Pangloss

Such as?

Ditto.

Well that's your opinion. I'm open to other methods of controlling the border, but I won't support amnesty until we do. Post more maturely, please. Sarcasm is not an argument. My argument is that we haven't put forth a sufficient effort to draw a conclusion like "it's too big to control". The reason we haven't done so is (in my opinion) because we've hogtied ourselves with ideological posturing put forth in place of reason and common sense. Not that I'm saying that it's illogical to question the value of fencing -- I respect much of what Penn & Teller were saying. But ultimately I don't buy the argument because their example was a typical straw man: One very simple type of fence, with no other ideas or approaches attempted, and then a broad generalization leveled -- contrary to reason. That's a good point, and I agree that that's happened in some places. But aren't those tunnels mainly about drug smuggling, not illegal immigration? I wonder why that is? Seems like something deserving of more study, not sweeping generalizations about the pointlessness of securing the border.

What challenges to black people face that white people do not?

Seems like a good question, because then we'll be better able to find and arrest them. The employers, I mean -- because they're breaking the law. I'd also like to know where I can find a lawn care specialist that charges twice as much money and doesn't do a half-assed job. I don't really care what language he speaks, but I bet if there was more money in it he'd be able to hire a better worker. I agree. I agree. Like putting more pressure on employers who break the law.

What is it that you'd like to discuss? I'm not clear from the article.

Well okay, but what I said is why the whole argument is moot. I don't think it's the national debt that stops the return to the gold standard, it's the GDP. ("Hi, your $60,000/yr salary is now 12 "gold-backs"/yr (or whatever). Have a nice day.") But hey, maybe I'm wrong.

I agree. Is it? Reading people's minds is kinda risky -- perhaps you're making up the justification after the fact. Sure, because if you call it racist then it sounds like a bad thing. But it's actually the exact same act, you've simply thrown a different label on it and used a different justification for it. Another example: Society considers it racist to say that only white people can receive a scholarship, but not racist to say that only black people can receive it. The justification, as you say, is a kind of societal guilt -- a feeling of having repressed an entire race and having a need to make it up to them. Well that's fine -- society has determined that this is what the majority wants to do, and this is a democracy, so that's the way it is. We're going to tip the scales unfairly and unequally in favor of minorities out of a sense of guilt and duty. That's what we're going to do. But that's not what we call it. What we call it is "equality". Which it clearly isn't.

It doesn't have to be cost-effective, it has to stop most of the people who are trying to get in. I actually saw that episode of Bullsh*t, and as much as I love Penn & Teller and their great way of cutting through the BS and getting to more important issues, I really think they blew it on this. And I'm not the only one who thinks so -- many libertarians think that controlling the border is a valid thing for government to do, especially in light of terrorism, etc. And I simply don't buy this "it's too big to control" argument, or the "it's too expensive to control" argument. The simple application of technology, physical barricade and manpower has been clearly shown to be more than sufficient to send infiltrators to other sections of the border that are more easily accessed, yes? We all agree that this currently happens, right? So if the question is merely "what will they do when the whole thing rises to the level that pushed them to easier paths", then I think you have to do that and THEN see what happens. And look at it this way: What if the practical result of putting up a full-length fence that's monitored 24/7 is that you cut illlegal immigration in half? Well then you've DONE SOMETHING. You've actually accomplished a great deal. Sure thousands of people are still getting through, but then you re-address the problem and look at what can be done next.

Incorrect. The debt is far less than the gross domestic product of a single year, so clearly there's plenty of 'currency' floating around.

The difference is that no amendments are allowed (something that the Constitution does not require). I don't think they have to vote on it, I think they're just agreeing to do so. I don't see where promising to have an up-or-down vote raises a constitutional issue, but okay, I can understand being concerned about the separation of powers. Certainly that's not a line anybody wants to see crossed.

I don't think Net Neutrality is that black and white -- it's not a tradeoff that automatically damages the line owners. There's no reason to assume that we can't protect the rights of all stakeholders involved, but it would be foolish for us to not recognize the fact that society has become a stakeholder in the value of the Internet. We can protect the equipment investment of the line owner and the rights of the end user at the same time. But that entails recognizing a few basic, common rights of users.

