The socialist government of Argentine Presidente Cristina Kirchner, came into office on a platform of economic reforms ("fairness, justice, and equality") the end of political corruption, and the restoration of Argentine sovereignty to the British territories of the Falklands (Malvinas), South Georgia, and South Sandwich Islands–located in a range of 300 to 1000 off Argentina’s Southern most coasts.

The Argentine people have been enculturated with a profoundly distorted historical account of the British Empire displacing poor gauchos and Argentine settlers from the Malvinas; completing omitting the true facts that an American Privateer, David Jewett, raised the claim to the islands in 1820 on behalf of Las Provincias Unidas de Sud América (the United Provinces of South America–a predecessor government twice removed to the subsequent governments of PARTS of Argentina and Uruguay). The claim was made by Captain Jewett in observance to the conditions of his letters of marque he had obtained from the revolutionary government fighting for its independence from Spain. Argentina’s sole exercise of sovereignty on the islands was the establishment of a penal colony in 1828...which was destroyed less than 3 years later.

While I personally believe that the Argentine claim to the Falklands/Malvinas was every bit as viable as that of the British in the 1830s, it seems that after 175 years of continuous British occupation and settlement, the French, who originally discovered, claimed the IslasÎles Malovines would have an equal claim – which could by extension also just as reasonably support a Spanish attempt to reassert its historical claim over the whole of Uruguay or Argentina.

There appears to be a clear lack of consistency and a newly disclosed selectiveness to moral outrage when it comes to Congressional ear-marks. I guess some have qualified that ear-marks are only bad when the "bridge to no-where" isn’t being constructed in their congressional district.

“. . . It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. . . .”

            William Shakespeare, The Oxford Shakespeare, Macbeth, Act V. Scene V.

    If Shakespeare had been addressing the flawed political rhetoric used to shout down any economic discussion of the value of today’s minimum-wage legislation, he couldn’t have phrased a better or more descriptive summary.  I find their elitist pronouncements about job environment for minimum wage earners much akin to the 18^th century Marie Antoinette attitude of, “If the peasants have no bread, then let them eat cake.”

    The Salt Lake Tribune recently reported on a stalled bill in Utah’s state legislature, which would increase the state minimum-wage ahead of the current federal minimum-wage, and subsequently index annual increases to the national inflation rate.

    “Neil Hansen, D-Ogden, presented HB114 to the House Business and Labor Committee Wednesday, recommending raising the minimum-wage each year to keep pace with the consumer price index.  The measure stalled, with all but two legislators voting to adjourn without taking action on the bill.

    Utah mandates a $5.85 hourly minimum-wage. Federal law requires the minimum-wage to increase incrementally over the next two years. On July 24 it jumps to $6.55, then a year later to $7.25.  According to www.laborlawcenter.com, the minimum-wage in other states ranges from $5.85 to Washington's $8.07.

    Rep. Ben Ferry, R-Corinne, asked Hansen why he wanted to separate Utah from the federal system.  ‘Several states have different minimum-wages higher than the federal standard,’ Hansen replied. ‘In fairness to those making minimum-wage - some are trying to provide for families - and inflation rises but the minimum-wage does not.’”  --Minimum-wage increases, Proposal Stalls in House Committee, By Cathy McKitrick, The Salt Lake Tribune, 01/31/2008

    The persistent mantra and a political urban legend is that there are a significant number of people in minimum-wage jobs supporting families.  If we look hard enough, we could possibly find an instance or two where that is true. However; when the US Congress went out to prove the need for the last round of minimum-wage increases--three studies turned up only a few antidotal instances of minimum-wage earners with families who were a) in the job for more than 6 months; b) working more than part time; c) not a student; d) without a spouse earning greater than minimum-wage; e) in the minimum-wage job as the sole source of income (i.e. retirees); or, f) not receiving government financial subsidies in supplement to wages earned.  The studies even fudged a bit by “imputing” an average "hourly" wage, for some farm and factory workers, actually paid based upon production or output.  This was done in an attempt to expand the minimum-wage population to include a greater number of immigrant/migrant workers.

    While not providing percentages, the findings indicate "a majority" of interviewed workers, earning at or slightly above the federal minimum-wage, had the expectation of using the new skills learned in their current employ to obtain better jobs in the “near future.”  In other words, most US minimum-wage employ is being used as a short-term entry-level opportunity, leading towards anticipated future jobs with better pay.

