first. Maybe he was smiling, but just slightly. He took a few gulps of air and closed his eyes.

        The priest stopped praying and watched.

        Four minutes into the procedure, the doctor appeared on the other side of the window. He checked Wood’s eyes and pulse and then said over the microphone, “It is confirmed that he is sedated.”

        There had been concern about the drugs used in this execution, a cocktail of the Valium-like midazolam and a narcotic called hydromorphone. Witnesses to an execution in Florida, where the drug was used last October, noted that it seemed to take longer than usual. An Ohio execution in January took more than 20 minutes and death-penalty attorneys claimed that was too long.

        Wood’s attorneys filed motions in state and federal courts expressing concerns over the drugs and the Arizona Department of Corrections’ refusal to provide information about the specific batches of the drugs that it had obtained.

        The execution was stayed twice. The first stay was lifted Tuesday by the U.S. Supreme Court. A second stay was imposed Wednesday morning, which pushed the execution back from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. The Arizona Supreme Court lifted it before noon Wednesday.

        At the start of Wood’s execution, none of those concerns seemed warranted.

        Then at 2:05, Wood’s mouth opened. Three minutes later it opened again, and his chest moved as if he had burped. Then two minutes again, and again, the mouth open wider and wider. Then it didn’t stop.

        He gulped like a fish on land. The movement was like a piston: The mouth opened, the chest rose, the stomach convulsed. And when the doctor came in to check on his consciousness and turned on the microphone to announce that Wood was still sedated, we could hear the sound he was making: a snoring, sucking, similar to when a swimming-pool filter starts taking in air, a louder noise than I can imitate, though I have tried.

        It was death by apnea. And it went on for an hour and a half. I made a pencil stroke on a pad of paper, each time his mouth opened, and ticked off more than 640, which was not all of them, because the doctor came in at least four times and blocked my view.

        I turned to my friend Troy Hayden, the anchor and reporter from Fox 10 News, who was sitting next to me. Troy and I witnessed another execution together in 2007, and he had seen one before that, so he also knows what it looks like.

        “I don’t think he’s going to die,” I said.

        A moment later, Troy turned to me and whispered, “I think you’re right.”

        The priest laid a crucifix at the end of the rosary on the bench and stared into the face of Jesus.

        I wondered if there were a Plan B, some other dose of drugs, something to speed up the death. Or someone to stop it.

        In fact, as Wood was drowning in air, two of his attorneys left the room. I later learned they had filed motions to try to get the execution stopped.

        Finally, Wood started to gasp less frequently. Once, twice, minutes apart; he stopped at 3:36. At 3:40 and 3:48, the doctor examined him and pronounced him “still sedated.”

        A minute later, Arizona Department of Corrections Director Charles Ryan appeared in the window next to Wood’s gurney, like some kind of narrator. It was like a scene featuring the stage manager in Thornton Wilder’s play, “Our Town.” Or maybe like Rod Serling in “Twilight Zone.”

        The execution had been completed, he said. The curtains closed. The witnesses filed out.

        http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/arizona/politics/2014/07/24/arizona-execution-joseph-wood-eyewitness/13083637/

      • CaptSternn says:

        Wood and Debbie Dietz had a tumultuous relationship during which he repeatedly assaulted her. She tried to end their relationship and got an order of protection against Wood.

        On the day of the shooting, Wood went to the auto shop and waited for Gene Dietz, who disapproved of his daughter’s relationship with Wood, to get off the phone. Once the father hung up, Wood pulled out a revolver, shot him in the chest and then smiled.

        Wood then turned his attention toward Debbie Dietz, who was trying to telephone for help. Wood grabbed her by the neck and put his gun to her chest. She pleaded with him to spare her life. An employee heard Wood say, “I told you I was going to do it. I have to kill you.” He then called her an expletive and fired two shots in her chest.

        Same link as before.

      • Turtles Run says:

        For those interested Michael Kiefer is on the Michael Smerconish today on POTUS radio on Sirius/XM.

      • GG says:

        Yes, what he did was terrible but at least they died quickly. No civilized country should allow someone to linger for 2 hours.

      • CaptSternn says:

        At least they died quickly? Did you just write that? Seriously? They were murdered in cold blood for crying out loud.

      • GG says:

        Yes, that’s evident.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Well, now we know who really is the cold blooded and uncivilized one here. So it’s just fine with you to murder people as long as it is done quickly, but don’t make the murderer the least bit uncomfortable.

      • desperado says:

        However heinous his crime was, our system of justice is not an eye for an eye. We don’t cut off the hands of thieves and we don’t cut off the genitals of rapists. Because he committed a horrible crime doesn’t make it acceptable for him to die a horrible death. That’s justice in Saudi Arabia, we are supposed to be better than that.

      • rucasdad says:

        Capt, you said that this execution was successful. You are the only one that feels this way. When provided with evidence against your claim, you reply back with what Wood did to receive the death penalty. This is what you do. Instead of admitting that the execution wasn’t successful, you would rather dig in deeper. This is also how my 8 year old nephew argues.

      • CaptSternn says:

        He would have died much faster in Saudi Arabia, public beheading.

        Not suprised that you don’t understand the reason for the death penalty, Desperado. It isn’t about revenge. Nor did he suffer according to witnesses.

      • GG says:

        Stern, you, of all people, shouldn’t lecture anyone on callousness. Your writings on this blog displays a lot of disregard for humanity and an appalling lack of empathy for anyone not in your family. I think you even boasted once about only you and your own matter.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        Sternn, you’re a bloodthirsty, uncivilly vengeful asshole. Along with a Constitutional ignoramus.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Simple question for you, Rucas; Is he dead? If the answer is yes, then the execution was succesful.

      • rucasdad says:

        I love the mental gymnastics that Capt puts himself through and attempts to put others through just so he can feel as though he’s correct.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Wow…Stern…I may be misreading this, but it appears as though you just used the atrocity of his crime as some bizarre justification for a prolonged execution.

        Surely, surely your love of the Constitution and rule of law would stop you from doing that, so I’m just going to again go with my better angels and assume I misread your comment.

      • Turtles Run says:

        Thanks for the account of the crime. But it has no bearing on how executions should be conducted.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Prolonged? No. Execution? Yes. What I find bizarre is GG suggesting that his victims had it better than he did, and nobody even bats an eye over that comment.

      • rucasdad says:

        Sternn (speaking sternly), just admit that you’re wrong in claiming that this was a “successful execution”, dust yourself off and move on. It really IS that easy. You’re a big boy, you can do it!

      • GG says:

        Not better just much more quickly which is fact. As mentioned elsewhere we are supposed to be better than other brutal countries.

      • rucasdad says:

        When everyone else was gasping, looking away and gripping their seats during Del’s execution in “Green Mile”, Capt looked around the theater and said aloud…”What’s the problem?!”.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Rucas, he is dead. Successful execution as that is the whole point of an execution.

        GG, we are much more civilized. He went to sleep and never woke up. Would have been quicker if people hadn’t been harassing companies that provide the drugs and caused states to seek other methods. So far Texas has gotten it right, others are still working on it. But he didn’t suffer.

      • texan5142 says:

        Unless it was YOU on that table , you do not know if he suffered or not.

      • GG says:

        “we are much more civilized”

        Now that is debatable. I know you are very jingoistic but we could learn something from other civilized countries.

      • Turtles Run says:

        Yes, Cappy the execution was eventually successful but that does not make it Constitutional. Once again you shoot more holes in your claim of support for a constitutional limited government.

      • CaptSternn says:

        I don’t murder people, Texan.

        Turtles, it was constitutional and will remain constitutional.

      • John Galt says:

        Civilized people cannot possibly look on what happened in Arizona and feel anything but horror. It doesn’t matter what the crime was, to let someone flop on a table for two hours is cruel and unusual. It is not justice.

      • CaptSternn says:

        He didn’t “flop around”, John. He was sedated, went to sleep and never woke up. Could be better, needs to be better, and would have been better if people weren’t causing states to see4k other methods by harassing drug companies. Go blame them for what you are not comfortable with.

      • texan5142 says:

        I know you murder people Cap in the same way you know he did not suffer.

      • rucasdad says:

        This execution was successful just like how a race car driver successfully finishes a race in last place. There are better and more efficient ways of doing things, Capt.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Yes, Rucas, there were and are better ways of executing people, but the leftists harassed the drug companies into stopping the supply of those better ways. At least Texas has found a good alternative, and the leftists are trying to find out the supplier so they can go back to harassing people, which in turn makes the executions not go as smoothly. Go figure.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        I don’t know Stern…you may not murder, but we are the people…our State kills people…we kill people.

        It must actually be quite fascinating to be on the wrong side of so many issues. What I feel for you can’t be called “envy”, but it certainly must be kind of exciting to be so very wrong on so many issues.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Yes, HT, we do execute dangerous people that are and remain a threat to others in society, including prison society. Maybe he could have remained in prison society and not be a threat if he never was allowed a chance to return to free society. But that was not an option until over ten years later, after republicans gained control of the state.

      • CaptSternn says:

        And, HT, not ony do we kill people through the state and due process, we allow tens of millions of people to be killed for simple convenience.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        I don’t consider this incident a violation of the 8th amendment in that it was not intentional. It’s not as though he was sentenced to “1 hour and 40 minutes of continuous pain” (it wasn’t 2 hours, mind you).

        It was simply an example of routine punishment gone wrong, a botched execution, but now that we’ve had more than one case of this, it definitely needs to be addressed/revisited – the substance being injected, the method being used by the executioner, etc – to keep this from happening again.

      • John Galt says:

        I keep thinking that Sternn must be pulling our legs, that he can’t really think this was acceptable, but he seems to keep doubling down on this.

      • rucasdad says:

        Capt, I neither have the time nor the patience to play word games with you. If the only intent of executions were to end one’s life, then yes, this execution was successful. However, it’s not and therefore, this execution wasn’t successful. That is all.

      • rucasdad says:

        Capt would attempt to move a mountain before he ever admitted to being wrong. That is a major character flaw.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        In other words, the official sentence from the state was not: “1 hour and 40 minutes of continuous pain.” That was just the accidental result. That’s why I don’t consider it a violation of the 8th amendment.

      • GG says:

        Sternn, try not to get started on abortion. You feel one way, others feel another and never the twain shall meet. It’s useless.

      • CaptSternn says:

        That is a curious comment, Rucas. What do you think the intent of an execution is?

      • desperado says:

        Tuttabella, the drugs used in Arizona were the same combination used in an Ohio execution, and one of the drugs was used in an Oklahoma execution. Both instances produced similar results as happened in Arizona, not as long but still longer than expected. It may not have been intentional, although the argument could be made, but it was at least negligent.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Good point, Tutt. It wasn’t intended to go as it did. Still, the witness accounts report that he wasn’t suffering, he was sedated and asleep.

      • desperado says:

        Correction, the GOVERNMENT witnesses claim there was no suffering. Funny how someone so generally distrustful of government is so willing to swallow their version of the story.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        I was wondering the same thing. Is there anything in the statutes that spells out the official goal of an execution — is it simply to end the life of the convicted one (as long as it doesn’t violate the 8th amendment)?

      • kabuzz61 says:

        I think The Captain’s main point is a good one. He was executed, which was the point. The double murderer was sedated throughout the process. I guess we should bring back the guillotine because death just takes a second. The double murderer didn’t feel anything as the doctor noted and I am quite sure the gulping is a reflective action.

        This is a non issue. If the double murderer was conscience then that would be another story.

      • rucasdad says:

        Capt, then what’s the use of sedatives? Or anything else that’s used nowadays. Why not just take them behind the court house and put a bullet in their head?

        “Well, I think it should be that way but leftist came along and blah blah blah…” – Capt

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Yes, thanks, NEGLIGENCE. That’s the word I was looking for.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Yes Buzz…let’s sedate folks and then we can do all sorts of heinous things to them as we watch them die.

        You folks are funny.

      • CaptSternn says:

        That pretty much nailed it, Rucas. Even the part about the left. But you still didn’t answer the question that you brought up, what is the intent behind an execution?

      • GG says:

        Actually we don’t have a clue whether he suffered or not but suffocating is not a pleasant way to die.

      • GG says:

        Sternn, why is everything with you black and white, left and right? There are thousands of shades in between. If you’d open your mind the world would be a colorful place.

      • rucasdad says:

        I know your reading comprehension isn’t the greatest but if you re-read my comments, you will find the answer to the question you’re looking for.

        Again, I ask, if the sole intent of execution is to end one’s life, then why the need for drug cocktails, preacher, etc..?

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Cap, my name is not Rucas, but to answer your question, I would say the goal of an execution is to the end the life of the convicted one. However, we need to keep in mind the restriction placed by the 8th amendment, so I would say:

        The goal of execution is to end the life of the convicted one, as long as it doesn’t violate the 8th amendment.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Yep, read through your replies again and you do not address the intent of the execution.

        Tutt, ending the life of the person is the method of the intent of removing a threat, a person that is likely to kill again, even if in prison, from society, all society, to prevent that person from ever killing anybody again.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Cap, if that’s the intent, then it shouldn’t matter if the execution is totally pain free, since the goal is simply to remove the person from society once and for all.

        In fact, a painful execution would be “overkill” and unnecessary, gratuitous, since the intent of the execution is NOT to make anyone suffer, but simply to remove them from the face of the earth.

      • CaptSternn says:

        I think that about sums it up, Tutt.

      • rucasdad says:

        Tutt, when dealing with Capt, does one always have to wear kid gloves so as not to burst his fantastical bubble?

        Geez, he must be a hit at parties.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Rucas, the way to deal with Cap is to use pure logic, even if you use his own logic against him. He respects that.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Anyway, we don’t go to parties, just family gatherings, and his uncles are way more vociferous about politics than he is.

      • GG says:

        Well, Tutt, sometimes he is not “logical” at all.

      • Turtles Run says:

        Cappy wrote: Yes, HT, we do execute dangerous people that are and remain a threat to others in society, including prison society.

        So we execute people because we are not able to handle them? That is a bizarre way to justify execution and definitely makes the death penalty unconstitutional. Are these people capable of bending prison bars and smashing through concrete with their bare hands?

      • CaptSternn says:

        Some of my aunts as well, Tutt. 🙂

      • rucasdad says:

        I think the key word there is “his logic”. Which for the most part, isn’t logical at all.

        Also, the party comment was a joke. That’s the last place I could see someone like Stern at. But you mean to tell me, other than the regular going/coming from work, the only social interactions Capt has is with his family who are even more extreme than him? Well now, that explains a lot. Poor guy never had a chance.

      • John Galt says:

        Here’s my take on the death penalty. It does not serve any deterrent effect. They happen too far removed from the crime and relatively rarely to be a deterrent. All the numbers says that murder rates are generally higher in states that use it than states and countries that don’t. It does not save any money, given the appeals that drag on for years (this has been definitely shown). It does not bring the victims back. So what purpose is it? Vengeance is the only think we’re left with. OK, some crimes are so horrific that I’m not going to argue for leniency for the perpetrators.

        But…and this is a big but…there can be no mistakes, ever. If the state’s purpose is vengeance, then it must be exacted on the guilty and only the guilty. Who here believes that no innocent person has ever been executed? Who thinks that the death row inmates who have been exonerated were rare exceptions?

        Arizona had to make a choice when their first choice drug combo was unavailable. They made the same choice as other states who also recently botched executions – in other words they could have and should have known this was a problem, yet they went forward anyway. This is either callous indifference or incompetence, or both. Do you believe that the execution is the first stage of this whole process in which indifference or incompetence was seen? Ask your right wing buddies why they think government incompetence stops at the prison door. Ask Cameron Todd Willingham. Oh, wait…

      • CaptSternn says:

        The death penalty is not about vengeance, John. It is about saving lives of possible future victims. That has already been covered, but there it is again.

      • desperado says:

        How does life without the possibility of parole differ from execution as far as future victims are concerned?

      • John Galt says:

        No, that’s what life in prison without parole is about, Sternn. Killing someone is not necessary to prevent them from committing another crime.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Read the link I provided for Turtles covering prison murder rates. The death penalty is for people that will be a threat to any society, including prison society.

        Not all states have the option of life without the possibility of parole, so the jury has to weigh to possibility of the murderer being released into free society in those cases. Texas was one such state until after the republicans gained control at the end of 2002. Since then the death sentences have been reduced in Texas.

