True, but there are socialist concepts. International competition is effectively irrelevant in this area since governments can and frequently do use tactics like tariffs to put their domestic industries at an advantage. I can't honestly say though that I think that the US government should be getting into the market by investing in a private company to do research.
Actually, I am more of a former finance student. The management piece was kind of a freebie that I thought might bode well for me in career advancement, but thank you for the interest. Since I am currently a senior engineer though, I hope you will give me a little more credit.
My only interest in this debate is that I don't like to see government funding for things like the NIH, NSF, or NEA for that matter. But since the money is going to by spent anyway, I would like it spent on something more promising than a pipe dream like embryonic stem cell-based cures. Frankly, there seem to be many more promising avenues of medical research, such as adult stem cell research (which is what I believe you are referring to with respect to Parkinson's and spinal cord repair).
There is an enormous amount of privately funded medical research in this country. I have to give your peers and their employers the benefit of the doubt and assume they are researching the most viable cures for diseases with the money they have. Just because countries like S. Korea want to dump government funding into embryonic stem cell research does not make that inclined to think we should by mimicking them. This is about lack of empirical evidence, not evil Christians or Republicans.
[By the way, government propping up industry is socialist, not capitalist. You can hardly apply capitalist economic principals to such things.]
I'm sorry, but using federal money to fund research on embryonic stem cells from embryos created for research has always been banned. I honestly have no idea where evidence to the contrary exists. Despite some shakeup under Clinton, the status-quo has been basically maintained.
Moreover, there is enough reason independent of moral arguments against the prudence of expending large sums of money on something that, were it not a political football, seems at best marginally consequential. Just because non-US firms are performing research (due much in part to getting state funding) does not mean we are somehow missing out on a big opportunity. If the research does pan out, we will likely be able to take advantage of it anyway.
Embryonic stem cell research has never been funded through direct federal government grants and any indirect funding has not been affected during Bush's presidency. Given the recent discoveries regarding Woo Suk Hwang's research and what is known of adult stem cells, there is plenty of reason not to throw federal money at more research. If embryonic stem cells were truly so promising, I would imagine that more companies would be pursuing them.
1. It is not ludicrous, as one of the biggest legal arguments favoring same-sex marriage is that the 14th amendment mandates it. Moreover, judges are not supposed to be ruling on what they want to see happen. They are not supposed to care who wins and loses. They are supposed to be dispassionate and make an unbiased ruling. Case in point being when the same Massachusetts SJC directly contradicted a law prohibiting voter-initiated ballot referendums aimed to reverse court decisions (vis-a-vis same-sex marriage). This happened again based on the Chief Justice's personal views, not law. This is no way to run the legal system in a civilized society, although Massachusetts only marginally qualifies as such. In a state as liberal as Massachusetts, gay marriage should certainly be able to get through the legislature.
2. I find it curious that if you go outside into the bays at the New York Port Authority's main bus terminal, amid dozens of buses with idling diesel engines, you will see "No Smoking" signs. Moreover, governments are forbidding smoking in public housing, parks, beaches, nursing homes, cigar bars, and nightclubs. The science to support such bans is circumspect at best, and at worst is an outright deception aimed at massive behavioral engineering. [Although I do not expect you to believe that last statement, I respectfully suggest that you read and scrutinize some of the studies that have been released in the past 12 or so years on the subject.]
3. A corporation lying about its product is committing fraud and ought to have civil and criminal litigation brought against it. Otherwise, leave them alone and allow them to satisfy demand. Frankly, I don't think a true conservative should take much of an issue with substance prohibition, but the flip-side is that the liberals who want substances permitted also want socialized medicine to treat substance-related problems, further contributing to cyclical state-dependence.
These notions I have about a live and let live attitude may seem prehistoric to you, but they are the philosophies that allowed the US to rise to the top of the world in terms of most quantifiable measures (mainly military and economic power). I firmly believe that this country's recent inability to holds its position in a variety of arenas is directly related to the furthered penetration of socialistic policies and attitudes amongst Americans. Naturally, the architects of this country's soft communism do not want to see is beat out anyone, especially in terms of military of economy.
1. Homosexuals can marry anywhere, provided it is to someone of the opposite sex. The only state which permits two people of the same sex to be married is Massachusetts. Same-sex marriage has nothing to do with my rights, it has to do with the law. If there is an amendment to the Massachusetts state constitution to include same-sex marriage, I honestly don't give a shit.