    When I was a kid, my first job with a paycheck was working for the local dry-cleaner doing odd-jobs at a "student-wage." The student-wage paid roughly half of the then minimum-wage.  The other merchants were hiring older kids who got the higher paying minimum-wage.  I was in Junior High School, and 13 years old.  It was understandable that the minimum-wage employers didn’t want to take a chance on a younger worker, when they could hire a 16 year old High School student, who should be more mature and responsible, for the same price.  I was at the dry-cleaner job for <6 months.  I used references from the student-wage dry-cleaner job to show my next employer that I was demonstrably dependable, reliable and responsible.  Because of my age, I was hired on a trial basis during the Christmas shopping season and later was kept on when some of the less industrious older kids got laid-off before the start of the January linen-sales.

    I worked at that job for <6 months, using that experience to help get a much better paying "summer job" (another trial period opportunity--which lead to a nice raise in the Fall and I continued on as part-time employee after school).  I made more during that next summer than I did the prior year from the income of both the earlier student-wage and the minimum wage jobs combined.  That Fall, my part-time job paid about one and half times the minimum wage, and I made sure to work hard enough that my employer considered me to be a bargain for what he was paying me.  I kept that job for the entire school year before once more trading up for higher wages the following summer.

    The point is, MY KIDS don't have the same path to entry level employment.  We've legislated away most of these opportunities.  Wage increases have destroyed a number of starter jobs. Increased employer taxes have destroyed others.  Increased employer work place liability & regulations have destroyed still more.  Of the remaining manual labor/low skill starter jobs, teenagers now have to compete with an ever increasing influx of older immigrant workers who are grateful to assume these entry-level jobs–paying a LOT more than even the best jobs available to them back home.

   Increasing the minimum-wage by $1 an hour, for a full-time employed person, will generally result in <$20 net pay per week; or, just about $1K per year. That will NOT result in any appreciable change to the workers standard of living.  It WILL however, result in a few less available entry level jobs for those who would have used such work as a starting point into the larger job market or to climb the rungs of employment towards a satisfactory vocation or career.

   Increasing the minimum-wage is a hollow victory for a few politicians that haven't yet considered doing a reality check using a calculator. The vocal advocates for higher minimum-wages obviously know VERY LITTLE about the kinds of jobs such legislation would be affecting.  When confronted by the historic FACT that there have been reductions in entry-level jobs EVERY TIME the minimum wage has been raised, they ignore the relevant financial realities and pretend that their good intentions will more than make up for the fact that those who were unemployed, who would have taken the unskilled entry-level jobs, are now both unemployed AND unemployable.

  For those without job, or even the near-term prospect of job, it is small comfort or solace that the liberal activist and the progressive politician have achieved a personal moral victory against the greedy bourgeoisie –at the expense of many of the proletariat’s employment opportunities.  To the moneyed activist, the insulated politician and the reality-disenfranchised academia, the loss of entry-level jobs appears to be an inconsequential matter. . . after all, who in their right mind would really want to do such distasteful work at such a low wage?  Aren’t they really much better off unemployed than working at menial and low-paying jobs?

  In today’s Salt Lake Tribune, the story headline read: Firearms law often shirked,

  The first proposed bill for the upcoming 2008 Utah legislative session is one sponsored by Rep. Christine Johnson, D-Salt Lake City. The presented bill proposes to grant workplace anti-discrimination protection for employees based on "sexual orientation" and "gender identity." Especially, granting protected status in employment for certain sexual preferences.

  I am against the baseless ill-treatment of anyone. Ill treating someone based upon their weight, natural hair color, complexion problems, or height are just as unreasonable to me as mistreating someone because of their gay lifestyle. This does not mean that I’m supportive of laws which make name calling on the school-yard a criminal offense.

People make LOTS of lifestyle choices, some of them are more socially agreeable, while others are less accepted. Opening the door to grant a favored status or promote some choices by force through the legal system does not seem to be a very good or morally sound idea.

  For years, it has been gratuitously asserted that one’s sexual orientation is not a choice, but rather a genetic predisposition. The claim of there being a "gay gene" has never been supported by anything other than rhetoric, shouting and righteous indignation against "homophobia." [If there is a recessive homosexual gene, why hasn’t its carriers been subject to the normal elimination processes imposed by natural selection?]