      • John Galt says:

        Preventing the lower-than-on-the-outside risk of being murdered in prison is not a good justification for the state killing someone if there is a non-zero chance of them making a mistake.

        I have not yet seen you answer the question of why you are so willing to give this power to a government you distrust and fear. This seems incredibly inconsistent.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        JG, The Captain did answer it. The state did not convict the man or woman, a jury did as well as the punishment. Cheesh!

      • CaptSternn says:

        I don’t want the government to have that power, John. I have no desire to do away with trial by jury. Why would you think I would support doing away with trial by jury in the first place?

      • Turtles Run says:

        Cappy wrote: It is about saving lives of possible future victims.

        So now we are killing people for possible crimes? Your mental gymnastics are weak today.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Wow…Stern…that is some convoluted logic (sure, we’ll call it that) for why we have the death penalty.

        As usual, your logic doesn’t hold up to analysis, but hey, it makes sense in your head, so run Forest run.

        Let’s go to the research:

        Prisoners sentenced to life without parole do not pose any more threat to other prisoners or corrections personnel than do inmates in the general population, and in most cases “lifers” perpetrate fewer crimes in prison than those eligible for parole.

        Comprehensive research has been performed on inmate misconduct data using various subsets of inmates from Missouri, Texas, Arizona, and Florida, all of which has shown that convicted murderers were not significantly more likely to engage in disciplinary misconduct or commit acts of institutional violence than were inmates serving time for other offenses.

        States with the death penalty had considerably higher prison murder rates on average (4.25/100,000, with four of 38 states reporting no prison homicides in that time period) than those states without the death penalty (.92/100,000, with 7 of 12 states reporting no prison homicides).

        Heck, if you just looked at those folks in more secure lock-ups within the prison, the prison murder rate plummets that much more.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Turtles, not quite but yes, that is part of it. Once a person proves that they are a real donger to society by committin g capital murder, a jury has to decide if that person would be a continuing threat to society, even if that is a prison society. Here is another link for you …

        http://www.txexecutions.org/primer.asp

        HT, already been over that. See the previous link I provided for Turtles.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Stern…was math mean to you as a kid? Did it steal your lunch money or something?

        Why do you dislike math so?

        Yes, we went over in the link you provided, but that link and the information I presented clearly does not mean what you think it means.

        We are not killing folks to stop them from potentially killing other prisoners, however, if that helps you sleep at night, trust your logic.

      • John Galt says:

        The jury makes decisions based on evidence presented (or in many death penalty cases) withheld by prosecutors and police. The decision to seek the death penalty is made by the state’s representatives. The jury hears what they present. You surely can’t be so addled that you are not aware of prosecutorial misconduct that led to the conviction of an innocent person? The case of Anthony Graves is a good one (well, not good at all, actually). His murder conviction, based on the testimony of a supposed accomplice, was overturned. An special prosecutor concluded that the original DA had intentionally withheld evidence. No action was ever taken to discipline or charge this DA with misconduct. A guy spent 16 years in jail, 12 of them on death row, due to the actions of a government official who has faced no consequences. This is not a rare event, particularly in Texas. Jurors in the Willingham case have expressed their (now post-mortem) doubts of his guilt. These are mistakes that cannot be unmade and they happened because juries were manipulated by government prosecutors. It’s worth noting that these instances were all cases of abuse of power by the level of government you hold most dear – the most local ones.

      • CaptSternn says:

        HT, I can only guess that you have never been on a jury panel for a case that involved capital murder. At least open and read the last link I provided for Turtles as it will give you actual information so you can rely on facts and logic rather than emotion alone.

        John, yes, mistakes are made and people are convicted of crimes they did not commit. Thankfully people get exhonerated and freed, even from death row, and no innocent people have been executed in Texas. Still, even if they don’t get the death sentence, those years cannot be given back to them. Better to let ten guilty men go free than convict one innocent man (no, that is not an original quote by me). But that is the power, and responsibility, of the jury. The jury is more powerful than any elected or appointed representative, than the entire legislature, than law enforcement, than any governor and even the president. So again, no, I do not put my trust in any level of government.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Jeffrey Dalmer should hear this liberal love fest. Or Manson. Or Bundy.

      • John Galt says:

        “…no innocent people have been executed in Texas.”

        That is a matter of some debate. I’m sure you lose no sleep over this, but one of the Willingham jurors does. It should be noted that Willingham’s own (state-appointed) attorney was convinced of his guilt, which makes it hard to mount an impassioned defense. The political shenanigans that accompanied a state-commissioned investigation and ended with Rick Perry replacing most of the board members are all pretty damn suspicious.

        http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/15/willingham.juror/
        The controversy has led juror Dorenda Brokofsky to think twice about the decision she made in a jury room in 1992.

        “I don’t sleep at night because of a lot of this,” Brokofsky said. “I have gone back and forth in my mind trying to think of anything that we missed. I don’t like the fact that years later someone is saying maybe we made a mistake, that the facts aren’t what they could’ve been.”

        Brokofsky spoke with CNN by phone from her Midwest home. She has long since moved away from tiny Corsicana, Texas, where the fire took place.

        “I do have doubts now,” she said. “I mean, we can only go with what we knew at the time, but I don’t like the fact now that maybe this man was executed by our word because of evidence that is not true. It may not be true now. And I don’t like the fact that I may have to face my God and explain what I did.”

        “When you’re sitting there with all those facts, there was nothing else we could see,” she said. “Now I don’t know. I can’t tell you he’s innocent, I can’t say 100 percent he’s guilty.”

      • CaptSternn says:

        Proof of giult beyond a reasonable doubt, John, not beyond a shadow of a doubt. He was proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and nothing says that was the wrong verdict.

      • John Galt says:

        Not in death penalty cases, Sternn. The standard should be “beyond any shadow of a doubt” and the acceptable error rate is 0%. This is the state killing people.

        An interesting story appeared today in the print Chronicle (yes, I’m old school and still get a newspaper delivered to my house) in Lisa Falkenberg’s column. It’s behind the paywall currently, but the link is below. It concerns the interrogation by a grand jury foreman of a witness in the murder of a police officer. The witness, a 27 year old mother of three, was testifying that her boyfriend could not have been the killer because he was asleep on the couch at her apartment at the time. The foreman begins essentially threatening her, asking about the penalties for perjury, telling her she’s going to jail, to have her kids taken away, for protecting him. She eventually recants, says she wasn’t sure if he was there or not, and the guy ends up convicted and sent to death row. She was convicted of perjury anyway.

        The catch: the jury foreman was an active duty police officer on the same force as the victim. He was appointed to this role by the DA. The judge who empaneled the grand jury (but did not oversee this case) was shocked. Remember, there is no counsel for witnesses or the defense in a grand jury.

        Later, as the guy sits on death row, some new evidence magically surfaces in, I kid you not, a homicide detective’s garage congaing exculpatory phone records. To their credit, both the DA and trial judge agreed to a new trial but, a year later, the case has not been heard by the Court of Appeals.

        I’m sure this story will not penetrate the warm blanket of self-assurance in which you wrap yourself, but it demonstrates how the deck is stacked against some defendants (do you even need to ask the demographics of the defendant?). Juries make decisions based on the evidence presented and if that is biased or incomplete, then wrong decisions are made.

        http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/columnists/falkenberg/article/Cop-was-foreman-of-grand-jury-in-cop-killing-5645494.php

      • bubbabobcat says:

        JG, that is fascinating. I request you repost it at the top as a separate line item for more to see, instead of buried down here if you so agree. You can even note it was my request.

        Thanks for sharing.

    • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

      It is always a bit funny that it tends to be the folks who trust the gov’t the least who love the death penalty the most.

      Gov’t can’t be trusted to do anything right, but you folks assume they get the death penalty right 100% of the time.

      It is baffling.

      • rucasdad says:

        Do they even notice for one second their wavering standards or hypocrisy?

      • CaptSternn says:

        There is no love for the death penalty. But don’t let that stop you from making things up as you go.

      • CaptSternn says:

        HT, as you said earlier, we, the people of the state, hand down the death penalty through a jury trial. It is up to the public servants to carry out the will of the people.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        And your jury trial regarding the death penalty is wholly and completely determined by public servants that are generally viewed to be incompetent by many of your brethren.

        Yes Captain Semantic, you do not love the death penalty, so maybe it should have been,

        “It is always a bit funny that it tends to be the folks who trust the gov’t the least who support the death penalty the most.”

        Although, if you want to be pretty exacting in the language, it would be fair to say that the supporters of the death penalty love the death penalty more than the opponents of the death penalty, so there is a pretty fair argument that the original wording was spot on.

      • CaptSternn says:

        I think I will keep your wording in mind for the next time abortion comes up.

      • GG says:

        The abortion thing is getting old. It’s legal whether you like or not. Most civilized countries have made it legal.

      • CaptSternn says:

        The death penalty is also legal and ruled to be constitutional. Guess that’s the end of that, right GG?

      • GG says:

        Cappy, you seem to think I don’t agree with capital punishment and the death penalty? Believe me, I support it but I don’t believe it should take 2 hours or even thirty minutes to do it. I have no problem with either being legal. I know that doesn’t fit in with your “leftist, progressive” image of me but I’ve never claimed to be so and always said I was somewhere in the middle.

      • fiftyohm says:

        HT – From waaay above, you made an excellent point. It is that quite specifically that which gives me pause on the issue. It is pretty inarguable there are people who don’t deserve to breathe. The problem is just who is qualified to make that decision? We should all keep in mind that criminal juries are picked from the same pool as civil ones. Civil trials are subject to the “talents” of the attorneys in the same manner as criminal ones. Nobody is going to argue that we’ve not seen such miscarriages of justice in the civil system as to make us all cringe. The real problem is that anything approaching that is completely unacceptable when we’re talking about killing someone.

      • Bart-1 says:

        GG, I believe it was turtles who stated, “Just because it is legal doesn’t make it right”.

    • rucasdad says:

      Tutt, this is why we don’t stone people to death or put them in the guillotine – we’ve evolved. Now, if some people (two people actually)want to ignore the reason why we’ve evolved over things like this, it is them who is confused and/or being selectively stupid.

    • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

      I love that Buzz and Stern are hanging their pro death penalty hats on the trial by jury, when it is the government (e.g., prosecutor) who decides whether to pursue death penalty cases. The government (e.g., judges) who decides what evidence will and won’t be submitted and what instructions to give the jury.

      Of course, for Buzz and Stern…there will be nothing at all racial about the death penalty.

      Buzz will talk about the time a white dude was executed for killing a black dude, and all other data does not exist.

      However, for those of us in the real world:

      Race of Victim in Cases Resulting in Execution:
      White – 77%
      Black – 15%
      Hispanic – 6%
      Other – 2%.

      Oddly, Blacks make up about 50% of homicide victims. Killing a Black person, bad, but not so bad to get executed. Killing a White person…well, let’s get sparky.

      For fun, if the victim is White, Black people are three times more likely to be sentenced to death than White people.

      The race of the victim is the single best predictor of whether someone will be sentenced to death.

      Moral of the story when it comes to our criminal justice system….don’t be Black.

      • CaptSternn says:

        It is still the jury that decides. You seem to put a lot more trust in government and government officials than you put in yourself. That is a common trait among the left. So I guess you are the one that wants to do away with trial by jury instead of me.

      • Crogged says:

        Willingham, arson ‘science’ and our appeals process are about the second entrance in the apartment building for the rent paying population.

  10. bubbabobcat says:

    Very impressed with the compassion and leadership of the church leaders. And this comment mirrored my sentiments so completely, I am reposting it (AND attributing it) verbatim:

    TheraP Midwest 13 minutes ago

    “These children, through no fault of their own, are now refugees. So it is heartening and commendable how many religious and moral leaders are responding to this situation as a humanitarian crisis.

    At the same time the lack of caring on the part of so many (here and elsewhere) suggests that we as a nation are also experiencing a crisis of morality.

    When you look at this in terms of the stages of moral development, those people who want to extend care to these children cite reasons which place them on the higher developmental stages, especially the stages where the plight of anyone becomes the duty of everyone. Sadly, however, those who express themselves based purely on legalities or selfish motives are placing themselves quite low on a scale of moral development.

    An ability to see oneself in the face of any refugee (‘there but by the grace of God go I’) suggests a person of wisdom and compassion. But viewing the refugee, the unaccompanied child, as an undeserving miscreant suggests the ‘viewer’ has failed to gain the wisdom and compassion of mature moral development.

    I read these comments and they tell me more about the writer than they do about the children, about whom Jesus said: ‘Let the little children come to me.’ ”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/24/us/us-religious-leaders-embrace-cause-of-immigrant-children.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=HpSum&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

    • desperado says:

      Hear, hear. There but for the grace of God, and the good luck to have been born north of the Rio Grande, go all of us.

      • Bart-1 says:

        Hear, hear !! I say we don’t just cherry pick which scriptures we like to determine public policy in America!

      • desperado says:

        “There but for the grace of God go I” is not a scripture, Bible scholar Bart.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        And coming from the “Bible scholar” who obviously doesn’t follow the 9th Commandment, and apparently DOES cherry pick which part of the Bible he does follow, ain’t that right bart?

        Man you really have the hypocrisy thingy down pat bart.

        WWJD? I’m guessing facepalming at just about every one of bart’s “Christian” actions and utterances.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        And who the hell is “KC” bart? What new delusion of yours is that?

      • Bart-1 says:

        Oh, jeez, I could have sworn the article KC posted a quote from Jesus saying, “Let the little children come to me”.

    • CaptSternn says:

      Lots of emotion, short on logic. Even invoked Godwin’s Law, comparing countries in Central America to Nazi Germany.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Yes Cap lots of emotion. No one is denying that. It’s called compassion.

        And it was Jews comparing sheltering Jewish children from the Holocaust so I think they have quite a bit more moral authority to determine the legitimacy than you Cappy. And Godwin’s Law is not cart blanche to never allowing comparisons to the Holocaust or Nazi Germany to any other incidents in history. Sometimes the comparisons are accurate.

        And I’m sure Cappy that “logic” dictates your extreme passion for “protecting” a gob of human cells over a fully formed thinking and feeling human child.

        Glad I don’t have your “logic”. And these are your “Judeo-Christian” leaders speaking that you are opposed to Cappy.

        But continue to be on the wrong side of history and common human decency Cappy. We wouldn’t expect any less from you.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Well then, we should go forth and invade all the nations of the world and impose our laws. Doit for the children. They are just children. Look at them, the children, have you no compassion, Bubba? Don’t you want us to go out and save all those children?

      • texan5142 says:

        No gray area for you Cappy? Always black and white? No color? I don’t believe that you are a person who does not care about his fellow human beings, but you are callous in your postings.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Yes, Texan, I care about my fellow human beings. Have you not understood that in my position against abortion?

        How many of these illegals are really refugees and how many are just taking advantage of our lack of law enforcement? I bet you will find that the vast majority are in the latter group, taking us for granted and abusing good will and lack of enforcemnt. Only often they end up as semi-slave labor, or actual slave labor as Lifer pointed out with one of the links he provided in response to one of my comments.

        A person can have compassion, but logic must be used before blind emotion. Some times that can be callous or harsh, but in that good can be achieved. We turn these people back, show them that they wasted their money for nothing, and fewer will do so in the future. That helps us and it helps others.

      • Turtles Run says:

        “How many of these illegals are really refugees and how many are just taking advantage of our lack of law enforcement?”

        That is why we enforce our laws and find out you is an actual refugee or not. But since the tea crowd refuses to allocate funds to increase the courts the backlogs are going to grow. Look in the mirror if you want to blame someone.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Turtles, have you stopped for even one second to ask yourself why we are having a sudden flood of illegal immigrants, or is that just too much?

    • kabuzz61 says:

      I stated a number of times when Chris was continuing to post his “TEA Party Racist” rant that there is a humanitarian crisis going on. Three weeks later Chris deems it worthy of a post. What does that say?

      Many groups, even Glenn Beck is on the border taking care of meeting the needs of the kids. That is what we should do. But like a huge majority of Americans they need to be sent back to their parents or guardians in the country they came from. The kids (most on average 16) and their parents were under the impression that if you come across as a minor you stay.