What I do think is a right of mine is to live in a country where the federal and state constitutions and laws are respected, and not just shrugged off by activist judges.
2. You have no inalienable right to enter private property and demand to breathe air sans-tobacco smoke. You only have a legal right in specific cities, counties, and states that prohibit smoking in specific locations. Although it may be of your opinion that such a right should be a natural right, it is not by any commonly accepted definition. A much more valid abstract argument than your right to breathe such air is the right to control one's private property.
3. Anti-fast food and similar campaigns are funded by various state and federal offices. Beyond that, so-called "public health" initiatives are much more common in liberal areas. The conservative ones have a "live and let live" attitude, while liberal ones have a "live how we tell you" attitude.
Yeah, and where did all of the other anti-miscegenation laws go before that? At the time, Virginia was one of the few states with such laws in place. If you are going to Google for straws, at least bother during it thoroughly.
That is asinine. You proved my point that if we are to go against the spirit of an older law, we should do it with legislation, not adjudication. Should this laws permitting interracial marriage be repealed with the 13th amendment?
It is a preventative measure. When marriage laws were written in just about every state, it was never imagined that marriage could mean anything but its dictionary definition. The constitutional ban on same-sex marriage enforces the original intention and removes the room for interpretation. This brings me back to the 13th amendment -- why not just repeal it?
Bush is certainly to the left of his father and Reagan, similarities in a few left-wing acts notwithstanding.
Actually, legislating more Federal power over the states is a hard-left political act. Think Lincoln, FDR, etc.
The reason I say that current Democratic congressional leaders are more left-wing is because their opposition to Bush at almost every turn, even on things that would have appeased a Democrat-controlled Congress, has just pushed them further to the left (incidently or purposely). It has nothing to do with their perceived positions, it has to do with what it is they are opposing.
A good book on FDR just came out. Take a look at it and you might learn how much "worse" than Bush he was on many of the current left-wing oppositions. Just because you don't like Bush, but like FDR does not mean they were not very similar in the actions they took, although FDR undoubtedly was better at dealing with his opponents and PR. Playing the "Bush is a fanatic Christian" card is pretty damn old and amounts to petty rhetoric, especially when you consider how many of the most respected political figures in this country's history were devoutly religious.
Some big left-wing groups bailed out on support for Hillary in her senate campaign. Lieberman is very liberal. Do you think Gore would have chosen him for a running mate if he weren't?
If you want to discuss enforcing the legislation of societal norms, what do you think same-sex marriage initiatives are attempting to do? Do you really think it is some pragmatic initiative that is all about health care benefits and next of kin status? What do you think anti-smoking campaigns, helmet laws, anti-fast food campaigns, Title VII & AA/EOE, and public broadcasting are for? Yet Republicans (and there *many* Democrat supporters) want to change societal norms be legislating something that, by any sane and knowledgeable person, should be seen as the clearest case of interpreting the spirit of the law?
If the Constitution should be changed to *reflect* society, then fine. The notion that we can just interpret it however we want based on our own personal views is not. Why do you think we have a 13th amendment?
Same-sex marriage has nothing to do with a liberal vs. conservative political dynamic. Because the two parties have chosen sides means nothing in terms of political ideologies.
I am not arguing that the left is not opposed to Bush. I am arguing that Bush is to the left of previous Republican leaders. Left and right are not defined by things like same-sex marriage. Bush has done many things to appeal to people who used to be moderate Democrats and left the Democratic base to be composed of primarily what used to be known as extreme.
Howard Dean is the DNC chair. A select number of ambitious Democrats who want to distance themselves from him are not terribly germane and hardly indicative of differing politics. Beyond him, look at the Democratic leaders in the House and Senate. Do you think Boxer, Pelosi, Feinstein, and Reid are not to the left of their counterparts from 10 years ago?
Terry Schiavo, terrorists, and two fat guys tongue-kissing at the alter have nothing to do with this. These are hot-button issues that are not differentiating points between the left and right unless one side takes one up and the other decides to oppose them. None of them are in any way compatible/incompatible with left and right political philosophies. If I were to name a President that most closely resembles Bush in terms of philosophy, I would have to say FDR. Look at the huge spending on social programs, the increased executive powers (although admittedly FDR had considerably more), stacking the courts to assist in policy making (again, FDR did this a lot more than Bush), not following due process for detainees (FDR did this with American citizens though), and involving the country in warfare without being attacked (I think WWII was a lot bigger than OIF, although the lend-lease program was big, it was also quite passive).