  If each individual’s personal sexual orientation were to be demonstrated as genetic in origin –rooted before birth in one’s DNA, then would not we also be morally obligated to establish similar protected status and allowance for other publicly discriminated sexual orientations: pedophilia, necrophilia, polygyny and perhaps bestiality? The logic for such protection is straight-forward (no pun intended); if sexual orientation is of a genetic predisposition, then there could be NO moral or rightful basis for establishing laws advancing or rejecting one sexual orientation or preference as being "more natural" or preferred over any other in the spectrum of human sexual proclivities.

  But that’s not what is being sought.

  What is desired is not that all sexual orientations be granted an equal legal status, but that their preferred lifestyle be given unique public status, above all others, that permits them additional legal and civil protections not enjoyed by anyone else. Draped in the robes of "fairness" and "equality" is to make some in our society, ". . . more equal than others."

I am against the baseless ill-treatment of anyone. I think that such actions are wrong.

I also find no moral foundation in imposing upon the majority the recognition of "superior-rights" for a minority. Forcing the public the wrong way to do the "right thing" is itself morally insupportable. If our LBTG community truly wants to gain public acceptance and native civility towards the cause, seeking to mandate it through police and lawyers is NOT the best venue or approach for continuing a favorable public dialogue.

   A short while ago, I read an editorial article asserting the state of Utah was "unfair" due to the nature of its liquor laws and the government's prudish refusal to consider legislation to extend drinking privileges to 18 year old soldiers and sailors.

  The author noted that many military commanders overseas permit both the sale and consumption of alcohol by their enlisted personnel. He also pulled out all of the old canards and slogans of the 1960s and 1970s, used by activists to extend federal voting rights to 18 year olds, as support to bolster his arguments to the state’s legislature for changing state laws.

   I submitted my comments in opposition to the article and idea to both the author and the newspaper’s opinion page editor. I really didn’t expect either notice or response to my refutation–and I wasn’t disappointed.

   I lived through the Viet Nam war era and clearly remember the passage of the 26th Amendment in 1971 when 18 year olds got the vote. The editorial author paraphrased the mantra of that day: "If I'm old enough to fight & die, I'm old enough to vote & drink." While 18-25 is one of our largest population groups, they're also the least likely to vote...that's been true for over 30+ years now. Changing the vote age back to 21 would impact voting percentages by < 1%.

   Many states lowered their drinking age to 18 during the 70's & 80's. After the death tolls went through the roof, within just a few years, these same states universally raised drinking ages back to 21. The social experiment with a lower drinking age needlessly cost thousands of young lives.

   This last fall, 5 underage college students drank themselves to death (alcohol poisoning). Campus police report that 2/3rd of all of the reported rapes cases are related to intoxication.

   Two years ago, the AMA reported that: "Underage [teen] drinking is a big public health problem, ...underage drinking increases the chances of homicide, suicide, brain damage, pregnancy and HIV infection." Frankly, as there is absolutely no identified virtue in killing brain cells with a bottle, the mature kids, those that I'd trust with a lower drinking age, are the very ones that are the least likely to drink.

This week I read an article that the single major killer of young combat veterans is auto accidents. According to 2001-2004 military statistics, our young warriors had almost a 50% greater chance of dying in a car crash than in combat...a major factor in these deaths was drunk driving. The military CAN lower the on base/post drinking age to 18; they choose not to as a safety consideration.

   There are two very practical reasons why the military primarily recruits young people 18-25: their youthful physical prowess and their immaturity–the immature & false self-image of total invincibility, grants them the major virtue of near fearlessness in combat. A long-standing military axiom: "There are old soldiers & bold soldiers, but few old-bold soldiers."

   In short, the 18 year old drinking age was tried...the cost in young lives was a greater price than Americans were willing to pay. The 18 year old vote is a failed experiment–not changed because its self-correcting.
   If teenage soldiers were ever irked enough to use their political voice, they would be exempted from handgun restrictions overnight. Still, while state handgun prohibitions are founded upon crime/gang statistics, one state legislator made a very good argument against changing the restrictions for the teenage military: If the military that trained them doesn't trust them with an off-duty gun (possession of a firearm is highly restricted on base/post), why should we believe that they'll be significantly safer while on leave?

