Jim

I'm not going to offer an opinion because I've done very little research and this is such a technical question. OTOH, if there is relative safety, maybe we should go more towards nuclear power to alleviate global warming. I'd be very curious to know what the group thinks.

Wouldn't it be better for American oil companies to have that power compared, to say, Saudia Arabia?

The remains of the richest oil field the world had yet known is about fifteen miles from where I now sit.

I'm sure it can if "just" means an economic system that shares whatever wealth exists without attempting to create wealth by harnessing human greed. It is possible to focus too exclusively on resources. What resources does S. America lack compared to N. America?

I'm bored tonight, so I'll play. I can't see why. You wouldn't oppose testing for all jobs would you? What about an airplane pilot? Who made an argument for wasted time and extra health care costs? I'm confused. Who, exactly, are you arguing with here? There is a carte blanche invasion of privacy in America? Can you describe the form of this invasion? There are no labor unions in America? All labor laws past post 1900 have been repealed? Who is arguing for a return to the days of company stores? But if the loans were low rate, why wouldn't the employee keep the loan and get another job? Who is controlling private time?

Isn't your position shaped by compassion? There are a variety of geographic, historical and cultural reasons which account for the United States' wealth. Academics could argue for years as to primary causes. It really has nothing to do with being fair. Unfortunately, "just" systems do not produce wealth to share in the first place. I thought it was an interesting idea too. My position is that we should assess the needs of our economy and then implement a program to make lawful what we need. Part of that program should be a conscious decision as to the source of the immigrants. It may well be that economics dictate that most come from S. America; however, I'd study that question with a possible goal to have a more diverse group of immigrants. Let's just make some conscious decisions for once. I was very intrigued by the litigation that has been filed so far. That could be a huge incentive for employers to shape up. Nothing like the fear of a herd of hungry lawyers landing on your company's doorstep to get people to obey the law. Also, cutting of the supply of workers, or at least threatening to, would put the politicians in a position where they have to finally make decisions and act.

If the United States was self-sufficient in natural resources, I think we would be less engaged globally. I doubt we would have fought Iraq for invading Kuwait but, then again, if Kuwait's oil resources were in the United States, Iraq would not have invaded in the first place.

What dirty work is being farmed out to vendors by the government? Your complaint is drug testing in the private sector?

I'm not sure I understand. The point here being that property owners and nations have the right to draw boundaries. Compassion will influence how much of their wealth or country they will share but it is not all that controls. The current voting citizens have the right to control this democracy and, in that sense, own the country, or at least the borders. Newt Gingrich had a good idea. Legalize immigration but require employers to deposit 10% of wages in an account that can only be accessed on proof of periodic return to the home country. Enable class actions by American workers against employers with some fixed penalty for the depressed wages. Send employers who willfully violate the law to jail. We could get this done if we wanted. It's just politically easier to drift.

According to this source, there were 946,142 legal immigrants in 2004. Note that 43% of these were "immediate relatives." Ecoli's point is well taken. If we have 11-20 million legals now and we give them citizenship, then we'll have many more down the road.

We aren't talking about a few "little" Chinatowns. We are talking about a major shift in demographics that will have nationwide, irreversible political and cultural impacts. What concerns many when they see those Mexican flags, is that you wonder if there is an allegiance to this country. My wife drove by a demonstration in our town and the ratio of Mexican to American flags was 2:1. My daughter played soccer against "Team Mexico" a few weeks ago and I doubt more than a handful of the adults on the team could speak the language. The Irish, for example, kept their culture but they left their country behind. For good. I've seen no scientific polls on the attitudes of these 11-20 million people in our country illegally but the visible signs do not inspire confidence of a desire to assimilate. I've surmised from your posts that you are a business woman. Good management requires that you make conscious decisions about the people you bring into your organization. In all endeavors, people are the most important variable. This major shift in our work force and in political power hasn't been the result of any conscious decisions. After the fact rationalizations notwithstanding, no one actually planned for this to happen but we have probably already reached the point that it is impossible to oppose politically. You feel no moral obligation to run your company with an "open door" policy and I see no need to run the country that way either.

I'm not informed about criminal law but cops can't pull people off the street at random to test for drugs. There must be probable cause. In a similar way, police can make suspected criminals exhibit themselves in a lineup or may make a suspected rapist provide DNA. If the police violate the Constitution as it has been interpreted by case law, the evidence gathered will likely be excluded from the trial. The Judges I know take that kind of issue very seriously even when they have to take heat for letting criminals "off on a technicality." Fortunately, most Judges do not view the Constitution as a technicality. The presumption of innocence, in any event, applies when the case is tried with whatever evidence has been lawfully gathered and admitted. The procedures seem fair to me although I agree there is a legitimate issue as to what drugs should be criminalized.

Although Thomas Jefferson wrote of a wall separating church and state, that language is not in the Constitution. The First Amendment says: On its face, this language prohibits the government from establishing state religions, not religions from attempting to influence government. While case law has broadened the meaning of this language, I do not recall any cases which would suggest religions are prohibited from influencing government as a constitutional matter. OTOH, as I recall it, the Supreme Court has held that tax-exempt status is a privilege, not a right.

The IRS is taking a dim view of churches which endorse candidates. I don't think this is an issue of Constitutional law but instead is a result of a 1954 law reflected in the tax code:

Bush has articulated two strategically important doctrines that have yielded important results and will continue to do so in the coming years if we do not lose our nerve. Bush Doctrine I as articulated within a few days of 9/11: The United States will hold a nation-state responsible if that nation-state gives haven to a terrorist group which then attacks US territory or citizens. Bush Doctrine II: Be prepared to honor agreed terms if you invade a strategically important US ally and lose. The United States is particularly serious about agreed terms pertaining to weapons of mass destruction. Doctrine I is essential as technology continues to ramp upwards along an exponential curve. We simply cannot permit terrorists groups to gather the resources and protection of a nation-state while avoiding the corresponding responsibility of a nation state. Doctrine II is likewise essential to give confidence to our allies and to make meaningful the sacrifice of our soldiers. If we go to war to protect an ally, we will insist on the terms of the ceasefire. This probably is not a new doctrine although you wonder about it given the current state of American thinking. In any event, it was a combination of both of these doctrines which caused Libya to scuttle a relatively advanced nuclear program. This single result may have saved the world from a nuclear fate at some point in the future. Bush's problem is that it is hard to envision the alternate realities which might have existed but for these sensible and important strategic doctrines.

That seemed a broader point than just referring to Iran's nuke project. So, I asked if you could "describe some of Iran's better political plays other than developing nukes covertly." If I missed where you described this in earlier posts, my apologies.

Yowzers. You said to Severian: In response, I asked "what do you perceive is the 'demonstrable, foundational truth' that has been established?" Except for the word "established," I quoted your language. My intent was not to bait you but to try to understand where you were coming from. I'm sure I do make assumptions from time to time, as do we all, but I do not see where I did so in this case nor do I have the slightest clue as to what other thread you are talking about.

Except possibly for the tolerence codes in Universities, what laws prevent Christians from expressing their viewpoints in America? Certainly there has to be a respect for life, liberty, and, maybe the pursuit of happiness. It is also true that, for many people, the value of human life is defined by God. It is equally true that people can still respect the value of life without buying into any "religion" as the third circuit defined the concept.