Look at how hard Joseph Lieberman is having to fight to stay in power. Look at how much support Hillary Clinton has lost. Look at the traditional heavyweights of the Republican party catching flack for not being left enough.
You don't think it is curious that Clinton involved this country in enough foreign combat that resulted in more American soldier's deaths than the current administration is likely going to surpass, yet we are constantly reminded about Bush's death toll, but never Clinton's? You don't think its interesting that Clinton claimed to want to take out Saddam, but blamed Republicans in Congress for distracting him too much? Why was the Democratic position on regime change suddenly abandoned when i t was initiated by a Republican?
To paraphrase my previous post, the left's opposition can be compared to that of a cornered animal lashing out.
But keep in mind there has traditionally been something of a correlation between the number of "scandals" and party dominance. Were the Democrats to have more power in Congress, they would likely become as complacent as the Republicans were during the Clinton administration. There are a lot of things Bush is criticized for that Clinton also did. I honestly think the best explanation for this is that under Clinton, there was not an opposition party trying to regain lost power.
Also, look at how the political spectrum has shifted. Bush is far to the left of his father and Reagan. The Democratic Party is now dominated by those much further to the left like MoveOn.org. Such things serve to explain the current power of the Republican party -- with Bush's shift to the left he has gained many more supporters than former Republicans while still retaining the bulk of his base, whereas the Democrats have abandoned the moderates that Bush now appeals too and are now focusing on groups traditionally much closer to, for example, the Green Party. Although they have been successful at appealing to Libertarians who, despite being more to the right on a lot of issues, fear a 1984-esque government from Republicans now. (Ironically, Orwell was a Socialist and for the most part diametrically opposed to what we call Libertarianism.)
who really cares about those fringe users running Linux, Unix, OS X, embedded systems, etc. If they want to look at websites, they can just get a real OS, right?
I'm not that much of a Firefox fan, despite using it, and I honestly don't care whether it passes the Acid2 test. In fact, if anything (like backwards compatibility) is sacrificed for it to pass, I would hope that it doesn't.
What privacy laws? In addition to doctor-patient privilege, attorney-client privilege, etc., we can now add facebook-student privilege? There are very few cases where the fourth amendment applies once something leaves your immediate possession.
Although using the PATRIOCT act seems somewhat unnecessary since they could just make disclosure of the information a condition of employment.
If the merits of OSS are so strong, why object to them being on equal footing with closed source software in the procurement process? If using closed source software in a certain situation presents a savings in government expenditure, why should their be a law prohibiting it?
Regardless, building favoritism toward open source solutions into legislation makes just as little sense as building in favoritism towards closed source solutions. As you said, they should be making the best choice. Assuming that OSS is always the best choice may be the opinion of evangelists, but it is a prejudicial and biased one that many knowledgeable and impartial people disagree with.
Why should the state legislate favoritism toward open source software? Aren't they supposed to be unbiased and viewing IT policies from a strictly pragmatic point of view?
If there is no welfare or work for illegal aliens, why would they come here illegally? I think these would do a lot more than put a bit of a dent in illegal immigration.
My immigrant relatives spoke the English language. Beyond that, they were successful by working hard and obeying the laws of this country. Every immigrant I have met certainly speaks enough to get by in day-to-day life. Even the downtrodden.
To be frank, immigrating here should be a very daunting task. It should not be like getting your driver's license. It should be difficult and uncomfortable. Those entering the country should undergo rigorous medical screenings and background checks. You'll forgive me for my indifference toward immigration being an intimidating prospect.
This kind of reminds me of how at one point in Massachusetts, welfare recipients used to have to go to town/city halls to collect their checks. This was changed because they felt embarrassed, inconvenienced, etc. Even a socialist government would not have the goal of making its citizenry as comfortable as possible, much less one routed in capitalism.
1 is intended to stop employers from hiring current illegal aliens, removing incentive to illegally cross the country's border. This has nothing to do with denying welfare to the able-bodied.
Minimal English proficiency is of course highly subjective and far beyond the scope of this comment post. Although I think being able to get by in day-to-day life without speaking a language other than English sounds about right.