      So you can meet their needs and follow the law at the same time.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        And that is exactly what is happening buzzy. Except when they are being turned away by your brethren. And when your ilk are not allowing the Federal government to deal with the crisis by denying funding so they can then turn around and scream “Obama is doing nothing!” Or mismanaging the crisis. And hysterically shrieking they are gang members or infecting the country with “their” diseases that already exist in this country.

        And I don’t find your “humanitarian crisis” comment in my extensive and detailed dossier buzzy so please point us to it and let’s see the context of your comments if it even exists.

        Nice try buzzy. You guys own the hate buzzy. As always. Deal with it. At least you have some pang of guilt now for your hate.

      • Tuttabella says:

        Well, my memory tells me kabuzz brought up the “humanitarian crisis” on several occasions, about kids being housed in airport hangars by President Obama, many with diseases, before it became big news.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Buzz has been talking about scabies for weeks.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Thank you Tutt and Houston. I would still like to see buzzy’s full comments in context.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Tutt AND Homer [although sarcastically] supported my assertion that I brought up this crisis weeks ago but yet you refuse to believe it. Where were you when I was saying we have a humanitarian crisis going on? You just didn’t care I guess.

        As always, it comes down to money with Bubba. That is the ‘never waste a crisis’ logic that goes on in the dem party.

        HHS people are stating that they do not have accurate health data on the illegals but yet think they have the right to ‘dump’ them in cities without permission. There are a lot of mothers out there that are concerned about their own kids health and do not want to put their children at risk at this point.

        So you continue to shout from the roof tops that conservatives are this or that, but it has been YOU who has been missing from this crisis from the beginning.

      • Crogged says:

        Yes Kabuzz did bring this issue up, he deserves credit for bringing it up. We also received some of the usual excess, but who’s counting other than Tutts, Turtles et al……..

      • Tuttabella says:

        I do feel emotion is playing too big a role here, on both sides. This went from being about unaccompanied “children,” to “teenagers,” to “youngsters” not so alone, because many of them have family here.

        Because of their age and the violence they have been exposed to, they are probably not complete angels, as many on one side like to portray them, nor are they a bunch of disease-ridden gang members, either.

        The only real problem I have with the Obama administration’s handling of this affair is sending these kids to cities and towns without the towns’ approval. There seem to be many cities wiling to take these kids in. Perhaps arrangements can be made with sympathetic cities instead. I just hope these sympathetic cities don’t turn out to by NIMBY towns when all is said and done.

      • John Galt says:

        Wow, Texan, that’s disgusting. If the people at that meeting really said what was reported, then they should be ashamed of themselves. If you want the opposite of Christian compassion, then there you have it. They’re also wrong about the disease angle. Vaccination rates in Central America are often higher than you’d see in the congregation of a Dallas mega-church.

      • GG says:

        That story is disgusting. What vile people they are. And what exactly are “religious fears”? WTF?

      • kabuzz61 says:

        The key JG is ‘if the story is accurate’. Also, it is the HHS leaders that are saying they do not have enough data on the health of the teenages coming across. H1N1, strep, etc. can spread fairly quickly so when a town asks for accurate data on the health screening, that is the towns job. Houston has a Health department also and it is there job NOT to put Houstonians at risk knowingly and to request accurate data. When departments do their jobs, you can’t fault them as being uncompassionate.

      • texan5142 says:

        “These people are not coming in with a good, Christian heart. ”

        The stupid, it burns.

      • texan5142 says:

        kabuzz61 says:
        July 24, 2014 at 9:46 am
        The key JG is ‘if the story is accurate’.

        Remember that the next time you post something from WND or Breitbart.

      • GG says:

        Lol. Not only the stupid, the hypocrisy.

      • John Galt says:

        Strep can spread quickly?

        Others have worried about polio in immigrants. There has not been a case of polio in the Western Hemisphere in more than 25 years. There is virtually no leprosy (which is treatable anyway). Most kids in Central America are vaccinated against tuberculosis. This is fear mongering, pure and simple.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        JG, you are right. There are no illnesses, diseases or anything else that we American’s can catch. We cured it all. We just ought to shut down the Health and Human Services department and maybe even the CDC. MRSA and CER are just fearmongering. What right to we have to protect ourselves? In fact, let’s get rid of the use of latex gloves in hospitals, there isn’t any problem we can’t cure. And I thought you were some sort of micro biologist.

      • Crogged says:

        I think the biggest threat is the belief immigrants turn blue over time. I’m not quite sure what that means, unless it’s a reference to the Smurfs, which I thought were fictional,

    • bubbabobcat says:

      No Cappy, invading other countries for no reason whatsoever is your domain and philosophy. And you are really pathetic in reaching for red herrings to try to “win” an argument you know you have lost ethically from day one.

      There are children in need ON OUR SOIL NOW that we need to deal with humanely and compassionately and you just want to throw them in the Rio Grande River without a concern or a qualm.

      But save those blastocytes!

      • CaptSternn says:

        Picky, picky, picky, Bubba. Seems your “compassion” only goes as far as trying to score political points.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        It is true that Bubba spews mean, very mean spirited hyperbole with little or no provacation, so for him to lecture anyone of compassion is just priceless.

      • GG says:

        I don’t see anything particularly “mean” in his post and I’ve noticed that with Dan gone this place is quite pleasant and peaceful.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Bubba: “…And you are really pathetic” ; “…you just want to throw them in the Rio Grande River” , and that is just this small section of discussion.

        Bubba beats out DanMan any day. Just watch.

      • GG says:

        No, I’ve never heard Bubba call ANYONE a “cum guzzling, gutter slut” which is what most likely got Mr. Dan banished along with his constant attacks on everyone he didn’t like and his boasts of trying to shut down this blog. I never could figure out that one. It was almost like jealousy.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Bubba has posted more than his share of angry name-calling hate-filled comments of his own.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        GG: Bubba has posted some particularly ugly stuff to OV.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        What Dan called GG on that occasion was disgusting and unacceptable, but if we try to compare Dan with Bubba overall, there is no comparison. Bubba wins the prize.

        Sorry, Bubba. It’s the truth.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Dan got called on it, the left never calls out Bubba.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        GG, ironically, I was just telling Cap the other day that this place has been rather calm since you, Sassy, and Rush have been gone. Hard to explain, since you guys are not necessarily negative. It’s just an energy level the 3 of you produce when you’re together.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        I think each of us here has a different effect on one another. I find the presence of certain people peaceful and relaxing — HT, Texan, John Galt, Fly, Crogged, even Dan.

        Other people give off so much intensity I’m put off by their mere presence. I won’t name names.

      • GG says:

        Funny, Tutt, if I’m one of the “intense” ones because in real life I’m very laid back and a real hoot to be around.

      • GG says:

        I’ll also repeat that since Dan’s been gone this place has a much better vibe. Dan was a classic internet troll. Came in immediately flinging poo and creating upheaval in an attempt to hijack the blog.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Well Tutt, pull your dossier and tell me what “vile names” I have called her. I have called her ignorant, and fact challenged, willfully ignorant, obtuse, and stupid, a brainless hypocritical whiner, and playing the fake victim and lacking nuance and followed up with proof that it was an accurate assertion.

        And she has called me a “liberal moron” among other niceties and typical of a wingnut, here is her blatant admission to enjoying being a troll:

        objv says:
        March 19, 2014 at 3:35 pm
        “I actually enjoy getting bubba all wound up.”

        And somehow Tutt’s assessment is “if we try to compare Dan with Bubba overall, there is no comparison. Bubba wins the prize” over Delicate Dan’s “cum guzzling, gutter slut” vulgarity and personal attack. Okaaaaay.

        I believe your friendship with OV is coloring your “Objectivity” Tutt.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        And you think Cap is intense, and he SO laid back, mild-mannered, go with the flow.

        I’m the complicated one.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Actually, no, Bubba, because as a fellow animal lover I consider you a semi-friend, so I have reason to cut you some slack now, too, and you still come out losing.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        And you lie Cappy. But you always were/are in your own narrative bubble.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Houston and I have gone back and forth on my gay exchanges with Dan. And I explained myself. Not to his liking but that was my perspective.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        VIBES. That’s the word I was looking for.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Bubba, you could say my myopia has spread to you, too.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        There were many times I saw DanMan throw some invective that made me say to myself “well, that’s too much”. I remember a time The Captain told me once I went a little too far and I agreed. Sometimes emotion does go whacko.

        Having said that, Bubba, you are mean right out of the chute. Your hate is almost like a living entity. You can definitely turn it down quite a few notches.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Well let’s see buzzy, you see a “mean invective” from Dan and you merely mutter to yourself only and do nothing of significance and publicly absolve/excuse his behavior entirely and yet you consistently harangue me for being “mean right out of the chute”. And considering the invectives you spew freely, forgive me if your hypocritical partisan whining means absolutely nothing to me.

        Cranky hypocritical kitties in glass litter boxes hurling petrified poop and all you know.

      • Turtles Run says:

        Please Tutt. Buzzy and Dan generally begin their conversations by insulting people. Bubba chooses to not suffer these people and is quick to react to them. He is also quite capable of having an intelligent conversation. Buzzy and Dan are not capable of such a feat.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Sorry, Turtles, I must respectfully disagree with you.

      • Crogged says:

        Bubbabobcat, it is faint praise to say someone is ‘ignorant, and fact challenged, willfully ignorant, obtuse, and stupid, a brainless hypocritical whiner, and playing the fake victim’ if not vile.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Well Crogged we have different perspectives and patience levels. I believe respect is a two way street that is earned. With a modicum of a benefit of a doubt for all to start with. And that unearned respect is quite finite for me to give. And I also firmly believe that “taking the high road” only allows the other party that doesn’t, to control the narrative and turning the other cheek only gets both cheeks slapped.

        And as Turtles noted (thank you sir), I can have heated and strong but intelligent and civil debates with the likes of FiftyOhm and TThor on the opposing side if the measure of respect is equitable. They never insult me (at least not to the level I can readily discern…) and I do not initiate it with them. Seems like a simple enough guideline.

        So why would the converse not be appropriate also? And if I don’t let an insult pass unanswered otherwise with shall we say, untowards posters, or deal with a willful or self admitted troll in less than a decorous manner, that is my prerogative (and Chris’s final prerogative ultimately of course). You may prefer to deal with a troll (who is obviously not intellectually or ethically honest) with kid gloves. I do not.

        And you may consider some of my choice adjectives “vile” and excessive but that is your perspective and you have a right to it and I have a right to a differing perspective even from the same end of the political spectrum. Especially if from my perspective, it can easily be remedied by the “other side”.

        As I have noted repeatedly, if you don’t want to be characterized as an “ignorant, and fact challenged, willfully ignorant, obtuse, stupid, and a brainless hypocritical whiner playing the fake victim”, don’t act like one. Which I have documented to buttress my assertions for all to see and assess for themselves.

        Yet Tutt states that somehow my postings are worse than Dan calling GG a ““cum guzzling, gutter slut” which I doubt that anyone believes Dan has a basis for that characterization other than to crudely and callously insult and demean. But that is her perspective and she has a right to it and I have a right to disagree and state as such. .

      • Crogged says:

        Bubbabobcat, too often in real life I explode, my emotions rule, especially when I think I’m right and someone isn’t hearing me because of insincerity . I’m wondering if this means I have life completely backwards because the insincere will never listen anyway, so why get angry? Some people aren’t as much ‘trolls’ as ‘tribbles’, thriving with conflict (old first cast Star Trek reference). Even in his anger Dan had a sardonic sense of humor which sometimes hit a familiar spot in me, and I do love a self righteous rant unless it ends with an announcement of leaving the room. A couple of times I got into the spirit of the oneupsmanship with him, he can turn a clever insult on occasion and I’m just weak in the ways I find fun in life. And all of us turn to our own bubbles of sealed comfort, our friends send us the emails confirming our beliefs, we read media outlets which do the same and on and on we go. A link and a quote from another story below.

        “The performance of Republicans and their media hacks inspired understandable mockery from progressive journalists. But their eye-rolling blinded at least some of them to totally reasonable privacy concerns that much of the country might harbor about Obamacare. The lesson for Republicans: Your serial hackery undermines everything a less incompetent opposition might accomplish. The lesson for progressives: outsmarting the most hackish Republicans isn’t enough to fix the flaws in legislation that you championed and passed, substantial warts and all. Playing the Washington Generals does not make you the Harlem Globetrotters.”

        http://www.theatlantic.com/personal/archive/2010/10/a-culture-of-poverty/64854/

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Thank you bart-1/seriouscynic/usincrisis for proving my point yet again.

        Whoops, that was pretty “vile” of me wasn’t it?

      • Bart-1 says:

        just being “consistent” right?

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Definitely not your type of “consistency”, hypocrite.

        But thank you for cluelessly proving my point yet again.

        You really can’t help showcasing your arrested emotional development, can you bart?

        No wonder you fit in so well with 12 year olds for so long.

  11. kabuzz61 says:

    Tutt is getting bored with the same debates on marraige, etc. So how about we discuss the Israel/Gaza mess. It is getting out of control.

    Or the Malaysian airliner that was shot down by a Russian missle.

    There is plenty of items to discuss.

    Just don’t bring up gays to Homer or marraige to The Captain. 😉

    • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

      Those are easy. Stay the heck away from Gaza/Israel.

      There is nothing for us to do with Russia. The EU as a whole won’t step up sanctions.

      As of last night, the evidence suggested that they likely did not intentionally target a civilian aircraft. If that is true, it is a horrible mistake (but one made before by others).

      I’m pretty sure our involvement in a shooting war in Russia would not be in our best interests.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        If we are to “stay away” from Gaza/Israel, perhaps we should begin doing so by radically reducing the amount of foreign aid we supply to Israel. Despite being one of the smallest nations on the planet, they are by far our largest recipient of foreign aid (Egypt being, as I recall, a distant second).

        After the United States shot down a civilian Iranian airliner (Iran Air Flight 655, in 1988), we paid Iran $131.8 million as a settlement. Perhaps Russia should be expected to offer similar reparations, promptly and without quarrel. (They can thus claim a kind of moral superiority over the U.S., which took eight years to settle.) After all, supporting insurgents devoted to another country’s overthrow ought to expose you to risks as well as benefits.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        But what about Jesus?

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        What do the Balearic Islands have to do with Israel? 🙂

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesús_(Ibiza)

    • John Galt says:

      I went to Jerusalem about 15 years ago. Part of the conference program was a tour of the Tower of David at which they went through the history of the old city (surprisingly small). On multiple occasions, the place got new landlords who decided that the best way to keep the peace was to murder the old inhabitants and replace them with friendlier folks. This has happened 20-some times in the past 4,000 years. This in a region noted for having very long memories. We will not solve the Israel/Gaza problem.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Totally agree. The only thing keeping Israel in check is us. If GAZA had the weapons Israel has, I have no doubt they would use them.

  12. Bobo Amerigo says:

    The repetitive nature of some posts has caused me to wish for a general and wholesale re-design of blogs.

    The idea most dear to my heart is similar to the program they use at school to determine if a student’s submitted paper has a percentage of material duplicated from other submitted papers and published resources.

    At some percentage, the professor can say a paper demonstrates plagiarism and kick it back.

    On blogs, my desire is to have similar software check the contents of each blog comment for similarity to earlier posts by that commentator.

    When some duplication threshold, perhaps set by the blog’s owner, is met, other commentators get to vote yes or no on whether the offending comment is published.

    We’d probably all clean up our acts.

    • Crogged says:

      We could footnote or acknowledge sources, which would be a real pleasure to read……..

      • Bobo Amerigo says:

        I love footnotes myself. I just followed one at work and found just the information I was searching for. Can’t beat that. But not everyone shares my enthusiasm, I get that.

    • tuttabellamia says:

      Bobo, I’m pretty sure you’ve posted this before.

      • Bobo Amerigo says:

        So you’re the plagiarism checker?

        And if I didn’t post this before, I should have. Lord knows I’ve thought about it enough.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Bobo, I think Tutt was being facetiously ironic for effect and not actually accusing you.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Actually, I KNOW you’ve posted this before. You have plagiarized yourself.

        I have an excellent memory, but for Plagiarism Checker I nominate Bubba or Turtles. They seem to have dossiers on all of us going back quite a while, and they are good at plucking words from the past to haunt us.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Bobo, it’s okay to plagiarize yourself. 🙂

        As for repetitive posts, I know I complain often about them, but sometimes it’s a good idea to repost certain really good ideas that get lost in the traffic– for example, that very one you just reposted.

