Tuesday, May 25, 2010


There are times when I hate my inability to research certain issues.

See, there's lots of talk about immigration reform, and that lead to me hearing some interesting things that made my ears perk up.

What I heard was that there wasn't much support for draconian measures against people who employ illegal immigrants.

Now, this is an interesting thought. The one thing that brings immigrants over is a desire to work. If you really, really care about "securing our borders" it would seem that one of your top priorities ought to be removing the big incentive to cross the border. And that would mean serious penalties against people who hire illegal immigrants.

There's another reason that this was interesting to me. Molly Ivins used to talk about this solution a lot. She always said that there wasn't any fence or wall you could build that people wouldn't find a way over. And she was right. But she always seemed so firmly attached to this solution that it bugged me a bit. I mean, sure, it's common sense, but it also seemed like her only solution - and Molly wasn't a one-trick pony. It was strange for her to think of only one part of a problem like this.

Tonight, though... tonight I had a sudden sick realization.

All those people talking about securing our borders - they don't really want to do that, do they?

It's just like the war on drugs. No one actually wants to resolve the problems.

They want the war. They want the money and glory and political advantages they can wring from it.

The powers that be don't want a secure border - they want cheap laborers who are in trouble with the law from the getgo, so that they will accept any working conditions whatsoever without whining - the next best thing to slaves. And they want enforcement programs, with money for border patrol and security and so forth. And they want a lovely hot button issue that they can keep punching over and over again.

Or so it seems.

Like I said, this isn't based upon deep research. But then, why don't you hear about stronger enforcement against employers? Why is it always based upon how you can punish the immigrants, not the people who draw them?

Just like they punish people for possession of drugs - people who are as much the victims of drugs - rather than only going after those who sell them?

It'd be a pretty sick thing, if true - building up a war to cause untold grief to huge numbers of people, all because it's a great way to get stir up emotions and come up with some dollars to spread to constituents.

I'm probably way too optimistic for being able to hope it's not true.

Friday, May 14, 2010

Whenever pointing out another person's error...

...it's almost a given that you'll make one of your own.

Case in point:
If you know Latin, you'll spot it.

Q.E.D.: quod erat demonstrandum, which roughly translates to "that which was to be shown".

It's often used at the end of proofs and such to show that you've arrived at your destination - i.e., "and I've just shown you what I was supposed to show you. I'm done."

And I have to admit, if I hadn't been a mathematician in a previous life, I wouldn't have known this.

And I'd better end this post befour the iron-cladded law make sme start to srcew things up own my on.

Monday, May 10, 2010

Because I'm an adult...

...I really don't care about Elena Kagan's sex life.

Andrew Sullivan, grow up. It's none of your fucking business..

Why is it none of your business? Because she hasn't chosen to speak about it. Voila! It's none of your fucking business.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Weblog Commenting and Trackback by HaloScan.com