B -- exactly. They are naturalized or not. If things don't work out for me, I am stuck here. If they want to be Americans, they should be for better or worse, and not just play multiple angles until they find what they like.
A spotless criminal record means just that. Anything beyond traffic citations should mean disqualification. Although an appeal to an immigration judge would be reasonable.
Nothing is perfect or will provide optimum happiness for all immigrants and current citizens, but I don't think that the two extremes being proposed by the President and House are realistic or amount to much more than pandering to different groups in hopes of more votes.
Personally, I am happy to see hard-working people become citizens, even en masse. What I don't want to see is Fox dumping his undesirables off on us to help support his elite.
1. Enforce laws prohibiting employers from hiring those ineligible to work in this country. 2. Curtail welfare to the point that able-bodied people are not eligible. 3. Enforce the border by any reasonable means -- wall, fence, national guard, etc. 4. Adjust permanent resident visa standards to include:
a. Minimal English proficiency.
b. Relinquishing all claims to citizenship or residency in any other country.
c. A spotless criminal record.
d. A maximum wait of five years. 5. Begin looking at current illegal aliens for granting citizenship provided they exhibit a-c above.
This will provide almost all of the huddled masses a fair shot at the American dream and appease the neanderthals like me.
They can apply for a green card when they turn 18 and wait until they are approved. This should be roughly six years (at least that is how old the current applications that are being processed are). Honestly, I would be happy to see the naturalization process made easier (as in more available), but with slightly higher standards than merely waiting.
A slogan on a poem written on a statue is not indicative of law or policy. Sorry.
Do you really not see what Mexico is doing? They are keeping their lower class down in order to profit from the US economy. I am sorry, but that is not "too f'ing bad" -- it is a dirty maneuver being used by the privileged in Mexico to keep themselves afloat at the expense of their people and the US economy. Moreover, it will ultimately leave the working class in Mexico much worse off.
If we can get hard-working Mexicans who speak English and will not abuse welfare programs in this country, great. I will enthusiastically support any policy or legislation that can accomplish this.
Slashdot Mirror
True, but there are socialist concepts. International competition is effectively irrelevant in this area since governments can and frequently do use tactics like tariffs to put their domestic industries at an advantage. I can't honestly say though that I think that the US government should be getting into the market by investing in a private company to do research.
Actually, I am more of a former finance student. The management piece was kind of a freebie that I thought might bode well for me in career advancement, but thank you for the interest. Since I am currently a senior engineer though, I hope you will give me a little more credit.
y #US_policy_debate.
Despite my disdain for it, wp seems roughly on target (albeit in typically biased fashion): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell_controvers
My only interest in this debate is that I don't like to see government funding for things like the NIH, NSF, or NEA for that matter. But since the money is going to by spent anyway, I would like it spent on something more promising than a pipe dream like embryonic stem cell-based cures. Frankly, there seem to be many more promising avenues of medical research, such as adult stem cell research (which is what I believe you are referring to with respect to Parkinson's and spinal cord repair).
There is an enormous amount of privately funded medical research in this country. I have to give your peers and their employers the benefit of the doubt and assume they are researching the most viable cures for diseases with the money they have. Just because countries like S. Korea want to dump government funding into embryonic stem cell research does not make that inclined to think we should by mimicking them. This is about lack of empirical evidence, not evil Christians or Republicans.
[By the way, government propping up industry is socialist, not capitalist. You can hardly apply capitalist economic principals to such things.]
I'm sorry, but using federal money to fund research on embryonic stem cells from embryos created for research has always been banned. I honestly have no idea where evidence to the contrary exists. Despite some shakeup under Clinton, the status-quo has been basically maintained.
Moreover, there is enough reason independent of moral arguments against the prudence of expending large sums of money on something that, were it not a political football, seems at best marginally consequential. Just because non-US firms are performing research (due much in part to getting state funding) does not mean we are somehow missing out on a big opportunity. If the research does pan out, we will likely be able to take advantage of it anyway.
Embryonic stem cell research has never been funded through direct federal government grants and any indirect funding has not been affected during Bush's presidency. Given the recent discoveries regarding Woo Suk Hwang's research and what is known of adult stem cells, there is plenty of reason not to throw federal money at more research. If embryonic stem cells were truly so promising, I would imagine that more companies would be pursuing them.