        If you post a comment a nobody reads it, it’s like it never happened.

        This is cool — BOBO and BUBBA — together on one thread.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Bubba, I think Bobo was also being playful in her reply to me. 🙂

      • Crogged says:

        I like footnotes myself and one day I will finish reading Infinite Jest (three years and counting……..). And what is the quote, “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds’? Throw some Whitman in there (I contradict myself) and dammit, you will not get me to admit my repetition or inconsistency is a bad thing……

    • bubbabobcat says:

      Bobo, reminds of a cheating incident in high school I was involved in. I allowed a kid to copy my English assignment of some book analysis (“Scarlet Letter” I think). Then he let someone else copy it. I think about a half dozen kids ended up with the same report and being lazy and dumb teenagers everyone copied it verbatim and of course the teacher easily caught it. We were all punished with lowered grades on the report.But I noticed that I and some of the other minority kids involved received lower grades than the only White kid involved who copied MY original report initially. Of course since we were all ethically lapsed to begin with, I never confronted the teacher who was White. But you draw your own conclusions.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        I see a pattern here among the nominees for Plagiarism Police — Bubba, Turtles, and me:

        We minorities have excellent memories. Either that, or we just like to constantly bring up the past.

      • Bobo Amerigo says:

        Now that’s just interesting, bubba.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Or credit where credit where credit is due Tutt, or consistency, or owning your own words and actions good or bad, or not blatantly lying and saying whatever you feel to make your point, or just being generally ethical and not a hypocrite, or…good memories.

        And a good dossier. 😉

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        Is it “Great minds run in the same channel” or “Fools think alike”?

        For the group under discussion, I nominate the former.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Bubba, the part about the white kid who got a higher score than you on a paper that YOU wrote reminds me of the story of how Charlie Chaplin, the man himself, as a joke entered a Charlie Chaplin lookalike contest, and he came in THIRD!

    • GG says:

      Are you discussing general comments or the vitriol that has escalated and caused someone to go to banned camp or at least temporary exile in the last few days? Or both?

      • Bobo Amerigo says:

        Not speaking for anyone else, I’m talking about comments that recycle claims repeatedly. New ideas are necessary for civilization.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        We need originality and imagination.

    • John Galt says:

      We all seem to think that our arguments are so sound and persuasive that the only possible reason why those on the other side have not been convinced is that they must not have heard us the first time.

  13. Crogged says:

    Seeing Tutt’s comment below, let’s try this. What the author proposes is ‘INFLATION’! If I owe you money, inflation is good for me, but bad for you (and remember this when talking about the ‘crushing’ national debt).

    Creditors don’t like inflation.

    • Owl of Bellaire says:

      And, presumably, creditors would *love* deflation.

      But we don’t make societal or economic decisions based purely on what creditors would like. There is a bigger picture at stake than simplistically vicious self-interest — at least, for most folks other than certain scabrous conservative commentators.

    • tuttabellamia says:

      In a post WAY down below, when this blog entry first appeared, I suggested that inflation, and higher wages, would help to give value to commodities and workers, so that perhaps we would see them in a better, more appreciative light, and not something or someone to be abused, disposable, and how this might lead to less waste overall, and better for the environment.

      • Crogged says:

        I don’t see a political party endorsing inflation and winning an election. If we aren’t ‘takers’, many of us are ‘hangers on’ and many of the institutions we work for would furiously oppose such actions.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        What are YOU, Crogg-ED? How would you describe yourself? Giver? Taker? Observer?

      • Crogged says:

        I am sand, I am sea, I be the walrus.

        A grumpy, anonymous hanger on. One of the comments below (it could be deleted now) tried to say that the problem with comments is anonymity, and sometimes anonymity makes people mean and invincible. Years ago someone told me (and I KNOW I’ve said this before, post 9763 to blog 4593) that the goal of communication differs between men and women. In real life I try too hard to ‘win’, if I were a better person I would be more dogmatic here and less so trying to win every argument in real life.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Our resident Deleted One always manages to come back. Such is the power of rebirth and resurrection on blogs. You always get a second chance, and a third, and so on.

    • John Galt says:

      Inflation is exactly how we reduced debt after WWII, when it was even higher (as %GDP) than today. Real interest rates (interest rates minus inflation) were negative for most of the 1950s. We have low inflation now, but we also have seriously low interest rates. This is generally not good for savers, but it doesn’t require wrenching political decisions so that is what will happen this time too.

  14. CaptSternn says:

    Off topic, but here is something a bit interesting …

    http://www.chron.com/news/local/article/Transgender-woman-from-S-A-gets-her-dream-wedding-5633255.php

    Well whataya know, same sex couples do have the right to get married in Texas after all. No police raids, no arrests, no fines, no taking of citizenship, no prison sentences, no punishment at all.

    • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

      Stern…I’m going with my good angels tonight and assume your tongue is planted firmly in cheek (for some poor attempt at humor) rather than being wildly ignorant of gay and transgender issues.

      • CaptSternn says:

        No, HT, guess I will dissapoint you, but I am quite serious.

        Some of us have pet peeves. Mine is the definition of words, especially the differences between rights, entitlements and privileges. Also between socialists, communists, capitalists and anarchists.

        Tutt has an issue with the differences between immigrant, migrant and ex-pat.

        Words have meanings, definitions. I do not agree with the idea that people can make up their own definitions as they see fit, on the fly.

        Health care is a right, same-sex marriage is a right, to keep and bear arms is a right. Am I owed an AR-15 if I cannot afford to buy one? What about the ammunition? How much ammunition?

        Free speech is a right. Am I owed a state funded paper if I cannot afford to publish my own?

        Am I owed billboards if I cannot afford to rent them? Should another person be denied billboard space if they can afford it and if the owner disagrees wit the message?

        Are publishers required to print any books I might write? Are you required to buy my books and read them?

        Shoud a black man be forced to serve a white man against his will?

        Should we do away with innocent until proven guilty and have assumed and automatic guilt?

        Do you really want to open this again?

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        I do like Captain Semantic here…words have great meanings, and the meanings change over time and in context.

        When people say “Same sex marriage”, you, I, and everyone in the world knows that they mean marriage recognized by the state. You, rather than being a stickler for words, are being kind of an ass about it because you can. That is fine, whatever gets your jollies.

        Your dismissal of gay marriage with, “hey, you guys can have a cute party, dress up, and call it whatever you want” is pretty weak. With your definition, my very adorable 6 year old next door neighbor has “married” each of my two-year olds on multiple occasions, and that has to be a bit demeaning to two folks who really would like to get married and have it recognized by the state and everyone else.

        At least a few Supreme Court justices disagree with you about marriage and rights, but hey, justices are wrong all the time (except when you agree with their ruling).

        Of course, you believe the state has the right to deny marriage licenses to inter-racial couples, so I think everyone here probably has to take your position on gay marriage with an entire Morton’s container of salt.

      • John Galt says:

        Sternn, your misdirection here is not going to work. We owe nothing material to gay couples (or interracial couples or good old white couples). We do not owe them a fancy ceremony or a big cake. We don’t have to watch their first dance or bow our heads at their sentimental readings. The only thing we owe them is to treat them under the law the same as everyone else. You pretend (and I use that word quite intentionally) to misunderstand this. When we refer to their rights, or the rights of anyone, we do not mean privileges or freebies or any such thing. What we mean is simply that all people should be treated the same under the law. That judge that you belatedly remembered simply has to look at any two competent adults before him or her and treat them the same as any other pair. That’s it. That’s all we want.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Two adults, John? Why not three? Or five? Or fifty? You think it is wrong to deny state recognition for some consenting adults, but just fine with denying it for other consenting adults?

        At least I can be consistent, the state should recognize same-sex marriages, polygamous marriages, group marriages. I will say it is still a privilege that the state can deny, as long as it doesn’t acutually make it illegal and violate the rights of the adults. Oh, right, it does dio that with other forms of marriage among consenting adults. You ok with that, John?

      • tuttabellamia says:

        HT, so the twins are polygamists, then, and the Girl Next Door is a little bigamist?

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Cap, would you really vote to approve marriage of up to 50 people if it came up as a referendum in your area, or are you just throwing out an extreme example, your usual all-or-nothing approach which just results in, well, nothing. So, if John Galt doesn’t approve of 50 people in a marriage, hey, then he has no right to approve of two people of the same sex in a marriage

      • tuttabellamia says:

        The all-or-nothing approach is a clever way of ending up with NOTHING, because ALL is usually impractical and sometimes even impossible, a clever way of creating an impasse and maintaining the status quo.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        I would vote to legalize marijuana; however I will not, until ALL drugs are legalized. No legalization of marijuana until cocaine, heroin, and opium are legalized as well.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Yes I would, Tutt. It would do me no harm, just a legal contract among consenting adults.

        Yes, John could support same-sex marriage and oppose polygamy, but isn’t that just picking and choosing whom to discriminate against? Kind of like being alright with discrimination as long as it is the discrimination he supports?

      • tuttabellamia says:

        We must be consistent; otherwise we are being discriminatory against users of cocaine, heroin, and opium.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        No picking and choosing among drug users allowed.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Yes, I do oppose all prohibition as well.

      • John Galt says:

        Why not three or five or fifty? Because legal marriage is a contract between two people that establishes rights and responsibilities towards each other. Some of these, like the implicit medical power of attorney, are necessarily between two people such that there is one person (and not a committee) empowered with this responsibility. Other issues, such as inheritance become fraught with fraud possibilities if a person could marry 10 people, to a greater extent than with one person. Some of these are not actually that significant and could be extended to more than one partner, I suppose.

        More to the point, however, you and others bring this up to suggest a slippery slope in which legalization of one thing you consider to be unnatural will open the gates to many other things you consider unnatural. I’m surprised you haven’t suggested someone marrying their child or their dog.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        In fact, we need to bring back Prohibition against alcohol, to be fair to all drug users. We need to be across-the-board fair. No special treatment for drinkers of alcohol.

        Cap, you oppose all prohibition, but we have only partial prohibition. Therefore, to be consistent, we should prohibit ALL substances.

      • GG says:

        Ok, I will weigh in on polygamy and group marriage. I don’t think there is anything wrong with it as long as it’s consenting adults and equitable for all involved. Legally, however it;s going to be a big mess. The other problem is that it’s usually accompanied by a patriarchal hierarchy that is inequitable for the women and girls. See the Warren Jeffs clan as an example. Underage forced marriages, sexual abuse of children, incest, physical abuse of young boys and so on. They are also huge welfare frauds as each extra wife is getting government money.

      • CaptSternn says:

        We are talking about consenting adults, John, not children or dogs.

        You bring up the case of medical decisions and inheritance, but that is already done when there are multiple children and one parent has already passed away, so that structure already exists.

        The point is that you are just fine with discrimination as long as it is your prefered form of discrimination. You don’t mind the state having the power to decide what marriages it will recognize except when you do mind.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        I swear to God, we are beyond stupid, having the same conversations day in and day out.

        We are pathetic, really.

      • GG says:

        Sounds like it’s time for a new topic then Tutt.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        GG, there is no new topic. We always come back to the same topics, even when Lifer tries to introduce a new idea, and we say the same stuff.

        We say the same things about the same topics.

      • GG says:

        Well, it’s been said before no one is going to change anyone else’s mind here.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Anyway, GG. Welcome back. 🙂

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Seriously, there are times when I just want to smash my computer.

      • GG says:

        Thank you Tutt. I took a break from this place for awhile plus I’ve been keeping busy with the bf and weekend trips and such.

      • John Galt says:

        Nonsense. We do not have a structure to determine who gets to make medical decisions in the case of an incompetent parent and multiple children beyond hoping they are in agreement. When they aren’t it gets ugly. Same for parents dealing with minor children. The spousal issue is the one case in which it is clearly delineated.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Ah…Stern…I love how you lightly drop the bomb in with, ” will say it is still a privilege that the state can deny, as long as it doesn’t acutually (sic) make it illegal and violate the rights of the adults. ”

        So, to put it another way, you believe the State can deny interracial couple marriage licenses as long as the State does nothing else to the couple.

        Why do you believe that is a good thing for the State to be able to do?

      • CaptSternn says:

        When and where did I ever say that would be a good thing for a state to do?

        Oh, right nowhere and never.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        You have said repeatedly that the State should have the ability to deny marriage licenses to interracial couples so long as their rights are not otherwise affected.

        How am I inaccurate in that statement?

        My curiosity comes from how you think it is a good thing for states to have that right.

      • CaptSternn says:

        I don’t believe I have ever taken your bait on that one, HT. As for now states can decide to recognize same sex marriage or not. That one is heading to the Supreme Court, probably soon.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        There is no bait there. We’ve repeatedly discussed this position.

        With Loving v. Virginia, you only agreed that it was necessary because the couple was being denied other rights, and you have said you thought the ruling was incorrect in its breadth, and you clearly disagree with the wording of the majority opinion.

        You have a few hundred times said you think the State should have the right to refuse to issue marriage licenses as long as other rights are not infringed.

        There is no bait. That is your position.

        I just don’t know why you would think that is an ability the state should have.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Incidentally, Hillary Clinton agrees with your position here (at least this week she does), and you both are fabulously wrong.

        She has that position for political reasons.

        I have no idea why you have that position unless you are secretly Hillary Clinton.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Yes, it is bait. I pointed out that the case mentioned was over people, natural born citizens, were being stripped of their citizenship and people were being put in prison for cohabitating. None of that is happening with same sex marriages, as the story I provided shows. That’s why they don’t compare.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Soooooo….states should have the ability to refuse to issue marriage licenses to interracial couples as long as they don’t otherwise infringe on their rights?

        Why is it so hard to say that states should not have the ability to deny a marriage license to interracial couples.

        I can say it. Heck, other than Buzz, everyone here can say it.

      • Turtles Run says:

        GG – It is nice to have you back.

        Tutt – I think the same topics are repeated to often is because we have a hard time getting people like Cappy to actually articulate their position without the mental gymnastics when it comes to other scenarios.

        For example Cappy claims it is OK for states to deny SSM if they do not violate the rights of those people (excusing the fact that is actually a violation of their rights). When Houston applied the same logic to interracial marriages Cappy in his usual non-committal manner has refused answer whether states, based on his very comments, should be allowed to deny these marriages.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Only I didn’t say it was ok, Turtles. I said states have that power for the moment. But it will be going to the Supreme Court, probably soon.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Turtles, I’m tired of the mental gymnastics. It’s mind-numbing.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        It would seem that something as benign as marriage between people of ANY sex would be simple and straightforward, without the need for mental gymnastics.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        When your position is indefensible, you have to resort to mental (and semantic) gymnastics in an attempt not to actually type the words that reflect the true meaning of your position.

        For instance, the position is: “I believe in States’ rights, and States have the right and ability to determine to whom to grant marriage licenses within that State. As a supporter of States’ rights, I have to admit that some very negative things can occur, such as refusing to grant marriage licenses to interracial couples. I would abhor a State that would make such a decision, and I would voice my opposition to the decision, but I must respect and support the right of the State to make that bad decision.”

        Now, for some reason, Stern cannot write those sentences. I assume it is because the follow up question would be, “Why on earth would you support the ability of the State to make such a harmful and unfair ruling?”, and to that, there is no good answer.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Now Tutt…In Stern’s world, “marriage” is a very easy thing, as evident by my 6 year old neighbor repeatedly marrying my twins.

        The state has not swooped in to stop those marriages.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        SELF-PLAGIARISM:

        “HT, so the twins are polygamists, then, and the Girl Next Door is a little bigamist?”

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Tutt…and they are so darn cute nobody minds.

    • Tuttabella says:

      Cap: No judge, either.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        No state recognition, no marriage license, no spousal benefits

      • CaptSternn says:

        Yes, should have the privilege of state recognition.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Thank you.

      • Turtles Run says:

        Cappy – marriage is a constitutional right not a privilege. The state is violating the constitution (have someone that is educated explain it to you) by denying homosexuals equal treatment under the law.

        Examples:
        Marriage is a right
        Driving is a privilege
        Medicaid is an entitlement

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Turtles…Captain Semantic is going to strongly disagree here…and that is fine…contrary to most Supreme Court justices, Stern can have marriage as a privilege, and it is still monumentally wrong and stupid to deny such a privilege to gay people.