   There are tremendous differences in the maturity & judgement at 18, 21 and 25. Some laws & insurance premiums reflect that. The author mentioned the maturity of his son, who could be inferred to be between 19-21. I asked the author what was his assessment of the son’s maturity today, compared to when he was in 18; knowing as a father myself, the differences to be significant. As far as the virtue of the "right" of teens to marry, what is legal should not be used to imply something as being wise...in this instance, divorce statistics demonstrates exactly the opposite.

   Emotions may support an opinion for a lower drinking age for the young men and women in our armed services, but reason, facts and logic sure don't.

    Recently, Hollywood described itself as another “casualty of war as movie-goers shun Iraq films.”  The AP article bemoaned that almost without exception, “…the crop of [recent “war”] movies have struggled to turn a profit at the box-office and in many cases have received a mauling from unimpressed critics as well.”
    I wonder why?
    The movie, “Rendition,” stars Reese Witherspoon and Jake Gyllenhaal.  The plot focuses on the CIA's and military policy of outsourcing interrogation of terror suspects –you only need one guess as to who the “real” bad guys are.

    “In the Valley of Elah,” a father, a career officer and his wife, work with a police detective to uncover the truth behind their son's disappearance following his return from a tour of duty in Iraq.  According to Hollywood, any solider that isn’t a rapist and a murderer is a victim.  In this movie, the concept is taken to Hollywood’s view of its logical conclusion. 

    I wonder if Susan Sarandon, Tommy Lee-Jones and Charlize Theron were paid actors, or simply did this film as a sort of “in-kind donation” to the hate-America-first and anti-war movements?

    “The Kingdom,” stars Jamie Foxx and Jennifer Garner:  A team of FBI counter-terrorism agents want to investigate an attack on Americas in Saudi Arabia, but the U.S. government says no.  With a bit of pressure, they end up going anyway—where they battle Saudis and American government roadblocks [generated by implicit US politicians acting on behalf of oil-rich business interests].

    Although I haven’t/won’t go see the movie, I can’t help but wonder how often the names Blackwater, Hallaberton and Dick Cheney are invoked or implied in the dialogue.

    Robert Redford directs and stars in the yet to be released movie “Lions for Lambs.”   Following a press-conference during the promotional tour, Steve Winn of the San Francisco Chronicle describes the movie as a “. . . film [that] invites viewers to weigh the choices elected officials, journalists, students, professors and soldiers make in the morally swampy era of Bush administration foreign policy and ethos.”  He later quotes Redford during interviews as he [Redford] “traces a through line from McCarthyism to Watergate to the Iran-Contra scandal to the Iraq war.” He loathes the "stupid war" in Iraq and laments a [US] press that has "rubber-stamped" many of the president's policies.”

    Obviously this Redford movie approaches the Iraq war with about the same level of objectivity one would expect from say…Joseph Gobbles?

    Brian De Palma's "Redacted," is about the real-life rape and killing of a 14-year-old Iraqi girl by U.S. soldiers with shocking images that will leave some viewers in tears.  Movie promoters advertise Redacted as being “Inspired by one of the most serious crimes committed by American soldiers in Iraq since the 2003 invasion, it spares the audience no brutality to get its message across.” 

    So…what is the message and what are the generalities Mr. De Palma is attempting imply & assert about the US military?

    Lew Harris, the editor of the website Movies.com, is quoted as saying:

    “These films [anti-military/anti-war on terrorism movies] have struggled to be successful because the subject matters of Iraq and 9/11 remain too close to home. And in many cases, the films have not been entertaining enough. These movies have to be entertaining. You can't just take a movie and make it anti-war or anti-torture and expect to draw people in.  That's what happened with 'Rendition' and it has been a disaster," he said.  People want war movies to have a slam-bang adventure feel to them ... But Iraq is a difficult war to portray in a kind of rah-rah-rah, exciting way.”

    There is a seeming imperative of "entertainment industry" to shove their undisguised political statements down the collective throat of the American public--and charge us outrageously for the privilege of sitting through 2-3 hours of their indoctrination. 

    The recent spate of Hollywood products about the US government and the war on Islamo-fascism can be summed up as elitist depictions of our military as a collection of degenerates and reprobates; conservative politicians are either clueless, insane, or of an inherently despicable nature; Americans that support the military and government are ignorant at best, or alternatively, nationalistic war-mongering imperialists.