1. It is not ludicrous, as one of the biggest legal arguments favoring same-sex marriage is that the 14th amendment mandates it. Moreover, judges are not supposed to be ruling on what they want to see happen. They are not supposed to care who wins and loses. They are supposed to be dispassionate and make an unbiased ruling. Case in point being when the same Massachusetts SJC directly contradicted a law prohibiting voter-initiated ballot referendums aimed to reverse court decisions (vis-a-vis same-sex marriage). This happened again based on the Chief Justice's personal views, not law. This is no way to run the legal system in a civilized society, although Massachusetts only marginally qualifies as such. In a state as liberal as Massachusetts, gay marriage should certainly be able to get through the legislature.
2. I find it curious that if you go outside into the bays at the New York Port Authority's main bus terminal, amid dozens of buses with idling diesel engines, you will see "No Smoking" signs. Moreover, governments are forbidding smoking in public housing, parks, beaches, nursing homes, cigar bars, and nightclubs. The science to support such bans is circumspect at best, and at worst is an outright deception aimed at massive behavioral engineering. [Although I do not expect you to believe that last statement, I respectfully suggest that you read and scrutinize some of the studies that have been released in the past 12 or so years on the subject.]
3. A corporation lying about its product is committing fraud and ought to have civil and criminal litigation brought against it. Otherwise, leave them alone and allow them to satisfy demand. Frankly, I don't think a true conservative should take much of an issue with substance prohibition, but the flip-side is that the liberals who want substances permitted also want socialized medicine to treat substance-related problems, further contributing to cyclical state-dependence.
These notions I have about a live and let live attitude may seem prehistoric to you, but they are the philosophies that allowed the US to rise to the top of the world in terms of most quantifiable measures (mainly military and economic power). I firmly believe that this country's recent inability to holds its position in a variety of arenas is directly related to the furthered penetration of socialistic policies and attitudes amongst Americans. Naturally, the architects of this country's soft communism do not want to see is beat out anyone, especially in terms of military of economy.
1. Homosexuals can marry anywhere, provided it is to someone of the opposite sex. The only state which permits two people of the same sex to be married is Massachusetts. Same-sex marriage has nothing to do with my rights, it has to do with the law. If there is an amendment to the Massachusetts state constitution to include same-sex marriage, I honestly don't give a shit.
What I do think is a right of mine is to live in a country where the federal and state constitutions and laws are respected, and not just shrugged off by activist judges.
2. You have no inalienable right to enter private property and demand to breathe air sans-tobacco smoke. You only have a legal right in specific cities, counties, and states that prohibit smoking in specific locations. Although it may be of your opinion that such a right should be a natural right, it is not by any commonly accepted definition. A much more valid abstract argument than your right to breathe such air is the right to control one's private property.
3. Anti-fast food and similar campaigns are funded by various state and federal offices. Beyond that, so-called "public health" initiatives are much more common in liberal areas. The conservative ones have a "live and let live" attitude, while liberal ones have a "live how we tell you" attitude.
Yeah, and where did all of the other anti-miscegenation laws go before that? At the time, Virginia was one of the few states with such laws in place. If you are going to Google for straws, at least bother during it thoroughly.
That is asinine. You proved my point that if we are to go against the spirit of an older law, we should do it with legislation, not adjudication. Should this laws permitting interracial marriage be repealed with the 13th amendment?
It is a preventative measure. When marriage laws were written in just about every state, it was never imagined that marriage could mean anything but its dictionary definition. The constitutional ban on same-sex marriage enforces the original intention and removes the room for interpretation. This brings me back to the 13th amendment -- why not just repeal it?
Bush is certainly to the left of his father and Reagan, similarities in a few left-wing acts notwithstanding.
. pdf. Sorry the source is not as reliable as a Wikipedia article or blog posting.
Actually, legislating more Federal power over the states is a hard-left political act. Think Lincoln, FDR, etc.
The reason I say that current Democratic congressional leaders are more left-wing is because their opposition to Bush at almost every turn, even on things that would have appeased a Democrat-controlled Congress, has just pushed them further to the left (incidently or purposely). It has nothing to do with their perceived positions, it has to do with what it is they are opposing.
A good book on FDR just came out. Take a look at it and you might learn how much "worse" than Bush he was on many of the current left-wing oppositions. Just because you don't like Bush, but like FDR does not mean they were not very similar in the actions they took, although FDR undoubtedly was better at dealing with his opponents and PR. Playing the "Bush is a fanatic Christian" card is pretty damn old and amounts to petty rhetoric, especially when you consider how many of the most respected political figures in this country's history were devoutly religious.