        Of course, Stern believes states have the right to deny driver’s licenses to women and marriage licenses to interracial couples.

        Fortunately, the Federal gov’t figured out a way to keep that from happening.

      • Turtles Run says:

        Houston

        I guess I could use his own metaphor. He has a right to bear arms but instead of being allowed to purchase one he is told he can have a stick and call it an AR-15. There now everyone is satisfied.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Marriage is a right.
        State recognition is a privilege.
        Medicaid is welfare.
        Medicare is an entitlement.

        I have the right to keep and bear arms. I do not register firearms with the state or federal government so I do not need their recognition. I do need permission from the state to carry a concealed handgun on my person, a license. The state gets to set the terms and conditions for that privilege.

      • Turtles Run says:

        Cappy

        State recognition is how marriages exist. So by denying that recognition you are denying that right.

        You can still own firearms without being allowed to carry them on your person. The state barring you from carrying a firearm does not interfere with your ability to own firearms. Just like registration would not interfere with your constitutional right. But the state not recognizing SSM does interfere with the right to be married. That is the difference, though I am quite sure you do not really care. Because it is someone else that is being denied their rights not you.

        Medicaid is an entitlement. It is carved from the Social Security Act and as long as a person meets the requirements they are ENTITLED to receive benefits.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Medicaid is welfare, Turtles, like food stamps, section 8 housing and other forms of welfare. It is not earned. Medicare is earned, the benefits are owed, the person that has earned those benefits are entitled to those benefits, Medicare is an entitlement.

        Sec. 23. RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Cappy, Social Security SSI benefits for children are not earned. So social Security is now welfare?

        Let’s not play semantics again Cap. It boils down to government benefits that YOU qualify for and will use and draw from is an “entitlement” and government benefits for those “others” are welfare. That’s is your sad and selfish world view.

      • CaptSternn says:

        SS and SSI are two different programs.

      • Turtles Run says:

        Cappy – You can call them a frog if you want and it would still not make it so. Entitlements are those social safety net programs that a person is entitled to receive by law.

        As for your gun rights with the states it still hinges on what the US Constitution allows.

      • CaptSternn says:

        You think people are owed handouts, Turtles? Really?

        What the constitution allows? It doesn’t allow anything, it defines the structure of the government and grants that government specific and limited powers.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Yeah Cap, “two different programs” that are under the auspices of the same department drawn from the same funds.

        Thank you Captain Semantics.

      • CaptSternn says:

        One is earned, the other is not.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        So Social Security benefits ARE welfare. For others and not you.

        Thank you for proving my point Cappy.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Read more slowly, Bubba …

        One is earned, the other is not.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        Some Social Security recipients can expect to receive more in Social Security benefits than they paid into the system. This situation is even more common with Medicare.

        How was that surplus “earned”?

      • CaptSternn says:

        I highly doubt that, Owl, especially wjhat a person could get if that money was wisely invested and earned interest over the lifetime of the person. Then again, many die before getting anything at all, and their family usually won’t get it as inheritance.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Answer with more honesty Cappy. “Entitlements” for you, dang money grubbing welfare for “those other losers”.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        You can doubt all that you like, Sternn, as you regularly do. You personal feelings, however, have absolutely no effect upon objective reality. Someday you’ll learn that.

        http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/14/news/economy/social-security-benefits/

        “A couple who each earned the average wage during their careers and retired in 1990 would have paid $316,000 in Social Security taxes, but collected $436,000 in benefits, according to data crunched by Eugene Steuerle, an economist at the Urban Institute.

        “Had that couple turned 65 in 2010, however, they would have paid $600,000 in taxes, but could expect to collect just $579,000. This is the first time in the program’s history that taxes outweighed benefits for this group, a couple with average earnings.

        “The imbalance will get more pronounced for future generations of retirees. Couples now in their early 40s will have forked over $808,000 in Social Security taxes by the time they retire, but get back only $703,000 in benefits….

        “The institute said it adjusted its calculations for inflation plus 2%, about what a person could have traditionally realized in savings had they put the money in the bank….

        “Still, there are many folks who will collect more than they’ll have paid. The typical American couple do not each earn the average wage during their careers since women often have lower incomes or take years off to raise children. In this scenario, the couple would receive more benefits than they pay in taxes because the wife’s checks often will be based on her husband’s earnings. Also, most lower-wage workers receive more in benefits than they pay in taxes.”

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/feb/01/medicare-and-social-security-what-you-paid-what-yo/

        “According to the institute’s data, a two-earner couple receiving an average wage — $44,600 per spouse in 2012 dollars — and turning 65 in 2010 would have paid $722,000 into Social Security and Medicare and can be expected to take out $966,000 in benefits. So, this couple will be paid about one-third more in benefits than they paid in taxes.

        “If a similar couple had retired in 1980, they would have gotten back almost three times what they put in. And if they had retired in 1960, they would have gotten back more than eight times what they paid in. The bigger discrepancies common decades ago can be traced in part to the fact that some of these individuals’ working lives came before Social Security taxes were collected beginning in 1937.

        “Some types of families did much better than average. A couple with only one spouse working (and receiving the same average wage) would have paid in $361,000 if they turned 65 in 2010, but can expect to get back $854,000 — more than double what they paid in. In 1980, this same 65-year-old couple would have received five times more than what they paid in, while in 1960, such a couple would have ended up with 14 times what they put in.

        “Such findings suggest that, even allowing for inflation and investment gains, many seniors will receive much more in benefits than what they paid in.

        “Jagadeesh Gokhale of the libertarian Cato Institute says it’s possible to quantify exactly how much has been spent on beneficiaries beyond what they paid in, using an obscure line in the massive 2012 report of the Social Security trustees….

        “According to this calculation, past and current generations will pay $71.3 trillion in payroll taxes but will receive $93.4 trillion in benefits. Adjusting for past and future transfers from the federal Treasury, the difference between ‘paid-in’ and ‘paid-out’ works out to $21.6 trillion.”

      • CaptSternn says:

        Convenient that you left out the interest such investments would make.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        When SS first started, many were paid more benefits then put in. But over the years the surplus was expected to cover it. Now that our government dipped into the surplus, the system is on critical care. But myself having paid into the system for 45 years at this time, I would call that an entitlement that I have earned. As has my wife.

        People who receive medicaid and welfare and food stamps did not directly pay anything to those programs so they operate in a loss. Always have.

      • Turtles Run says:

        Cappy wrote: One is earned, the other is not.

        Entitlements are earned by meeting the requirements. It is not a handout, handouts are charity.

        +++++

        Cappy also wrote: What the constitution allows? It doesn’t allow anything, it defines the structure of the government and grants that government specific and limited powers.

        Actually, you are referring to the Articles of Confederation. The current constitution was formed because a central government limited to few and specific powers was destined to fail such as the AoC. The founding fathers formed a Constitutional document that was able to grant the central government the highest level of power over the states and citizens and a framework to operate. It also guaranteed certain rights that would be protected as well.

        The states are not allowed to establish any laws that contradict the US Constitution.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        And speaking of being obtuse. Buzzy, children on SSI haven’t paid a dime into Social Security. And you are splitting hairs again about “getting more than you paid in” and “paying nothing” which is also incorrect.

        Everyone pays taxes of some sort. So welfare and Medicaid recipients are also “getting more than they paid in”. Just not like the way you are doing it so you don’t like it.

        Typical of you and Cap, it’s ok for YOU to do that, but not for those others not like you.

        Just like in your warped myopia it’s ok for bart to lie, bully, and troll online but I’m the one being “mean” for actually calling the truth on it.

        Whatever. Your hypocritical partisan judgment means nothing to me or anyone else with an ounce of honesty or self respect. You and bart and Dan can wallow in your fetid inbred partisan hate.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Buzz…I’m not sure how in the world that is accurate.

        “People who receive medicaid and welfare and food stamps did not directly pay anything to those programs so they operate in a loss. Always have.”

        Many/most folks certainly have paid for these programs through any number of taxes.

        Yes, the three year old benefiting from welfare probably didn’t have a job last month, but most people receiving welfare/food stamps etc., have been employed previously.

      • CaptSternn says:

        No, Turtles, government handouts are not charity. They are welfare. Entitlements are benefits that have been earned by participating and paying into the system.

        The U.S. Constitution grants congress certain, specific and limited power, such as coing money, making rules for bankruptcy, raising and providing for navy and army, regulating commerce between the nations and among the several states. But it is supposed to be limited to those specific powers listed under Article 1, Section 8 and a handful of amendments. Those powers not specifically granted by the constitution are left to the states, or to the people.

      • Turtles Run says:

        At the risk of repeating myself. The SCOTUS and the language of the Constitution do not agree with you.

        For the sake of Tutt i will quit repeating myself on this topic.

  15. Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

    While on the other side of the country, just something to chew on about hoping and wishing for an Arizona-like “police can ask for proof of citizenship and don’t worry because no one would abuse this or do anything racist at all”

    The DOJ finished up a study on the Newark, NJ police department (pretty crappy city and pretty crappy PD).

    Almost 75% of pedestrian stops: Police failed to provide a sufficient constitutional reason for the stop

    Blacks are 55% of the city’s population: Blacks account for 85% of pedestrian stops and nearly 80% of arrests

    White kids do as much drugs and Black kids, but the White kids aren’t being popped by the police nearly as often.

    Not dissimilar to the 70% of traffic stops in Bellaire being minorities compared to 10% of the population.

    But hey, Buzz once saw a White dude in Bellaire get pulled over, so the statistics obviously are lying.

    • Turtles Run says:

      Lets not forget Buzzy did have the tenderness to say that us brown folks ONLY have to live with profiling for a short time like the Muslims. Of course they are being treated with so much respect 13 years after 9/11.

    • CaptSternn says:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes

      Can you think of any reason, other than skin color, that blacks would be more likely to get arrested for selling and being in possesion of drugs, or is skin color the only thing you can see?

      • Anse says:

        Black people do not use drugs by any greater percentage of their population than whites do. Blacks get arrested for the offense more often because black people are preyed upon by cops. This is not a fantasy. Consider the “stop-and-frisk” policy that was once in place in New York City. If black people were targeted there, you can imagine how much worse it is in a southern city like Houston.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Anse, the answer is simple and plain. White people tend to keep drug sales, drug possession and drug use in the privacy of their own homes. Many black people sell and buy and use in public on the streets.

        So how is it much worse in a liberal city like Houston that is solid democratic?

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Stern…I can almost guarantee that any time you start an answer on an issue as complicated as this with, “the answer is simple…” you are going to be so wildly wrong it is hard to even put it in words.

        Oddly (well…not oddly at all…actually, it is pretty darn usual), the facts do not back up your contention.

        There are lots of possible crimes with drugs, possession, possession of really large amounts, possession with intent, etc.

        Contrary to your point, Blacks are arrested for simple possession at frequencies significantly higher than Whites.

        You asked if I can think of any reason other than skin color to account for the differences, and sure, I can probably think of a dozen reasons. Unfortunately for your position, none of them come close to explaining the variance in the data.

        It is bad enough that you don’t see racism when it is happening. It is worse that you have to bend over backwards to try to explain obvious things away.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Is there such a thing as a liberal cop?

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Tutt…as with any profession, there are undoubtedly individuals representing all political leanings.

        Contrary to what appears to be overwhelming anecdotal evidence to the contrary, most of the research suggests that liberals and conservatives have close to the same amounts of racial animosity/discomfort.

      • John Galt says:

        Yes, I can. Perhaps federal mandatory sentencing rules are far harsher for certain drugs than others and this leads to disproportionate enforcement. An example would be the disparities in sentencing for crack vs. powdered cocaine that have been well known for 20 years. One of these drugs is more popular in black communities and the other is more popular in the yuppie community. Does anyone need an additional hint as to which is treated more harshly?

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Just look at the make up of the Newark PD and you will find a majority of the force is black and brown. So in the stats, how many blacks are stopped by minority officers and is that racism?

        For Homer: I was pulled over twice by Bellaire police. That is a tight town. If you go 40 in a 35, you are pulled over. Speed traps all over the place especially under the U-Turn of 610 and Bellaire BLVD. what most speeders are caught since they are moving fast. So no, I don’t believe it is intentional. Of course I don’t see color near as much as you do.

      • Tuttabella says:

        Anse, I entered elementary school in the Heights in 1972, and it was fully integrated. We kids were a healthy mixture of ethnicities (about 50% White, 25% Hispanic, 25% Black). The principal of the school was Black, my first grade teacher was Black, the teachers were a mixture of White and Black. No one thought it strange, and everyone got along. There was no pulling out of White kids because the principal and several teachers were Black. The girl who won the school spelling bee every year was Black. The smartest kids in my class were Hispanic. (I was one of them!)

        Some of the most racist people I have ever come across are from the North. A former neighbor who grew up in the Philly area was telling me about major racial tension there in 1973 due to school integration, and here in Houston at that time we were already integrated and had moved on.

        It’s ironic how surprised the nation was when Houston elected a lesbian mayor, something other major cities have not done. No big deal. We just quietly go about our business.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        That’s not to say there is absolutely no racism in Houston.

      • CaptSternn says:

        John, that is a very valid point, but it has to do with sentencing rather than stops and arrests.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Tutt, very wrong on the Philly thing. I grew up there. I started elementary school in the 50’s and we were integrated then and didn’t even know it. It was just us kids stuck in class.

        In the 70’s, people in charge took it upon themselves to bus kids away from their home schools to even the color pallet. Of course all mommies would be upset with their children going across town to another school much farther from home. Maybe some had a racial component but mostly it was parents worried about their children.

        And one other correction: San Francisco had the first gay mayor.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        I stand korrected.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        So…there ya go. Buzz was pulled over twice, so the 70%/10% thing is just a reflection that minorities drive faster than White folks.

        Always wise to let two anecdotes override 10 years of data.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        You’re wrong, kabuzz. Not that that’s uncommon, by any means.

        San Francisco has never had a gay mayor. Perhaps you are misremembering Harvey Milk, who was elected to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.

        Within California, gay mayors have overseen the cities of Campbell (Evan Low), Laguna Beach (Robert F. Gentry), Palm Springs (Ron ODen), Redondo Beach (Mike Gin), Sierra Madre (Joe Mosca), and Vallejo (Gary Cloutier). None of those are major cities.

        Annise Parker is indeed significant, as a milestone in GLBT history.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Yes bart glad you find it understandable since you have not once yet had the moral courage to fess up to your transgression instead of constantly coming up with pathetically weak, simpering excuses worthy of a 6 year old.

        Using multiple anonymous sockpuppet ID’s to bully and troll someone to reveal their personal ID while you hide behind the anonymity of many ID’s and then to bizarrely characterize it as some type of “ethically noble” cause really takes the cake in clueless gall and chutzpah bart.

        But I am not at all surprised coming from you bart as we have not even begun to plumb the depths of your bald faced immorality and ethical dishonesty.

    • Bart-1 says:

      The “victim card” again? poor KC. The anger, hatred an vitriol is understandable, I guess.

  16. tuttabellamia says:

    I notice total comments went from 203 to 191 to 164??

    • tuttabellamia says:

      Ok, I see what’s happening.

    • tuttabellamia says:

      The title of this blog entry should be changed to:

      “Immigration, Wages and the Future of Dirty WORDS”

    • Crogged says:

      I suppose credit is due for consistent effort in maintaining opposing viewpoints are ‘lies’, and that the writers and just one political party are ‘liars’, when having a good day at the putty factory. An ability to accept opposing points of view without acrimony or suspicion might be the most revolution America could handle right now, however, he wasn’t the only one who would get unnecessarily gratuitous with insulting or belittling language.

      This post is as thought provoking as musing about ‘reparations’ and like good solutions, the true costs are up front and unhidden. Neither labor nor management are saints and devils, let’s use market solutions for economic problems. Or send National Guard troops out and carry the debt forward forever.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        I wrote something along the same lines in a post below, that this blog entry reminds me of the Coates article about reparations, which I sometimes call the “Repercussions”article, or sometimes, the “Reverberations” article.