    Everyone that doesn’t fit the Hollywood ultra-liberal world-view of the war is worthy only of disdain.

    News-flash -- Most Americans, not living in Malibu, Aspen, Beverley Hills, San Francisco, and the high-rent district of New York, don’t buy the message that our military is a collection of either moral degenerates, rapists, and murders, or unintelligent, naïve, and duped victims awaiting for Hollywood to provide them with moral clarity and a catharsis.  Ehren Watada maybe the glitterati’s, the academinistas’, and their sycophant media’s idea of a hero, but this just doesn’t square with the majority of Americans.  The rest of us view the men and women of our armed-services as intelligent and highly skilled warriors, putting themselves into harms-way out of patriotism and love of country--values that Hollywood is too removed and privileged to even comprehend any more.

    Movie writers and producers seem surprised that “Fly-over country” isn’t buying their latest crop of cinematic depictions; that those who don’t view America as the cornerstone of all evil in the world are somehow simpletons or are enabling degenerates and reprobates.

      Sen. Tom Coburn, an Oklahoma Republican, is again sponsoring a health-care reform bill -- the Universal Health Care and Access Act.  His reform bill is largely based on the Swiss health-care system.  Sen. Coburn’s plan can be found at coburn.senate.gov.  
    Like all the other national health-care plans, this Congressional bill is complicated, controversial, and with luck, not going to become law anytime soon.

      The bill's key elements include using the Swiss' idea of tax credits to pay for individual or family insurance.  Everyone in Switzerland is required to “buy” health insurance for themselves and their dependents, choosing a plan from various approved insurance companies. The cost of Swiss health-care insurance is off-set with a credit against the individual’s federal tax liability.

      As with many of the other universal health-care reforms being touted, Sen. Corbun’s plan ignores the obvious.  In this instance, the Swiss health-care plan may work well in Switzerland–but the Swiss aren’t saddled with our IRS tax-code, our immigration issues, or our Congress (not coincidentally, the former two issues are driven largely by the later).

      1)  A “tax-credit” based universal health-care system assumes...nearly universal taxpayers. IRS tax records show the majority of taxpayers pay only a small portion of the total tax bill. With the "earned income" tax credit, a large number of tax filers receive a "refund" larger than the sum of their taxes paid. Many lower income families pay little or no federal income taxes.  How does the Swiss "tax-credit" funded system accommodate those paying no taxes--let alone all those whose refunds exceed tax payments each year?

      2)  The Swiss don't have 12-20 million (and growing) under-educated illegal aliens living within their boarders. The current “health-care crisis” is the direct result of a growing number of uneducated poor constantly flowing across our boarders and swelling the list of “uninsured.”

      A MAJORITY of those in the US without health-care don't have health-care coverage for a reason: their lack of education and marketable skills relegates them to working at lower-paying "entry-level" jobs in small businesses. Such low-paid workers will never pay enough taxes for a “tax-credit” to have any meaning. Those that don’t fall into this group are anecdotal as a percentage of the total in the US without medical coverage.

      Frankly, neither illegal immigration nor health-care would be national issues if PhDs, engineers, chemists, dentists and physicists were coming across our boarders in anywhere near the same ratio as the number of unskilled and under-educated who enter the US each year.

      3) Can ANYONE name ANY government program setting standards for organization and efficiency? Look at all the games Congress plays with ear-marks on the annual "Defense" budget (including...subsidies for beekeeping operations in California???).  Because of the political wrangling going on, Congress still hasn’t passed an appropriation for the 2008 fiscal year that starts in two weeks.  It will be several more months before a bill is signed.

      What sane person thinks that similar games and political pay-offs won't be maneuvered into a new $2-4 trillion a year government appropriated health-care program?

      4) As long as medical treatment is "free," there will be waste and abuse. As long as doctors and hospitals are forced to practice "defensive" medicine, there will be waste and abuse. As long as the co-pay for a prescription drug is cheaper than over-the-counter remedies, there will be waste and abuse. As long the number of medical schools and students are being limited by regulation, supply will not meet demand.

      Until these issues are addressed, health-care costs will elude control. The only true solution will be a system where access is limited for non-payers, where users are financially incentivized to economize, where government intervention is both focused and limited, and where the supply of doctors is permitted to be in balance with demand.