Some big left-wing groups bailed out on support for Hillary in her senate campaign. Lieberman is very liberal. Do you think Gore would have chosen him for a running mate if he weren't?
For a death count, here you go: http://web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/casualty/Death_Rates
If you want to discuss enforcing the legislation of societal norms, what do you think same-sex marriage initiatives are attempting to do? Do you really think it is some pragmatic initiative that is all about health care benefits and next of kin status? What do you think anti-smoking campaigns, helmet laws, anti-fast food campaigns, Title VII & AA/EOE, and public broadcasting are for? Yet Republicans (and there *many* Democrat supporters) want to change societal norms be legislating something that, by any sane and knowledgeable person, should be seen as the clearest case of interpreting the spirit of the law?
If the Constitution should be changed to *reflect* society, then fine. The notion that we can just interpret it however we want based on our own personal views is not. Why do you think we have a 13th amendment?
Same-sex marriage has nothing to do with a liberal vs. conservative political dynamic. Because the two parties have chosen sides means nothing in terms of political ideologies.
I am not arguing that the left is not opposed to Bush. I am arguing that Bush is to the left of previous Republican leaders. Left and right are not defined by things like same-sex marriage. Bush has done many things to appeal to people who used to be moderate Democrats and left the Democratic base to be composed of primarily what used to be known as extreme.
Howard Dean is the DNC chair. A select number of ambitious Democrats who want to distance themselves from him are not terribly germane and hardly indicative of differing politics. Beyond him, look at the Democratic leaders in the House and Senate. Do you think Boxer, Pelosi, Feinstein, and Reid are not to the left of their counterparts from 10 years ago?
Terry Schiavo, terrorists, and two fat guys tongue-kissing at the alter have nothing to do with this. These are hot-button issues that are not differentiating points between the left and right unless one side takes one up and the other decides to oppose them. None of them are in any way compatible/incompatible with left and right political philosophies. If I were to name a President that most closely resembles Bush in terms of philosophy, I would have to say FDR. Look at the huge spending on social programs, the increased executive powers (although admittedly FDR had considerably more), stacking the courts to assist in policy making (again, FDR did this a lot more than Bush), not following due process for detainees (FDR did this with American citizens though), and involving the country in warfare without being attacked (I think WWII was a lot bigger than OIF, although the lend-lease program was big, it was also quite passive).
Look at how hard Joseph Lieberman is having to fight to stay in power. Look at how much support Hillary Clinton has lost. Look at the traditional heavyweights of the Republican party catching flack for not being left enough.
You don't think it is curious that Clinton involved this country in enough foreign combat that resulted in more American soldier's deaths than the current administration is likely going to surpass, yet we are constantly reminded about Bush's death toll, but never Clinton's? You don't think its interesting that Clinton claimed to want to take out Saddam, but blamed Republicans in Congress for distracting him too much? Why was the Democratic position on regime change suddenly abandoned when i t was initiated by a Republican?
To paraphrase my previous post, the left's opposition can be compared to that of a cornered animal lashing out.
But keep in mind there has traditionally been something of a correlation between the number of "scandals" and party dominance. Were the Democrats to have more power in Congress, they would likely become as complacent as the Republicans were during the Clinton administration. There are a lot of things Bush is criticized for that Clinton also did. I honestly think the best explanation for this is that under Clinton, there was not an opposition party trying to regain lost power.
Also, look at how the political spectrum has shifted. Bush is far to the left of his father and Reagan. The Democratic Party is now dominated by those much further to the left like MoveOn.org. Such things serve to explain the current power of the Republican party -- with Bush's shift to the left he has gained many more supporters than former Republicans while still retaining the bulk of his base, whereas the Democrats have abandoned the moderates that Bush now appeals too and are now focusing on groups traditionally much closer to, for example, the Green Party. Although they have been successful at appealing to Libertarians who, despite being more to the right on a lot of issues, fear a 1984-esque government from Republicans now. (Ironically, Orwell was a Socialist and for the most part diametrically opposed to what we call Libertarianism.)
Let's be practical here;
Fair enough.
who really cares about those fringe users running Linux, Unix, OS X, embedded systems, etc. If they want to look at websites, they can just get a real OS, right?
Ironically, that is quite practical.