      • Crogged says:

        Reveberations is good descripition, sometimes it is best to let an idea simmer. One of the reasons I stopped ‘watching;’ the news is the impulse to feel ‘somebody has to do SOMETHING’ and to feel like every situation in the world demands an immediate response. Right now the news of the world is out of control, what to do about the Ukraine and Gaza, these hordes of teenagers. Accepting a point of view that people generally do what they feel is right and necessary for their situation, without much thought about what happens next week (which is a powerful impulse in me) and then try to see it from their eyes with a positive outlook towards their motivation, is a very hard optimism to maintain. I don’t deny the genius of creativity and destruction of long held ideas, but the older me wants a little more caution when crafting ‘solutions’. So sometimes, I just don’t know what to say, except BE NICE about saying it, hopefully we live past the emotions of bad situations.

        http://orwell.ru/library/articles/nose/english/e_nose

  17. geoff1968 says:

    Republican now and forever. I believe in the party of Lincoln. We’re a fair bunch. I might have to put Governor Ricky in the Oval Office. He’s a reasonable enough chap.

    • GG says:

      Are you joking? I’ve voted Republican in the past but Perry is the equivalent of a used car salesman.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        I think that’s just Big Willy’s dry subtle sense of humor GG.

        He’s always been a rational Republican (they do exist!) so I don’t think he just abruptly took leave of his senses. Or at least I hope not…

      • GG says:

        One can only hope.

    • geoff1968 says:

      I’m going to support Governor Ricky Perry. He ain’t as good looking as I am, but I think he might be a good Potus.Other than that I think Scott Walker has a good shot. Laissez Faire is the best form of governance.

      By the by President Obama is the first Democrat I have ever voted for.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Big W, you bi-polar? 🙂

        That’s quite the ideological swing there big guy.

        And don’t forget “the more distinguished Rick Perry” incarnation with his glasses and swearing off cowboy boots.

        Damn he smart now!

  18. Bart-1 says:

    apparently Bubba believes they are all just children as well. Dereism.

  19. Juarez says:

    Hey everyone: sorry to hijack this comment thread (and many thanks to Chris in advance if he okays this post), but I told y’all a couple of months ago that I had a book coming out in which a fictional blog is used as a main component of the narrative structure. I also reported that the community of commenters on this fictional blog was inspired by the one here on GOPLifer’s site, which seemed to pique some interest.

    Here’s a link to its Amazon page for the curious:

    http://www.amazon.com/Tree-Knowledge-Scott-Bonasso-ebook/dp/B00LPPELIG/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1405982407&sr=8-1&keywords=scott+bonasso

    I realize that I’ve now lost my anonymity on this blog, but I haven’t been very vocal on here for some time now anyway, and I don’t believe I ever wrote anything uncivil toward anyone. I still do enjoy reading the discourse though. Captain, Tutt, Owl, JG, Kabuzz, Flypusher, Rucasdad, et al: keep fighting the good fight! 🙂

    • CaptSternn says:

      Bought. Even downloaded the Kindle App for my iPhone to buy it. Can’t say when I will read it, I am into a fiction series of six books at the moment. Thanks for letting us know about it.

      Forget about anonymity anyway. Lifer has none, TThor gave his up, and my info can be found out easy enough. There is only one person here, so far that I know of, that would ever even attempt to use such info against a person as a bully tactic.

    • objv says:

      I just bought the book. Your other book, “Juarez” also looks like it would be interesting and I see that it has gotten excellent reviews.

      My husband and I are heading to Pagosa Springs tomorrow and I was looking for something to read. A coworker’s vacation plans fell through and he offered to let us use his condo for the week. Thanks for giving us the heads up on the book. I know I will enjoy it.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Didn’t see that one. Bought it as well. May be a while before reading, so don’t hold your breath waiting for my reviews. But $4 to support a budding writer, and somebody that posts here, well worth it. I will enjoy reading them. Again, thanks for letting us know.

      • Tuttabella says:

        OV, you’re in the book! Reference is made to Middle View, The Captain, Too Sassy, and Owl.

    • Juarez says:

      Thanks, friends, for the support. Very kind of all of you. And have a great trip, objv.

    • Turtles Run says:

      I just bought a copy. Looking forward to reading it. Good luck to you.

    • tuttabellamia says:

      JUAREZ and your book of short stories about snow are available on the Barnes & Noble NOOK. I am getting the snow book.

      I bought TOK on Kindle and found references to some of the posters on this blog. Pretty cool.

    • goplifer says:

      Bought my copy. I’ll be reading it on the plane. Nice cover art.

    • kabuzz61 says:

      Got it Scott.

      You are a brave man. I have a book that has been out in the market for almost two years. Worldwide. I have sold 130K copies.

      My next book will be out for Christmas and it will be on nano technology.

      It is a rewarding experience. As I am sure you can attest. It is risky putting your work out there for readers who do take the time to tell you about your story and prose.

      Good luck to you my friend. I wish I had the courage to reveal my name and title..

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Kabuzz, you did reveal your name once.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        I don’t recall Tutt. What is it?

      • Tuttabella says:

        I’d rather not give out the full name, but the initials are T.H.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Yes, there was an entry a while back where several people gave out their real names.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Everyone must have been drinking that day.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Tutt, not my initials. I am reluctant to ‘come out’.

      • Juarez says:

        Kabuzz, You told me awhile back that you would share your marketing secrets with me. Please message me. My contact info is in my books.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Juarez, I sent you a message. For my blog friends here is my book.

        http://www.amazon.com/The-Shortcut-W-A-Sabol/dp/1463620551/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1406041602&sr=8-1&keywords=wa+sabol#reader_1463620551

        My next book will be out at Christmastime. I believe I said it is concerning nano technology. The storyline is based around Houston and a small town in Pa. called Bristol Borrough.

        A very well funded and sociopathic scientist has gone rogue with nano technology and is using nanites to settle scores with his precieve enemies. Between the FBI and a retired CIA operative, the time is ticking away.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        We should start a book club.

      • Turtles Run says:

        Buzzy

        What is the name of your book? Can it be bought on Amazon or Barnes & Noble?

      • CaptSternn says:

        Got it, Kabuzz. Thanks.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Wow, Kabuzz’s book comes in paperback. Cool.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Turtles, it is called The Shortcut. It is a thriller based in Boliver, Texas.

      • texan5142 says:

        Will have to check out that book kabuzz, especially the fact that it is based in Bolivar . Roll Over Pass mentioned in the book ?

      • Turtles Run says:

        Thanks Buzzy

        I like the cover page. Expect a few more copies to be sold over the next few days. I have always admired writers.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Yes, Rollover Pass is mentioned. When I wrote the book but before publishing it Hurricane Ike happened and just about every landmark I used was gone. I didn’t want the Bolivar citizens to think I forgot about them and acknowledged them. I owned a beach house down there for a number of years. Sold it a year before Ike.

      • texan5142 says:

        Stupid me , is spelled it wrong. Spent a few times fishing there with my Grandma. I remember staying at the Gilchrist Motel once. Good times in the late 60s .

      • Bart-1 says:

        K.C., I’ve posted repeatedly why I did that to get you to actually “man up”. I should have known it wouldn’t work. It’s all you have so you don’t even attempt to address what I asked you when you requested examples of your lying. Why do you continue to waste the blog’s space with with as “Homer” says tied. old news? Where is the mosque that does more charity work than my church you describe as “hateful”? No admission you lied about me being forced to retire? I could go on and on about your lying but that isn’t as bad as your cowardice. “A man dies once, but a coward dies every day”. Stop trolling those you hate and stick to the blogs topics while you hide your real ID in cowardice. EVERYBODY ses it every time you do it.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Bart-1 says:
        July 22, 2014 at 9:59 pm
        “K.C., I’ve posted repeatedly why I did that to get you to actually ‘man up’.”

        Seriously bart? That is the best you can do? You lie and bully and troll and pretend to be multiple people at the same time as some type of “virtuous” act?

        What, you think you are still abusing 12 year olds like you have been all your life bart?

        Maybe your fellow wingnuts will excuse it, but not even they will BELIEVE your gutless lying shit bart.

        And no, you have NEVER admitted to being a sockpuppet troll. And you still haven’t here. You just crabbed and talked around it and pretended you were being “heroic” by being a lying troll bully!

        And you even posted on the wrong thread to hide your fake weasally “admission” you clown.

        Wow, you really ARE that pathetic bart.

        Now show some guts and tell us all who the hell you think “KC” is bart.

        Kasey Casem from the dead?

        Afraid to be embarrassed for being proven an idiot again bart?

        Put your money where your mouth is instead of your foot for a change bart.

        You are just one consummate pathetic cowardly troll bart.

        And everyone knows it. Even your online “buddies”.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        That’s right buzzy, bart is the multiple ID hypocrite troll bully and I’m the mean person. I figured hypocritical political affiliation will trump honesty every time with you.

        Coming from one who also gratuitously smears GG unprompted and repeatedly, I am neither surprised nor disappointed hearing that from you.

        You obviously have read the exchanges. You think it’s ok to bully others with multiple ID’s. And then even have the gall to complain about “decorum” and “keyboard cowards”?

        Do YOU believe that has mealy mouthed “admission” of his sockpuppet troll bullying was some “ethically virtuous” attempt to promote decorum on the blogs? REALLY?

        And that he is being “decorous” and not a “keyboard coward” by claiming to out my real identity?

        And then won’t even reveal my “real identity” when I ask him to?

        Well buzzy?

        I would loooove to see YOUR further ethical contortions to justify a troll brethren just because he’s on your side. And of course you never spoke up about Dan either. I’ll give Cap credit there at least no matter how many times I butt heads with him. And Tutt, but her ethics vis a vis her political views were never in question from the get go by anyone so it’s an insult to even bring her up in conversation with bart. Or you.

        .

      • bubbabobcat says:

        And bart and buzzy slink away with their tails between their legs and pretend this conversation never existed to again spew their hypocrisy at a later time all over again.

    • Bart-1 says:

      Scott, I actually applaud you for not hiding in anonymity. Do you address that trend in the book?

      • Juarez says:

        Sort of, Bart. The anonymity, or lack thereof, of the commenters plays a minor role in the plot.

      • Bart-1 says:

        I will be getting both yours and Kabuzz’s. I think if there weren’t so much anonymity on the internet, there would be much more civility and less name calling and threats. The Chron.com is filled with what I call “Keyboard Cowards” in their comments sections. I think it very destructive and divisive.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Yes no doubt about it bart-1/seriouscynic/usincrisis.

        Jeez what an abject hypocrite.

      • Bart-1 says:

        “exhibit A” LOL!!!!

      • Bart-1 says:

        The either intentionally obtuse or just slow, I was referring to one’s REAL identity room. Some apparently don’t understand simple things.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Don’t even start bart. You have some gall whining about “keyboard cowards” when you hide behind the anonymity of multiple simultaneous ID’s all posting on the same blog to bully other posters.

        No bart, YOU are exhibit A and everyone knows it. You really are pathetic.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        And bart, how does having 3 simultaneous ID’s posting on the same blog and attacking other posters and even talking to yourself pretending to be different people and not revealing your “real Identity” on any of the sockpuppet ID’s any less of a “keyboard coward”?

        Look in the mirror for “Exhibit A”.

      • Bart-1 says:

        OK, “K.C>” WHATEVER you say! (rolls eyes) LOL

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Tell me I’m lying bart. Go ahead.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Your cowardly silence speaks volumes bart.

      • Bart-1 says:

        Are you afraid to post your REAL ID? Did you claim I was forced to retire? K.C.?

      • Bart-1 says:

        Can you name one single example of a Mosque which does more charity work than my church? KC?

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Ooh, bart-1/seriouscynic/usincrisis who can’t reason himself out of a paper bag thinks he’s outed me. Who the hell is KC you clown? Go ahead, give me my “full name” bart. You are only good at inadvertently outing yourself when pathetically trolling anonymously online bart.

        Apparently, you weren’t “afraid” to post at least 3 simultaneous ID’s, none which were your “real ID”. Always the consummate hypocrite bart.

        Now one more time, have the guts to admit the truth about your “stellar” online activities or tell me I’m lying you clueless “Keyboard Coward” troll.

        Signed, “KC”.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Bart-1 says:
        July 22, 2014 at 9:59 pm
        “K.C., I’ve posted repeatedly why I did that to get you to actually ‘man up’.”

        Seriously bart? That is the best you can do? You lie and bully and troll and pretend to be multiple people at the same time as some type of “virtuous” act?

        What, you think you are still abusing 12 year olds like you have been all your life bart?

        Maybe your fellow wingnuts will excuse it, but not even they will BELIEVE your gutless lying shit bart.

        And no, you have NEVER admitted to being a sockpuppet troll. And you still haven’t here. You just crabbed and talked around it and pretended you were being “heroic” by being a lying troll bully!

        And you even posted on the wrong thread to hide your fake weasally “admission” you clown.

        Wow, you really ARE that pathetic bart.

        Now show some guts and tell us all who the hell you think “KC” is bart.

        Kasey Casem from the dead?

        Afraid to be embarrassed for being proven an idiot again bart?

        Put your money where your mouth is instead of your foot for a change bart.

        You are just one consummate pathetic cowardly troll bart.

        EVERYBODY sees it every time YOU do it bart.

        And deep down you know it.

        You can’t deny being a sockpuppet troll bully with the incontrovertible evidence out there so you pathetically spin it as some type of “noble” act.

        A “noble” lying bully. Bwahahahahahah.

        You really take the cake bart. And you don’t even know how stupid you constantly make yourself look all by your lonesome.

        Signed, Kasey Casem from the dead.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Bubba, you have always been a consistent mean person. We all snap at each other at times, but you go 24/7. Just saying.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        That’s right buzzy, bart is the multiple ID hypocrite troll bully and I’m the mean person. I figured hypocritical political affiliation will trump honesty every time with you.

        Coming from one who also gratuitously smears GG unprompted and repeatedly, I am neither surprised nor disappointed hearing that from you.

        You obviously have read the exchanges. You think it’s ok to bully others with multiple ID’s. And then even have the gall to complain about “decorum” and “keyboard cowards”?

        Do YOU believe that has mealy mouthed “admission” of his sockpuppet troll bullying was some “ethically virtuous” attempt to promote decorum on the blogs? REALLY?

        And that he is being “decorous” and not a “keyboard coward” by claiming to out my real identity?

        And then won’t even reveal my “real identity” when I ask him to?

        Well buzzy?

        I would loooove to see YOUR further ethical contortions to justify a troll brethren just because he’s on your side. And of course you never spoke up about Dan either. I’ll give Cap credit there at least no matter how many times I butt heads with him. And Tutt, but her ethics vis a vis her political views were never in question from the get go by anyone so it’s an insult to even bring her up in conversation with bart. Or you.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        And bart and buzzy slink away with their tails between their legs and pretend this conversation never existed to again spew their hypocrisy at a later time all over again.

      • Bart-1 says:

        no reason to “slink” away from a “discussion” when all you want do is bring up the same tired, old use of multiple names I used trying to get you the “Keyboard Coward” to admit your real ID which you are still too cowardly to do. Why continue with it when you have nothing new to offer? You are what you are and always will be. It takes courage to make personal changes and you don’t have it. Keep up the poor me, I’m just a victim DEFENDING myself right?

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Yes bart and as long as you won’t even be honest with yourself and your God and admit your moral shortcomings with your troll bullying, I WON’T let it rest. And now to even spin it as some type VIRTUOUS act to bully someone else by ganging up with multiple iD posts?

        You are beyond pathetic with your purported ” Christian values”. Jesus is hanging his head in shame with you bart.

  20. Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

    Reading an interesting article on restaurant tipping in the US (how wildly different from other 1st world countries), and how the gentle coercion of forced charity through tipping props up horrible labor practices for wait staff that trickles down through the rest of the workers.

    The minimum wage for tip-generating servers has not increased in over 20 years while standard minimum wage has increased substantially in that time period.

    As the slow march to inevitable livable wages (a.k.a., socialism/communism) continues, take a moment to think of tip-dependent jobs that have been continuously left out of the discussions.

    We do not account for the true cost of our food as it is grown and harvested nor as it is served to us.

    • CaptSternn says:

      I earned a lot more in a job that depended on tips than I did when I moved “up” to a posittion that did not get tips. I always give generous tips, and that generally gets me great service at places I visit often.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        There are plenty of people that make a fine (if not wholly dependable) living serving food in restaurants. However, the majority of servers kinda get screwed.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Plus, Stern…your naturally friendly, jovial, and humble personality would lead people to tip you generously.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Actually, HT . . . Cap really is “naturally friendly, jovial, and humble.” Seriously. You hit the nail on the head.