Sure, fences aren't perfect. But isn't it obvious that a fence is more of a deterrent than a wide open field? It's not a question of utterly stopping illegal immigration, it's a question of eliminating as much of it as is reasonably possible and then dealing appropriately with the ones that got through. (No, a permanent amnesty program for people who got into the country illegally is NOT normal or reasonable, but having a temporary one to deal with the ones who are here at the moment does make sense IF we reasonably secure the border.) Putting up a basic fence also indemnifies the country against the problem of safety along the border. Or put another way, it frees us from the expense of staffing food/water/1st-aid stations every 200 yards lest the world deem us evil (again).

President Obama announced the deployment of 1200 National Guard troops to help monitor the border between Arizona and Mexico today, which I think is a good move. It's somewhat political, but it's also an indication that he's listening to the concerns that Arizonans have about security, and a way to back up his statements that he wants to do something about it. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/05/26/national_guard_will_bolster_mexico_border/ Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedHowever, we saw more evidence today that many Democrats/liberals object to ANY border enforcement action on an ideological basis. New Jersey Senator Robert Menendez (a Democrat) reacted to the almost-trivial 1200-troop deployment with this confused statement (reported almost nowhere except for Fox News): Gee, it's too bad we can't militarize Afghanistan with only 1200 troops. I guess what he's reacting to is the use of National Guard troops instead of border patrol agents, but the White House has already stated that these units are there solely to assist in spotting border transgressions, and will not actually participate in captures or arrests.

But other organizations that excluded people by race were condemned by society, such as whites-only golf clubs. But I'm not sure society really cares about fairness. I think what it mainly cares about is making sure that the squeaky wheel has been adequately greased. We haven't eliminated institutional racism in society, we've simply eliminated institutional racism implemented by whites. Institutional racism implemented by minorities seems to be perfectly acceptable, e.g. black scholarships and organizations. Why is that?

Interesting.

I could have phrased that better -- forget the history, I'm just wondering why (or if) it would be okay for the BSA to discriminate against women, but not against African Americans. In your opinions. I bring it up because it seems to fall within the purview of a discussion about the amount of flexibility society is to allow private organizations in determining their membership requirements.

Absolutely.

Open Question: Why was the Boy Scouts organization wrong to discriminate against minority males, but not wrong to discriminate against all women?

You're right, it's not that much yet. I'm sure it'll be there soon, of course, but you're right in pointing out that it climbed even farther (percentage-wise) during the Bush administration. Let's talk about some ways in which the problem could (theoretically be addressed). I'll throw some subjects out there and let's explore some options. Link to 2010 Federal budget proposal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budget - Defense spending ($663.7 billion out of $3.55 trillion) (discretionary, and up 12.7% over last year) (Note: No other single department in the Executive branch draws >$80 billion/yr. (and only 3 depts draw >50), so Defense is the ONLY source of discretionary spending in which cuts can significantly reduce the deficit/debt over the short term -- but what to cut?) - $695 billion (+4.9%) – Social Security - $453 billion (+6.6%) – Medicare - $290 billion (+12.0%) – Medicaid - $571 billion (−15.2%) – Other mandatory programs (?)

Bascule was kind enough to start a new thread on that, so let's take it up there.

Dude, what do you think "up or down vote" means? And what's with all the smothering rhetoric? Do you think we'll get lost between the lines? Stop trying to change the subject.

Is it really that valid to assume it would have been handled much better under Obama, though? He fully supported TARP and would likely have gone even farther with it. Reality: The national debt has risen forty percent since Obama took office, and is approaching 80% of GDP. Most of that may rest on previous administrations, but if Obama doesn't address it he's going to end up being responsible for it, and may not get a second term. He's got to do a heck of a lot better than $17 billion in discretionary cuts (meaningless in light of many times that in unbudgeted "emergency" requests) and an equally meaningless "plan" to balance the budget a dozen years after he leaves office. It's time to touch some "third rails".

Interesting posts, thanks for the replies. Nice catch, I missed this completely -- I'm sure you're quite right.

This is not a proposal to allow the president to alter previously-passed legislation. This would require new legislation, which would have to be passed by congress. It sounds like you may be confusing this idea with the reconciliation process. This proposal does not allow for modifications to passed legislation.