      No universal health-care plan has yet acknowledged these realities.  While the current market system is flawed, it has a better chance of eventually overcoming these issues than any political/government solution will.  
    None of the endless crop of currently proposed “political” fixes is about making health-care affordable or even more available.  Each is simply another approach for socializing medicine, whereby the federal government obtains more control over our income and then apportions a part of our money back to us in the form of a government controlled “benefit.”

      The US Department of Agriculture has almost twice the number of employees as the 2000 census says is the total number of US farmers.  How many years will it take before the number of bureaucrats managing a national health-care program will exceed the total number of licensed doctors and nurses?  With this kind of government program, will we get more services or less services when our medical costs are “washed” through a regulatory process in Washington DC?  In what manner will any of us be better off when a faceless and distant bureaucrat gains control over the decision of who gets what medical treatment and when? 

     There are a LOT of problems to be solved in our nation's private health-care system and a lot of changes are needed so that everyone has affordable access to medical treatment.  But is nationalizing the system going to make things better for the majority of us?  When an HMO or insurance plan gets too expensive or become too bureaucratic, most of us now have the option of changing our medical plan.  If and when the US government gains total regulatory control over the nation’s private health-care system, what alternative will we still have available to us–moving to Switzerland?

    It appears that if you try hard enough, and want something bad enough, you can convince yourself of just about anything. In Mark Matt Towery’s 13 September Townhall.com article, "Public Opposition To Small Troop Reductions Raises Similarity To Carter Days," [http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MattTowery/2007/09/13/public_opposition_to_small_troop_reductions_raises_similarity_to_carter_days] he misstates historical and economic facts to the point it leaves me stunned.

     First,...what standard of measurement is being used to conclude that the current economy is comparable to the stagflation of the Carter years? Interest rates on mortgages are not at 21 percent. Jobless rates are not moving between 12 and 14 percent. The stock market is hitting all-time highs, not setting record losses. The media during Carter's administration kept attempting to minimize the economic problems. No matter what economic good news is reported by Wall Street, the major newsprint and network media these days are stretching themselves to find something gloomy to report about.

     Second, President Carter's problem was his total inability to act decisively. By pressuring the Iranian government to release it’s political prisoners–those in jail for actively advocating and fomenting a revolution and overthrow of the government...there surprisingly enough was a revolution and overthrow of the Iranian government. The ensuing reactionary government of Islamic fundamentalists correctly guessed that they could humiliate the US government by invading our embassy and taking our people hostage without retribution from a Carter Whitehouse...They were smart enough to know that President-elect Regan response would likely be more direct than President Carter's solution of sending diplomats to meet with Iranian "students" in France.

     No matter the complaints lodged about President Bush, timidity and indecisiveness can not be credibly attached to the Bush administration.

     Third, the US and the United Nations both STILL have peacekeeping forces in Bosnia. When did the military ground campaign end there? If US troops are needed to ensure stability in Bosnia, why would they be needed less in Iraq? Again, I think the media has convinced itself, and the less informed of the US public, that we are continuing to sustain unacceptable military losses. Before the war started the going in position was 10,000 American dead within the first 3 months. Given that we lost more than 4,000 troops dead at EACH of the battles of Iwo Jima, D-Day, Okinawa, and the Philippine Islands, 10,000 in a battle the scale of Operation Iraqi Freedom seemed to be high but not unreasonable.

     But that didn’t and hasn’t happened in Iraq.

     Although the loss of any of our fighting men or women is a cause for national morning, the truth is, police statistic indicate that in the last 6 months, there have been more shooting in Washington DC than in Bagdad. Maybe someone should assert that the war on crime is unwinnable and that we should abandon the greater DC metropolitan area as an unwinnable cause . . . .

     If politicians would make a personal stand based on their integrity and an earnest belief of what is best for the nation–instead of constantly putting their finger to test the political winds of the latest poll data, Congressional ratings (whose approval rating is a little more than half of the President’s rating) wouldn’t be lower than popularity of Used-car Salesmen and Telemarketers.

     This was NOT the agenda that President Bush outlined in his original campaign platform. September 11th was the fault of our nation attempting to ignore Islamo-fascism. While our military and national planners have made missteps and lost opportunities for lack of Arab and Persian cultural understanding, it appears that we’re starting to get things right–much to the consternation of both the Islamo-fascists & Jihadists, willing to seek victory at any cost, as well as those voices in both Washington and in our media, just as willing to seek defeat at any cost.