        I’m the one who could never live on tips. I’m naturally standoffish, melancholy, and arrogant .

      • CaptSternn says:

        Thank you, dear lady. I am humbled by your words.

        HT, people in the food industry get screwed when tip sharing is implemented among all employees, including cooks, busers and dish washers. They have no control over the servers, and the servers have their incentive to do a good job taken away from them.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        I’m the real sociopath around here but no one believes me! 🙂

      • CaptSternn says:

        Everybody knows better than that, Tutt.

      • Tuttabella says:

        HT, has it ever occurred to you that some conservatives might have become conservative as a defense mechanism, not because they are “old White men afraid of losing their power,” but because they are naturally very generous and giving, but were personally burned by a series of real “takers?” Takers do exist, you know.

        Or maybe the reason they so adamantly protect freedom (their own and those of everyone else, including racists) is because they once experienced personal curtailment of their own freedom?

        I could see how the philosophy of Ayn Rand could appeal to people who have a natural tendency to self sacrifice, and her words could serve as inspiration for them, to be told their own needs are important and should take precedence — a sort of self-help philosophy.

        Michael Savage, the conservative radio talk show host, was once a true blue liberal, a social worker, in fact, who in his line of work saw a lot of stuff that made him cynical and take a complete turn toward the conservative side.

      • Turtles Run says:

        Cappy – that type of tip sharing is illegal. Tip sharing goes to bus boys and depending on the establishment bartenders.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        The vast majority of folks perform good work without the threat/potential of tips.

        Pfizer doesn’t provide a 15% tip on our project costs just because we do a good job.

      • Turtles Run says:

        Tutt, has it ever occurred to you that some conservatives might have become conservative as a result of being anti-social sociopaths that delight in creating a world in which some people are able to oppress the rights and freedoms of others all in the name of liberty.

        I suggest you read Ayn Rand again. Her philosophy in life was not of self-sacrifice but one of justify and legitimizing selfishness. The one defining quality of the modern conservative or libertarian or whatever they are choosing to call themselves.

        As for Savage he is like watching that crazy tio that likes to yell at the TV.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Tutt…that is certainly possible, but it also means those folks were pretty naive regarding the existence of takers in the world.

        In the opposite direction, many folks have become fabulously less conservative as they got older and gained exposure to areas they might not have experienced previously.

        I was a pro-death penalty, “you poor people need to pull on your boot straps like I did” goofball when I was 18.

        Nothing like exposure to the big wide world to highlight that through fortunes of genetics, locations, and opportunities (and plenty of hard work) put me in situations not necessarily shared by other kids in my neighborhood.

        Lots of work with the police departments did nothing but make me lots more liberal in my thinking about challenges faced by folks.

        Some folks move to a “wow, why on earth would I care about stopping something that doesn’t affect me?” realization with age rather than a mindset of “I must denounce this because I don’t like it” when it comes to gay marriage and such.

        Undoubtedly, people’s personal experiences with takers do affect their judgments and philosophies, but some folks manage to look at a lot bigger pictures outside of their experience.

        Also, there is a pretty valid position of, “Yeah, this doesn’t benefit me, and in fact, it kind of harms me, but you know, overall, this is probably the right thing to do”.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Turtles, I suggest you read my comment again. I didn’t say Ayn Rand’s philosophy was one of self-sacrifice, but that it might appeal to people with a tendency to self-sacrifice.

      • Turtles Run says:

        Tutt

        How do books on the virtues of selfishness appeal to those who have a natural tendency to self sacrifice much less serve as an inspiration?

      • Tuttabella says:

        If you have a tendency to give everyone else’s needs precedence over your own, and someone says, hey, you need to look out for yourself, might that not be a form of encouragement and inspiration?

      • CaptSternn says:

        Turtles, has it ever occurred to you that some liberals might have become liberal as a result of being anti-social sociopaths that delight in creating a world in which some people are able to oppress the rights and freedoms of others all in the name of equality?

        If anybody really wants to discuss the Ayn Rand point of view, how it came about, I suggest you go back to the beginning and read ‘We the Living’. She is best known for ‘Atlas Shrugged’, but ‘We the Living’ is her most powerful book, ‘Anthem’ coming in as a close second. If you have not read those two books, you cannot understand her later writings in perspective.

      • Crogged says:

        Why do people have to ‘earn’ charity–isn’t Mr. Savages story rather pitiful regarding his own character? People are a mixture of good and bad, so we either all deserve a break or none of us do. If some of those receiving benefits didn’t ‘deserve’ them, well, I’m sure Paris Hilton’s bank account isn’t earning that much less interest on the savings she could have accrued from the wasted money someone spent on potato chips. What I find interesting about some of the responses here is the author’s suggestion of how we really can ‘take care of our own’, which is a common refrain from some on the right regarding our efforts with these walking ex-pats.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Crogged, government welfare is not charity. Charity is a private and personal choice done as an individual or through a private organization.

        And some people will abuse even personal and private charity. There are people that have decent jobs and can afford groceries, but they will make the rounds to all the local food banks run by churches and other private organizations and get their food for free. When someone in actual need shows up later, they are turned away without because those that abuse the system took the food.

        Locally run private organizations can figure out who the abusers are and turn them away, telling them to come back another day to see if there was any surplus left over, if that. And they can work together to figure out who those people are.

      • Bart-1 says:

        captain, Does it amaze you that people on the left don’t know the difference between welfare and Charity anymore?

      • CaptSternn says:

        No, Bart, it really doesn’t and it is nothing new. Like when they claim that if people won’t be charitable on their own, the government should force it because this is supposed to be a Christian nation and they want to establish a theocracy, except when they don’t.

  21. Turtles Run says:

    Looks like Rick Perry is going to send 1,000 National Guard troops on the border. It is good to know Texas has $5MM to waste everyday so the tea party can feel like a bunch of bad a$$es kicking kids out.

    Read the comment section, please
    http://weaselzippers.us/193895-breaking-gov-perry-to-send-1000-national-guard-to-the-border/

    • objv says:

      Turtles, If it were only a matter of little kids, I’d agree with you. However, according to a NYT article, most of the unaccompanied minors are male and between the ages of 15 and 17. Since there is no way to check age, some may be older. Some may be fleeing gang violence, but some have gang tattoos and may be gang members and have a criminal history. They will be released into the general population. Few will show up for their immigration hearings.

      As far as the smaller kids are concerned, few are truly unaccompanied.

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/07/16/children-trying-to-sneak-into-the-u-s-arent-always-alone/?hpid=z2

      • tuttabellamia says:

        They are neither angels nor demons. They are fleeing violence, so in that way they are victims, but if violence is all they’ve seen, it’s not surprising they would turn to violence themselves.

      • John Galt says:

        Murder rate per 100,000 residents…

        1. Honduras 90.4
        2. Venezuela 53.7
        3. Belize 44.7
        4. El Salvador 41.2
        5. Guatemala 39.9

        19 of the top 25 are in Central or South America or the Caribbean and the biggest cause is drug trafficking. That you are unaware of this unsurprising, but does not mean it doesn’t exist.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        I posted on another recent thread that there is violence everywhere — why not let in kids from Africa and other war-torn nations? Why the focus on the violence in Central America? Some stories get all the attention, and then they die out and get replaced by others in the media.

        Still, when there are so many problems in our own country, why do the protesters choose this very cause to focus on?

      • GG says:

        Makes you wonder if he’s gotten a good lay lately. Awfully cranky.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        I mean, there are so many noble causes out there. I know we cant fight for all of them, and it all depends on what is important to each of us personally, which cause on which we choose to expend our time and energy. But what is so noble about protesting the entry of illegal kids, unaccompanied or otherwise? Why so much passion?

      • tuttabellamia says:

        I hate bad grammar and bad spelling with a passion, but not enough to picket the homes of bad grammarians and bad spellers.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Um, Dan … bit over the top on that one. Just my opinion.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Dan, GG’s comment was also over the top and uncalled for. Y’all are both big kids and one should not dish it out if it can’t be taken in exchange. I understand some give-and-take. It’s just that you are representing the right and that one was over the top, imo. Think of how you would feel if you found out somebody said that about your lady. Do unto others …

        Tutt and others, speaking of protests, a lot of media coverage has been over the people protesting the busses full of these illegal immigrants, but very little coverage over the protests of this past weekend at embassies and other places that were well away from the busses. Maybe because those protests were more dignified and better aimed? Not real sure since there has been so little coverage.

        I have been saying that we should make this state and nation much more unwelcome for illegal aliens and those that exploit them or help in exploiting them, even companies that hire them and people that rent or sell them homes. But protesting in full view of those busses? Blocking them from passing and turning them away? Not so much that I am against the communities turning them away, but the method of doing so is not right.

      • CaptSternn says:

        “Keep voting for the KKK write in Party Danny.”

        My guess would be that Dan doesn’t vote for the KKK Party, also known as Democratic Party. But I would bet that you do, Bubba.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Whatever Cappy. Someone should commission a study as to why wingnuts persistently wallow in their alternate reality fantasy. Danny thinks he is loved by even one person, OV quotes Glenn Beck as an irrefutable factual source, Cappy has his own impenetrable bizarro logic. Quite the trifecta,

      • Tuttabella says:

        Dan, I was going to reply to your question about my late mom, but then I read your reply to GG and was sidetracked, taken aback. Yes, she “started it,” but her comment didn’t deserve such a reply from you.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        And at some point i will address your comment about promoting other cultures, but when i have access to a real keyboard.

      • Bart-1 says:

        Turtles apparently believes they are all just innocent kids crossing the border. “Dereism”?

      • tuttabellamia says:

        As I posted elsewhere, these “kids” are neither angels nor demons.

      • Bart-1 says:

        JG, if the primary cause of the high murder rate in Central America is the illegal drug traffic into our country through our Southern border, why do you suppose so many of our politicians claim the “Border is secure” or “Is the most secure it has ever been”?
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JlmOwrjkvg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=um9158muzhQ

      • John Galt says:

        Because it is the most secure it has ever been, Bart. That is not to say that it is completely secure, but it has been getting better. Keep in mind that for decades (centuries) we had absolutely no enforcement of the Southern border. We also didn’t have much in the way of laws to prevent people from crossing. Do we need border security now? Yes. Is it practical to think we can seal a 2,000 mile border through a desert? No. And even if we did, they’d go back to running drugs through the Florida Keys or hide them in coffee shipments again.

        But the right wing today pays only modest lip service to drug running and other illicit cross-border activity. The focus is on brown-skinned people crossing. Who cares? They come here and either find dirty menial labor to eke out a living or they don’t. They have a kid or two, which might get them $80/month in food stamps, get them a half-decent education, and they become, hopefully, productive members of society. Just like millions of immigrant stories for 200 years.

        In the meantime, this focus on the people ignores huge issues. Legalize drugs. All of them. Now. There is no way the collateral damage from that could possibly be worse than the situation now. Tax the hell out of them and devote some of the money to rehab. Last year, 17 million cargo containers were imported to the US. 4% of those were inspected. We don’t have a system for even checking if someone has overstayed a visa. Real problems that building a wall or sending National Guard troops won’t fix and cost money that would be vastly more productive elsewhere.

      • John Galt says:

        Dan, I debated whether to respond or not, but here goes. GG posted a mildly inappropriate jibe related to you seeming even more cranky than usual yesterday. Yes, she probably shouldn’t have, but your response was a completely vile insult. You have a pattern of this, ratcheting up the animosity 10-fold and then claiming that you’re just conforming to the norms set by your opponents. Your views on how others behave, like on so many other things, are baseless, but even they weren’t, your responses are classless.

        Despite our different opinions, I’m pretty sure I could sit down for a beer with Sternn, Tutt, hell, maybe even Kabuzz, and have an enjoyable and spirited discussion. I sort of doubt I would enjoy sharing a pint with you.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Damn Danny, you must have been read the riot act at your family reunion this past weekend. What, they all finally disown you or something? Can’t say I blame them. So you pathetically rehash your “stellar character” and lash out here and make even more “friends”. Keep it up. Everyone is enjoying the popcorn. Truth hurts don’t it Danny?

      • GG says:

        Dan, you are a child.

      • GG says:

        My goodness, Sternn, you are the last person I’d have thought would defend me. 🙂

        I think Dan ratchets up the childishnes on this blog and we have all acted childishly at times. He thrives on it.

    • John Galt says:

      What would you do with them, Danny? Drown them in the Rio Grande like sackfuls of unwanted kittens?

    • John Galt says:

      What do you propose we do with those already here? I mean, besides ducking the question and changing the subject?

    • Turtles Run says:

      Danny Boy

      Here is a limit. For as many that need asylum. These children and adults that come here fleeing violence deserve a refuge and as the most powerful nation in the world we should be able to provide it. We burnt a lot of goodwill in the world by our actions in the past 13 years and it is time to rebuild our reputation. I cannot think of a better way to start than to help these people.

      So there you have my number.

    • John Galt says:

      Not answering again. Not surprising.

    • Turtles Run says:

      John Galt

      Did you expect different?

    • John Galt says:

      No, turtles, I didn’t expect any differently. I just wanted to watch Dan’s gymnastics as he either evaded the question or tried to come up with some way to justify ignoring U.S. laws.

    • objv says:

      JG, the smugglers will often throw a weak swimmer into the Rio Grande as a diversion. When the border agents go to save the person who is drowning, the smugglers get their human (and other illegal) cargo to the other side.

      Here is a long (and rambling) transcription of what transpires:

      http://www.glennbeck.com/2014/07/21/it-is-a-horrifying-place-to-be-glenn-reflects-on-his-visit-to-the-rio-grande-river-with-louie-gohmert/

      Unfortunately, if we continue to give people from central American countries preference over citizens of Mexico and Canada, and let them stay, they will continue to flow into the US. Without a doubt, the migrants need to be returned to their home countries as soon as possible. Unless we stop reinforcing their behavior, we, as a country, become complicit in human smuggling. Coyotes make vast amounts of money and inflict trauma and misery to the people they are smuggling across the border. Unless we do something to staunch the flow, even more kids, teenagers and women will be encouraged to take the risk. More will be held for ransom, raped and traumatized.

      The US needs to treat the migrants with compassion while they are here but also needs to send a message that coming here is no guarantee that they will not be sent back.

      • goplifer says:

        You just shared a bizarre anecdote from Glenn Beck on his tour with Louie Gohmert. Glenn Beck touring with Louie Gohmert. Think about that.

        Then you described the incidents as though they were real. You did it without the slightest suggestion of irony or any sentiment but blank credulity.

        That deserves some form of recognition. Not a medal, perhaps, but definitely something.

      • John Galt says:

        You beat me to it, Chris. Wouldn’t you like to have been on that trip with Louie and Glenn? Talk about a wild ride.

        “It will not be open arms,” Joe Biden thundered in Guatemala City the other day, in an attempt to dissuade would-be migrants. “We’re going to hold hearings with our judges, consistent with international law and American law, and we’re going to send the vast majority of you back.”

        http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/07/obamas-border-crisis-108540.html#ixzz388WfdJ8F

      • objv says:

        Thank you lifer, I prefer a gold medal encrusted with diamonds and rubies. I realize Glen Beck isn’t PC for this blog but I was responding to JG’s remark about drowning children like a sackful of kittens. There are many other accounts of what happens with human smuggling. Here’s one from the chron:

        http://www.chron.com/news/texas/article/Migration-spotlights-Mexican-coyote-smugglers-5634641.php

        A couple years ago, while I was still living in Houston, a man from my church was asking for prayer over a relative that was being held for ransom in Mexico. His relative was later released when enough money had been paid but the trauma to the family was extreme.Imagine having a brother or child held by someone threatening to cut off fingers or ears.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Interesting link, John. The part right after your quote summed it up well, “The only part he had right is that we will hold hearings with our judges. The immigrants themselves may or not be part of them.”

        The article really spoke of how Obama’s and Biden’s words are not reflected in tehir actions, past or present.

      • objv says:

        Chris: Another set of horrifying accounts. How many do you need?

        http://www.dallasobserver.com/2010-08-12/news/illegal-immigrants-desperate-to-find-work-in-the-u-s-risk-kidnapping-rape-and-murder-from-those-smuggling-them-across-the-border/

        JG: Biden as a “voice of reason?” In this case, I’d have to say yes.