I'm not that much of a Firefox fan, despite using it, and I honestly don't care whether it passes the Acid2 test. In fact, if anything (like backwards compatibility) is sacrificed for it to pass, I would hope that it doesn't.
What privacy laws? In addition to doctor-patient privilege, attorney-client privilege, etc., we can now add facebook-student privilege? There are very few cases where the fourth amendment applies once something leaves your immediate possession.
Although using the PATRIOCT act seems somewhat unnecessary since they could just make disclosure of the information a condition of employment.
If the merits of OSS are so strong, why object to them being on equal footing with closed source software in the procurement process? If using closed source software in a certain situation presents a savings in government expenditure, why should their be a law prohibiting it?
Could've fooled me.
Regardless, building favoritism toward open source solutions into legislation makes just as little sense as building in favoritism towards closed source solutions. As you said, they should be making the best choice. Assuming that OSS is always the best choice may be the opinion of evangelists, but it is a prejudicial and biased one that many knowledgeable and impartial people disagree with.
XPM is a lot easier to use with ed.
Why should the state legislate favoritism toward open source software? Aren't they supposed to be unbiased and viewing IT policies from a strictly pragmatic point of view?
If there is no welfare or work for illegal aliens, why would they come here illegally? I think these would do a lot more than put a bit of a dent in illegal immigration.
My immigrant relatives spoke the English language. Beyond that, they were successful by working hard and obeying the laws of this country. Every immigrant I have met certainly speaks enough to get by in day-to-day life. Even the downtrodden.
To be frank, immigrating here should be a very daunting task. It should not be like getting your driver's license. It should be difficult and uncomfortable. Those entering the country should undergo rigorous medical screenings and background checks. You'll forgive me for my indifference toward immigration being an intimidating prospect.
This kind of reminds me of how at one point in Massachusetts, welfare recipients used to have to go to town/city halls to collect their checks. This was changed because they felt embarrassed, inconvenienced, etc. Even a socialist government would not have the goal of making its citizenry as comfortable as possible, much less one routed in capitalism.
1 is intended to stop employers from hiring current illegal aliens, removing incentive to illegally cross the country's border. This has nothing to do with denying welfare to the able-bodied.
Minimal English proficiency is of course highly subjective and far beyond the scope of this comment post. Although I think being able to get by in day-to-day life without speaking a language other than English sounds about right.
B -- exactly. They are naturalized or not. If things don't work out for me, I am stuck here. If they want to be Americans, they should be for better or worse, and not just play multiple angles until they find what they like.
A spotless criminal record means just that. Anything beyond traffic citations should mean disqualification. Although an appeal to an immigration judge would be reasonable.
Nothing is perfect or will provide optimum happiness for all immigrants and current citizens, but I don't think that the two extremes being proposed by the President and House are realistic or amount to much more than pandering to different groups in hopes of more votes.
Personally, I am happy to see hard-working people become citizens, even en masse. What I don't want to see is Fox dumping his undesirables off on us to help support his elite.
My solution:
1. Enforce laws prohibiting employers from hiring those ineligible to work in this country.
2. Curtail welfare to the point that able-bodied people are not eligible.
3. Enforce the border by any reasonable means -- wall, fence, national guard, etc.
4. Adjust permanent resident visa standards to include:
a. Minimal English proficiency.
b. Relinquishing all claims to citizenship or residency in any other country.
c. A spotless criminal record.
d. A maximum wait of five years.
5. Begin looking at current illegal aliens for granting citizenship provided they exhibit a-c above.
This will provide almost all of the huddled masses a fair shot at the American dream and appease the neanderthals like me.
They can apply for a green card when they turn 18 and wait until they are approved. This should be roughly six years (at least that is how old the current applications that are being processed are). Honestly, I would be happy to see the naturalization process made easier (as in more available), but with slightly higher standards than merely waiting.
A slogan on a poem written on a statue is not indicative of law or policy. Sorry.
Do you really not see what Mexico is doing? They are keeping their lower class down in order to profit from the US economy. I am sorry, but that is not "too f'ing bad" -- it is a dirty maneuver being used by the privileged in Mexico to keep themselves afloat at the expense of their people and the US economy. Moreover, it will ultimately leave the working class in Mexico much worse off.
If we can get hard-working Mexicans who speak English and will not abuse welfare programs in this country, great. I will enthusiastically support any policy or legislation that can accomplish this.