Global Warming in the Perspective of Recent History

I am a strong supporter of science, as an intellectual method of study. At the same time, personal experience has taught me to be more than a little bit skeptical about science when it is taught as a body of absolute "facts," particularly when the same facts are the basis for generating grant and research money.

I find it fascinating that 50 years ago, the scientific and academic communities were positive that nothing could ever escape the earth’s atmosphere. It remained scientifically impossible right up to the time Sputnik started beeping tauntingly at us from space. I recall being told to skip the reading of chapter 13 in my high school physics book, because updates, deleting the prior scientific "facts," hadn’t been purchased by the School District yet. I guess Soviet scientists didn’t have the advantage of enlightenment and all of the scientific facts and American research when they started their space program.

40 years ago, a scientific consensus had been reached, and tons of private and public research money proved, mankind had less than 20 years before we all starved to death as the result of global overpopulating. We didn’t. In fact we’re about double that population now. Starvation today is more about economics and political power-struggles by African warlords than food production or global population.

About 35 years ago, lots of research dollars had proven that DDT and acid rain had already poisoned all of our ground water and most of our land and food supply. Fish, forests, plants and all wildlife were collectively marching toward a certain death cause by mankind's wanton disregard for scientific facts about DDT and power-plant emissions. We had to act quickly; our salvation depended upon the immediate shut down and replace all coal burning power-plants and put a ban of DDT before it was too late!!! They didn't, we didn’t and we aren’t...mainly because most college protesters liked Jane Fonda in the China Syndrome, and decided that they collectively hated nuclear power-plants even more coal-fired plants. A few minor chemical changes and "safer pesticides" --amazingly similar to DDT, albeit less effective, saved us.

30 years ago when I was in college, after a lot of government and grant research, climatologists, scientist and the academia were again all united in the FACT, not theory--FACT, that the world was irreversibly headed into another ice age before the end of the century. More studies were needed to be funded or all human civilization would freeze. The few remaining humans would revert to a stone-age technology. Gosh, it was almost as largely hyped as the global warming is today.

Next, who could forget the late 1980's, when scientists advised us of the catastrophic depletion of the earth’s ozone layer? Death and destruction by radiation awaited all of us within a few short years. How did this happen? Why man-made Freon, of course! All knowledgeable scientists were certain; NASA polar pictures proved it! It was undisputable! Some minority of scientists asserted that observed changes in the ozone layer might be following a natural cycle–these heretics were reasonably shouted down because, it was imperative to "do something now–before it’s too late!!!" The hoopla was so grand, Congress pass laws that to this day ban the production, importation and sale of Freon in the US.

Funny, nobody seemed to have any intelligent answers to a few of the simplest questions: As Freon is almost three times heavier than air, how did it "float" miles into the atmosphere to deplete the ozone layer at the poles? If Freon causes ozone depletion, how come most the smog in our cities is made up of ozone–you’d have thought that all the leaking Freon from cars, air conditioners and refrigerators would have at least made a minor dent in our earth-bound band of ozone–why didn’t it? If Freon caused ozone depletion, how in the heck did the ozone layer "heal itself" even before the new legislative bans went fully into effect?

In the mid-1990's pysdo-scientists, such as Ted Danson, along with Green-Peace, Jacques Cousteau, and a few other luminaries, proved irrefutably that the world’s ocean’s would be dead and barren within ten years. We had to ban fishing, pollution and the Republican party or the human race would become extinct in our life time. Lots of scientific studies and research papers "proved it" beyond the need for any questioning.

Today, if its unseasonably cold–the fault is global warming. If it’s unseasonably warm–the fault is global warming. If hurricanes increase in numbers or severity–its due to global warming. If they decrease in number or severity–again, it’s due to global warming. If your cat has a hair-ball, Al Gore will tell you on the internet he invented that it’s a direct result of conditions arising from global warming. All the intelligent scientists are unshakable in their belief of human-caused global warming–and the need for a little more public research money.

Facts like . . . the world’s oceans appear to give off significantly more carbon-dioxide in any given year than mankind has generated in the last 30 years is pushed off; "Well, can’t do much about that, but we can reduce fossil-fuel usage!!" Volcanoes also are full of greenhouse gases, again more than man can possibly create in a concentrated effort; so how come too many volcanoes erupting and spewing unimaginable clouds of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere...is a recognized cause of global cooling and ice-ages? "Are you an idiot?" our scientists say, "We’ve GOT to outlaw wood-burning stoves or we’re all doomed in just a few short years! With a small grant and a new computer model, the scientific community says that they can prove it!"

Man was acknowledged recently, as only the 10th largest contributor to the generation of greenhouse gases, almost unnoticeable compared to natural sources. Doesn’t this still beg the larger issue? If the amount of man-made greenhouse gases isn’t measurable compared to naturally occurring sources–and if our contribution to the "problem" doesn’t really statically matter, aren’t we all doomed irrespect to how sincere we are this is our fault?

I say, throw some grant money at it and have a telethon. Pass new laws and outlaw lawn-mowers. If we all believe that climate change is our fault, and we show we’re sincere in our guilt...heck, mother nature will forgive us. It worked for over-population, DDT, acid-rain, nuclear power-plants, global cooling, ozone depletion and the ocean’s sterilization--why shouldn’t it work for global warming too?

An Immigration alternative

With the recent arrest and deportation of Elvira Arellano, the discussion has once more been engaged with regard to federal immigration policies. One key issue, illustrated by Ms. Arellano’s story, is the difference between "immigrants:" those seeking to immigrate to the US and become citizens; and, "economic refugees:" those coming to the US for economic reasons related to profitable employ or socio-economic benefits that are wholly unrelated to any desire to become a citizen of this country.

A convenience to confuse the issue, used by open boarder advocates, is lumping together all foreign nationals: foreign students, migrant workers, technical guest workers, those sincerely attempting to immigrate and integrate as US citizens, and self-acknowledged economic opportunists (such as Ms. Arellano), --and proceed to use a straw-man approach to argue against any kind of control of our national boarders.

Ms. Arellano, came to illegally to the US as an unskilled laborer. She was convicted of identity theft, which is a felony in most states. She was then deported and again illegally re-entered the US, which is a federal felony offense. She was convicted for both and was ordered to again be deported. Her stated reason for coming to the US, and again returning after her initial deportation, was for the available social-welfare benefits offered here that were unavailable to her in Mexico. Prior to execution of the deportation order, she sought and obtained "sanctuary" at the Adalberto United Methodist Church of Chicago.

This brings up a very interesting issue hypocrisy.

Many communities are concerned about the growing number of illegal aliens, and would like to stem the tide. Some liberal politicians, along with self-styled "civil-rights" advocates, have set up "sanctuaries" and "sancturay-cities," enacting state and local policies designed to preclude local law enforcement from working with the Immigration & Customs Enforcement.

Many liberals, engaged in defeating the enforcement of US immigration laws, see their activities as a "cause celebrity" form of civil-disobedience, romantically envisioning themselves as part of a 21st century "under-ground rail-road" -- just as long as the last stop on the rail-road isn't in their own neighborhoods (except of course as inexpensive lawn service, nannies, day-labors, maids & pool-boys).

I advocate a compromise solution. . .

Cities and states not wanting to deal with the cost and problems of illegal immigration simply give non-violent "undocumented workers" a choice: 1) a one-way bus ticket to the "sanctuary city" of their choice; or, 2) immediate criminal/civil prosecution and deportation.

Simply become a way-station facilitating safe-passage to the "illegal alien safety zones" our liberal politicians have openly established.

I’ve been told this idea is prohibited by law—but hypocritically, the objections always come from liberals that aren’t at all bothered by other violations of our immigration laws; they tacitly condone identity fraud, and other "petty crimes" related to "undocumented immigration." I don’t see how "pro-immigrant" politicians and activists have a logical or moral basis to complain about other communities not respecting immigration laws governing transportation of illegals to the very cities set-up to circumvent US laws for deporting these individuals.

Either immigration laws need to be universally respected --or they don’t. We are a nation of laws, or we aren’t.

I don't see why conservatives continue to permit liberals to demand certain laws be enforced while, at the same time, allow them to openly abet the violation of other laws not to their liking –-and without consequence. Those cities that don’t help deport illegals, have no basis for complaint against a community helping illegals get to their city intent on frustrating immigration enforcement.

I think its about time we let the politicians & activists advocating open boarders deal with a larger portion of the cost, crime and infrastructure headaches they have attempted to shift over to the rest of us–-we should no longer permit them to have it both ways.