      • objv says:

        Just read the link, cap. Yeah, I’ve got to agree with you. Biden may be telling them one thing. What government is actually doing is the opposite.

      • John Galt says:

        Yes, the rest of my link was a lot of hot air from the editor of another publication (National Review) whose quality has suffered greatly of late.

        We used to celebrate people who undertook perilous journeys in order for a chance at a better life here, whether they were the early settlers, the Wagon Trains across the continent or the “huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” Those are the people with the real American spirit, not the scared cowards screaming at buses full of children.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Yes, John, those people who legally made the efforts and the journey, those people that respect our nation and our laws. We welcome them with open arms and wish them the best.

      • John Galt says:

        As Chris has posted, there is no practical legal way for someone from Latin America who does not have immediate family already here to immigrate. If we had reasonable laws, we might not have the problems we currently have.

      • CaptSternn says:

        We could increase the quotas and we need to crack down on people that hire, aid, expolit or help exploit people here illegally. We aslso need to quickly deport those that are here illegally when they get caught, end the catch and release system where even your own link showed that most will simply continue to ignore our laws. We could increase temporary work visas for seasonal labor.

        Do those things and we can even discuss allowing those here illegally to stay on work visas, but without any hope of them ever becoming citizens. Their children born here would be citizens, of course, but not those people here illegally already. That is unfair to those that have worked through getting here under legal terms.

      • CaptSternn says:

        John, also explain why you single out people from Latin America. Are you suggesting that anybody else, from any other part of the world, of any race or religion or ethnic background does not face the same laws and challenges?

      • johnofgaunt75 says:

        Capt.

        You do know the amount of history of Chinese immigration to the United States, right? You do know that they came here both legally and illegally (the later especially after the Chinese exclusion laws came about).

        People have been coming to this country (both documented and undocumented), since the begining.

      • Turtles Run says:

        “Yes, John, those people who legally made the efforts and the journey, those people that respect our nation and our laws. We welcome them with open arms and wish them the best.”

        The laws are still being enforced and instead you and the rest of the far right want to laws changed. So please spare us the “follow the law” tripe.

      • CaptSternn says:

        75, we have been over that. The Chinese immigrated here legally and were expolited, and that was wrong. The Chinese Exclusion Act cut off the immigration, and there were very few that still came here illegally. Definately not by the tens of millions, a few hundred or thousand at most.

        Turtles, I have no problem with some changes in the law, so you are once again making things up on the fly and making false accusations.

    • GG says:

      I know a man right now who is helping renovate an old school to house some of these children. He told me just yesterday that many of these kids have family already here and they are processing them and these family members will be researched and once they’ve passed CPS inspection the children will be released to them. Their parents are indeed sending them here to escape violence and to give them opportunities besides working for the drug cartels. He told me one story of a family approached by the cartel demanding that their sons come work for them. Family refused and the boys were hacked into pieces and tossed in front of their house as a warning.

    • CaptSternn says:

      Turtles, you say we burnt a lot of goodwill because of our actions over the past 13 years? Do you understand there is a reason we acted as we have during this period? Reasons that predate 2001 by decades?

    • CaptSternn says:

      GG, very often thsoe parents that are already here are here illegally. They figured that once they got in they could just send for their kids and they would all be reunited. Fine, reunite them at the deportation site, then deport them as a family.

    • GG says:

      Not all of them have parents here. Many of the relatives are aunts and uncles, etc.

    • John Galt says:

      Yes, Dan, laws. You hyperventilate about the ones you imagine Obama breaking and cavalierly choose to ignore those you find inconvenient which, for those scoring at home, is the typical hypocrisy with which you handle most things. The Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorisation Act of 2008, passed by Congress and signed by President Bush, requires that underage migrants from Central American countries (but not Mexico) be given a full hearing to determine whether they might be considered for asylum based on their potential for sexual or other violence if they were returned. This law also says that ICE cannot hold them for more than 72 hours, so if their case cannot be heard in that time they are released, usually to extended family. Given the caseload backlogs, this is what usually happens.

      The Obama administration, which has increased border enforcement (though helped by the crappy economy) only made official policy that was clear to begin with: given limited resources for enforcement, let’s go after dangerous immigrants first and we’ll worry about children when we get around to it, which will be quarter-till-never. The only difference between this and every other administration in history is that this one actually said it aloud.

    • CaptSternn says:

      And many of those aunts and uncles are here illegally. Go back and read the link lLifer posted in response to me on the tomato issue. That is the sort of thing we as a nation are encouraging by encouraging people to come here illegally.

    • GG says:

      Bad mood today Dan? Yes, anecdotes, which comes from having friends and neighbors who are involved in different things and are well travelled. This man is quite interesting and has led a very adventurous life.

    • GG says:

      Then again, Cappy, many of them might not be.

    • John Galt says:

      Well, then I applaud Obama for forward thinking. I mean, a guy who’ll never run in another election admitting thousands of illegal minors who have virtually no chance of rights as voting-eligible citizens for decades is really planning ahead. You think he’s helping Malia get elected in 2050?

    • texan5142 says:

      Go to bed Dan and get up on the right side next time will ya. You are one mean, nasty sob today.

    • Bart-1 says:

      The reason I asked is that you quoted Biden’s statement as though we can bet on his statements regarding the border earlier. I’m thinking you also believe we can believe him when he guarantees that Iran will NEVER have a Nuke under this administration too right? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkh-B5yCmCQ I lved his claim that “even if they DID get one”.. “they don’t have any means of delivery” while recently being exposed as having provided over 1,000 rockets to Hammas to bomb Israel.

    • bubbabobcat says:

      tuttabellamia says:
      July 22, 2014 at 8:44 am
      “As I posted elsewhere, these ‘kids’ are neither angels nor demons.”

      And as a civilized society, we don’t turn our backs on vulnerable children no matter how they arrived at our doorsteps.

  22. John Galt says:

    Actually, looking at mold under a microscope is fascinating, the many different kinds have fantastic structures and can grow on seemingly inhospitable surfaces. I’ve got to get on my roof to pressure wash off the mold growing on a section of Hardi plank siding. They’re also responsible for lots of different cheeses (the rind on brie and blue in blue cheese are both molds). Quite enlightening to study.

    Similarly, it can be enlightening to understand why people are poor. Can you send me some information on the welfare programs available to able bodied people? I’d like to make a little brochure or something to pass out to those able bodied people panhandling at virtually every intersection these days. I’m sure they’d rather be on the dole than sweating at the corner of Westheimer and Post Oak. Fact is, there ain’t much out there unless you have children, which makes it slightly harder to stave off starvation at $7.25 per hour minus child care. My child care is fantastically affordable and costs $4.25/hour, amortized over the month. Plus it’s available only during the normal workday. But enjoy the $24 you’ll take home at the end of the day!

  23. Tuttabella says:

    It’s too bad this blog entry hasn’t generated more comments. I find the idea of disappearing foods and disappearing products and jobs very interesting, very futuristic, not so much on a sci-fi level, but in a cultural sense, a major societal shift.

  24. bubbabobcat says:

    Chris, I commend you for putting a lot thought in your proposals and I would love for it to work, but short an international tariff war with third world countries with slave labor type workforces, I see a massive trade imbalance and recessionary economy shrinkage from the other countries dumping their still profitable goods dirt cheap to a US market hooked on cheap goods like a heroin addict.

    And I don’t know what the solution is besides incremental changes such as a guest worker program and yes, labor union protection for (illegal/expat) migrant or itinerant workers in any and all businesses.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/17/national/17labor.html?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3Ar&_r=0

  25. Bobo Amerigo says:

    Is there no hope for a guest worker program?

  26. CaptSternn says:

    I don’t eat seafood or fish at all, but I don’t think you can compare a catfish to Alaskan King Crab or Maine Lobster. Your “minimum income” from the oil dividends are about $900 per year, hardly anything to write home about and it hurts the state. High school graduation is above average, but college degrees are below average.

    Still, illegal aliens, immigrants or ex-pats, will almost always get the short end of the stick. That’s because they are illegal aliens. The way to solve the problem is to make them unwelcome and crack down on those that employ or aid them. Your “solution” would only encourage more to come here illegally, which is no solution for illegal aliens at all.

    The people that come here legally are usually people in fields that are in high demand. Surely we would benefit by increasing the number of people that can come here legally, and even provide more temporary work visas for unskilled jobs and that would give those people better protection from being exploited and abused. But not encouraging more people coming here illegally and definately not allowing the people that do to skip the process others go through to come here legally and give them any chance for citizenship.

    • texan5142 says:

      Enjoy paying $ 7 plus dollars a pound for tomatoes do ya? Sternn, you and I maybe or maybe not, benefit from migrant labor that Americans won’t do. I do not know what to say beyond that. Until you are wiling to pay the actual cost of what you and I eat , on the backs of these people, then you should just …..have a good evening….peace.

    • CaptSternn says:

      No, Texan, I like to grow my own tomatoes, beans, squash, peppers, lettuce and other things. My mom does a lot of canning when the crop comes in.

      FYI, tomato harvesting is automated.

      • goplifer says:

        The tomatoes you get at the grocery store very rarely come from an automated grower. California is generally automated. Florida is not and conditions are very ugly.

        http://thecnnfreedomproject.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/21/your-tomato-possible-ties-to-slavery/

      • CaptSternn says:

        Yes, Lifer, that is disgusting and terrible, and yet another reason we need to discourage people coming here illegally and punish people that expolit them or aid in their exploitation. We must not encourage more to come with promises of higher wages or plans for amnesty. Such things end up leading to and causing things your link shows.

      • texan5142 says:

        I grow my own veggies also Cap, love to work in the garden.

        Tuna steaks tonight with fresh salad out of the garden. I don’t use any chemicals in my garden , you can eat what you pick right out of the garden. A little rabbit piss never hurt anyone.

      • John Galt says:

        “The tomatoes you get at the grocery store very rarely come from an automated grower.”

        They would be at $10/hour for labor, at least the domestically produced ones.

    • texan5142 says:

      No seafood Cap? My steaks might change you mind.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Well, they might. Maybe Tutt could convince me that your steaks are worth trying, only … YOU KEEP EATING THEM! 😀

        The only chemicals we use would be cow crap and some epson salt and fertalizer for the ‘maters. We can’t use any insecticides because we have a beehive in our yard. Makes for some great honey, or so Tutt tells me. Honey is another thing I don’t use. Not much into sweets, except for sweet tea.

        Though we didn’t have much a garden this spring. It was always a big thing for my dad, he got me into it several years ago during one of my periods of unemployment. He passed on New Years Eve and I just didn’t have the will this year. Maybe next spring we will get it going again.

      • texan5142 says:

        Sorry to hear that your dad passed away. Just lost my mom a little over a year ago, I feel your pain.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Thanks, Texan. I am sorry about your loss as well.

    • CaptSternn says:

      By the way, Lifer, that was kind of a funny video. Sort of like the person that says, “I’m not a racist, some of my best friends are black.”

      My dear lady’s favorite part was where the guy was saying to the other that he knew some cuss words in English, then started giving examples. I can relate to that since at my factory job the employees were 90% or more green card holing folks from south of the border, and they would often use vulgar Spanish words on the job, usually directed at us “white” folk, so I learned a few words. I leave it at that and don’t bring up examples, at least not in public.

      What made me laugh about that one is that there is a song that Quentin Tarantino used on the ending credits of Kill Bill Volume II, Malaguena Salerosa, by (a-band-that-shall-not-be-named). On the extras the leader of (the-band-that-shall-not-be-named) said he loved the song, and here is his versrion that has been (word-that-shall-not-be-said)-enized.

      Just a couple of weeks ago we were sitting in our favorite Mexican restaurant discussing another song from the soundtrack of Volume I (I have the soundtrack and she has a different version of the song on her iPhone) and I brought up the song by (the-band-that-shall-not-be-named), only I said the name of that band. She was like the “white” guy in the video, looking around to see if anybody had overheard me and shushing me.

      She sometimes calls me naive here on this blog. I guess at times I am. D’oh!

    • bubbabobcat says:

      Well, they say fish IS brain food.

      Jes sayin’… 🙂

  27. Bobo Amerigo says:

    Yes, our accounting system is lacking reality.

    All those annual reports with footnotes by a CPA are lies.

    My favorite form of art making is relief sculpture, which I describe as one lie after another, in search of a truth.

    The nation’s accounting system is a lie, too, but with no desire for truth.

    Exploitation is the name of the game.

  28. flypusher says:

    “Are you here legally, uh, I mean documented?”

    Definitely something I’ll never be asked.

  29. flypusher says:

    “Across vast segments of the economy, the availability of exploitable illegal immigrant labor is a fundamental assumption of many business models. ”

    Or being able to dump your pollution on someone else. There’s far too many unethical business models going on.

  30. texan5142 says:

    In the eighties, 1983 to be exact, I worked with some people here illegally and they were some of the hardest working, very kind and some of the best human beings I have ever had the pleasure of working with. Give you there food and share their lunch with you if you were hungry. Give you the only bed in the house and sleep in the closet on the floor if you were a guest. It is easy to hate and/or fear people who are different until you take the time and break bread with them and realize they are human being as yourself.

    • CaptSternn says:

      I took a year off from working in IT after losing my job in Rosenberg, the company politics there really beat me down and I needed a break from such things. I did handyman work during that year, first with a guy that was my neighbor in the Rosenberg RV park, but I was losing money and my savings was dwindling, I left there and moved back into my home.

      My intent was to live off what savings I had left while looking for work in IT again, but there was a guy in the neighborhood that did handyman and carpentry work and he offered me a job because he needed somebody to help him and he needed somebody with a pickup. It was money on the table so I accepted. He got paid in cash and paid me in cash.

      He started asking me if I could cash checks and other things. I got suspicious and finally asked him if he was here legally and he said no, but I did keep working with him and started putting out feelers for a job in IT. About a month later he screwed me out of money he owed me, and soon after that he self deported.

      I could offer many other anectdotal examples, but others could do the same in favor of illegal aliens being good people. The reality is that there are good people and bad people in all walks of life. I have worked with many people in different jobs and lines of work. Many have been hard workers, including citizens and people with green cards. Even the illegal alien that hired me was a hard worker, he just wasn’t a very good person.

  31. tuttabellamia says:

    Lifer must be a mind reader. Just the other day i was having a discussion about the HYPHENATERS versus the HYPHEN-HATERS, and whether kids should learn their elders’ native language, and I thought, The only way either I (or Kabuzz, for that matter) could ever hope to escape the Spanish language would be to move to Alaska.

    • tuttabellamia says:

      My discussion was with Kabuzz, by the way.

    • CaptSternn says:

      I think it would always be a benefit for kids to learn more than one language. It is a shame that Kabuzz was cut off from the native language of his elders. Kids that are bilingual also have an easier time picking up on other languages and becoming miltilingual. You are a great example of that, my dear lady. 😉

  32. tuttabellamia says:

    Really enjoyed this piece. Reminded me of the effect the Coates article had on me, making me really think, hitting really deep, like reading a good book, not supercial like so much online writing, Instead of going in circles and rehashing the same topics and same tired approaches, we have interesting, stimulating ideas for solutions. I like how the entry combines various usual topics from this blog: immigration, minimum wage, automation, and i enjoy the idea of new business models, healthier eating habits that might result, a sort of hearkening to the past.

    • tuttabellamia says:

      We may learn to give proper respect and value not just to workers but to commodities again, and stop seeing and treating things as disposable, resulting in less waste, better for the environment.

  33. texan5142 says:

    I do not believe most Americans know how cheap our food supply is because of migrant labor.

  34. John Galt says:

    There are a lot of variables here. I suspect that this proposal would lead to more off-shoring of low-skill labor-intensive jobs like agriculture because of the relative labor cost differential. Farming here would become even more mechanized with innovations that reduced the requirements for labor. Small holdings would exist only for very high value crops (such as the organic industry). There would have to be a serious enforcement effort, which there seems little political will to implement.

    For those jobs that remained, we would get more people out of working poverty, thus reducing welfare costs. We presently subsidize food (and other products produced through low skilled labor) through various inefficient welfare programs. It would be less distorting to pay what food actually costs to produce, particularly if this would result in lower spending (and lower taxes).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Goodreads

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 471 other followers

%d bloggers like this: