Ferguson

You'd think that with three months to plan their riot, Ferguson, MO should have had it go a lot smoother than it did. But let's face it, the looting and rioting was being looked forward to so much that they would have done it even with an indictment of first degree murder.

But the most disturbing thing was the comments from the "protest leaders." All expressed their profound disappointment that "justice was not served." They complained loudly, that "justice" had eluded them again. But when they were pressed to reconcile their feelings of betrayal and the facts of the case that had finally been revealed, they in essence said, the facts don't matter. Obviously their idea of justice does not revolve around the facts.

Refugees, Immigrants or Players?

Madison has now accepted at least 50 of the Central American kids who have shown up at our borders, unaccompanied during the past year or so. What began as a trickle has turned into a river that continues to grow wider and deeper. The press has had an increasingly difficult time trying to determine what to call them. Immigrant is probably most popular, because the press in general wants them to be viewed in the most benign way possible, and immigrant accomplishes that. But the problem with that term is that it deliberately erases the line between legal and illegal immigration. And the liberals, which includes the majority in the press, don't like to use the qualifier "illegal," even when it is entirely appropriate. They are fond of saying "Nobody is illegal," even though that's obviously not true.

Furthermore, the law that allows these Central American children to stay here, as opposed to say Mexican or Canadian youth, requires that they be refugees from something. Consequently, "refugees" is now being used interchangeably with  "immigrants." The law was apparently written in order to address child sex trafficking, and they had some reason for excluding border states from this particular situation. 

So in the article that announced these new arrivals, they stated that they were all fleeing "gang violence."

All of them? Really?

The list of nations from which these children come, I'm sure have criminal gangs: Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador. But they are not even in the same league as Mexico. Furthermore, those gangs have been around for decades. So why is this all happening now?

For some reason, the notion that we are getting played in all this, is dismissed out of hand. "These are children! Look at them, they are sick, scared and desperate to escape violence. Have you no heart?"

Well I do have a heart, but I also have eyes and a brain. And something tells me that 60,000 children, from multiple countries, did not all show up here at the same time because MS-13 was expanding in each of their neighborhoods. Why is it so incomprehensible that the guy on the street in Tegucigalpa might have learned about this quirk in American immigration law, and recognized the opportunity to exploit it? Some people seem to be of the opinion that the average guy in Central America can't possibly understand the loophole that allows them to stay in this country despite being picked up for crossing the border illegally. Why not? You don't think word has gotten back to El Salvador about what happened to the kid who left and went to America last Fall? 60,000 in six months? There aren't 60,000 gang members in Central America to threaten them. I do not believe all these kids, or even the majority, are actually being threatened by gangs, but I promise you all of them know that that is what they are supposed say to the Border Patrol. Take note of the fact that these kids are not being "captured" by our Border Patrol, they are seeking them out and turning themselves in. They understand that is the way to get in and stay. 

On Second Thought...

I sent my idea about having digital video cameras provide deterrence against voter fraud to a local conservative blogger. I tried hard this time to present a coherent, reasonable alternative to Voter ID that would leave the liberals without a club with which to beat us. After I sent it, I was anticipating once again, that I would not receive a response. I began to think of who it was to whom I could send this. Then it hit me. I should send this to any member of either party, who was most interested in that thing that they all claim to be in favor of. Almost all of them claim to be looking to for ways they can compromise with, or reach out to, the other side. All I had to do was identify the politician who was more interested in finding common ground on an issue, as opposed to preferring the intractable standoff. There was just one problem: there are none of those.

Originally, I was thinking that each side preferred to reap the cynical benefits of this game. For the Democrats that would be all the fraudulent votes they were likely to receive. For the Republicans, it would be the voter suppression they would surely cause. That was close, but just a smidgen off. I now believe it's more the argument they don't want to give up. What they can't bring themselves to let go of, is the opportunity to make the other side look bad, or at least worse than they think they look. The Democrats are convinced that Voter ID makes the Republicans look like racists, and the Republicans think opposing it makes the Democrats appear to support voter fraud. And they'd both rather have that fight than they would like to find a solution. 

Climate Wierdness

That's what Thomas Friedman of the NY Times called climate change on Sunday. He was following up on the "study" issued by the UN that basically says "We're screwed."

And that's the problem with the liberals who want desperately to declare the debate over. The debate is anything but over. Calling for an end is just their way way of asking us to give up. But in the process of trying to get conservatives to shut up, liberals have decided to portray things in the worst way with the most catastrophic consequences. I believe they are doing so in the belief that if their predictions are bad enough, that we might be inclined to think that while they may be wrong, they might only be wrong about the depth of the disaster. So this is why they hint that in fact, it might already be too late. We are destroying the planet, but there might still be time to act,... barely.

OK, so let mew get this straight. All the carbon from burning fossil fuels (or anything else for that matter) is what is at fault. But even as we in the US have made the Prius one of the most popular cars in America, and have gone on an electric car binge, the problem remains that for every American who buys a Prius, there are 5 other people in the world who have just gotten a gas guzzling, carbon spewing car, truck, motor cycle etc. They want the transportation and they couldn't care less about climate change. Whats more they can't afford to think about that even if they did care. We can't convince them, and we can't control them. Oh, by the way what are we burning to generate the electricity that charges all those electric cars? Coal.

The liberals are ready to wreak havoc on our economy and way of life, in order to nibble around the edges. If we are really as bad off as they say we are, this is all spit in the ocean, and they know it. If they truly believed what they are saying, they would be all in for a two pronged attack. First would be the development and design of the safest nuclear power plants possible, with fail safe, earthquake proof systems that would contain any accidents and include a way to safely shut down on it's own. Nuclear is the only thing that can replace fossil fuels on the scale that we current burn them. Wind and solar will only compliment, not replace. The second prong would be to build huge carbon capturing systems to take some carbon out of the atmosphere. And these would also need to be nuclear powered.

So here's the deal. If you believe in global warming, yet aren't advocating for this radical path, then you are full of it. If it's as big a problem as Tom Friedman says, this is the only serious way that Americans can take this on. If you are advocating something less, then your motives are suspect in my book.

Stay in Your Own Lane, Please

So the other day I caught a video clip of Stephen Colbert interviewing that idiot Jimmy Carter, who has been out of office long enough for most people to forget how truly awful he was as President. I think the Democrats rehabilitated him around the year 2000 after not inviting him to their conventions for a couple of decades.

Colbert was playing the clueless conservative role that is his trademark and Jimmy was hawking his new book with some catch all title with "Religion, Women and Violence" in the title. And Carter can't resist trashing the Catholic church and commenting that he would consider converting to Catholicism if only he could do so with a married female priest, or something like that. And last year a good friend of mine who happens to be Episcopalian, was  posting all these fawning comments about the then new Pope Francis, saying how much she really liked what she perceived as liberal comments about the direction he might take the church (fact is she was reading tea leaves, and had it wrong.) But it occurred to me that I would never in a million years consider weighing in on which tenets or practices of which I approve or disapprove within the Baptist or Episcopalian churches. I just wouldn't. So why do they feel the need (or license) to do so concerning Catholics? I can't imagine a more inappropriate place to wade into. Jimmy carter would never become Catholic no matter who was converting him and it's ridiculous to say otherwise. What, he thinks so little of his Baptist faith that he's throw it under the bus for a chance to become Catholic? And my Episcopalian friend is ecstatic that her church has openly gay priests. But she'd go Catholic for Francis? Not. But why should they care at all what Catholics do? I do not get it. Maybe I should tell my friend that I'd consider becoming Episcopalian if only they'd stop letting their priests marry and throw out the female ones.

The Big Picture

They were discussing Obamacare this morning on talk radio and whether or not people were aware of or in denial about any cost effect coming their way. And this has been one of the most predictable results since O'care was conceived. Forget all this crap about saving that would accrue because of preventative care or steering people away from the emergency room. It's really so simple.

First, envision the system we used to have. X number of total dollars were spent insuring some 85% of Americans. Those 85% were reasonably happy with their coverage, cost and doctor. Keeping with the basic concept of insurance, you could not insure yourself against illnesses you already had. The president and Democrats like to refer to this as an "abhorrent practice" of the insurance industry, but it's just a basic tenet of insurance. You can't insure against a car wreck after you've had it and you can't buy a homeowners policy once your house is on fire.

Now, without regard to where the money is coming from or from whom it is coming, imagine that you are going to cover the other 15% (40 million people), prohibit preexisting condition exclusions, and increase the coverage to certain minimums for everybody. Now tell me with a straight face, that you think that all probably adds up to a savings of $2,500 per family, per year. Go ahead.

Minimum Wage

I was having a familiar argument with one of my socialist friends. He was talking about why we should raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour. The specific number isn't all that important to me, of course. I believe it is simply not the role of government to dictate these types of things and that it will create adverse conditions in the economy (namely higher unemployment.)

But he said something during our talk that was revealing. He was making that familiar argument that the current minimum wage is usually not enough for somebody to support a family. As I was pointing out that wages are set not by how much the worker needs as it is by how much value he brings to the business, he said something about the "guy at the top" deciding what the worker gets paid. And then added that the current system is "failing for millions of workers."

First, I questioned what it was that was failing. Is it the system that is failing, or the worker? While there may indeed be millions who are "failing" there are hundreds of millions who are not, But it is also not true that the boss is the one determining his wages. Wages are determined by the marketplace, Which means that a specific worker's wages are not just determined by his current boss, but by any potential future bosses as well. Any boss has to consider what other people might pay that worker, in particular his competition.