Discussion:
James Blish and the Internet...
(too old to reply)
Johnny1A
2019-07-07 07:00:08 UTC
Permalink
I recently reread _Cities In Flight_ by James Blish, and was struck by how prescient a few of Blish's technologies were.

At one point in one of the stories (written in the early 60s) the protagonist queries the city's library computer system about a subject. The machine answers his question, but it also serves up a list of 'related topics', in much the same way search algorithms often work (or are supposed to work) on the Internet. The machine and the terminal are not like ours, but they work remarkably like it.
Ninapenda Jibini
2019-07-07 08:25:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Johnny1A
I recently reread _Cities In Flight_ by James Blish, and was
struck by how prescient a few of Blish's technologies were.
At one point in one of the stories (written in the early 60s)
the protagonist queries the city's library computer system about
a subject. The machine answers his question, but it also serves
up a list of 'related topics', in much the same way search
algorithms often work (or are supposed to work) on the Internet.
The machine and the terminal are not like ours, but they work
remarkably like it.
Not as prescient as Murray Leinster's "A Logic Named Joe," but
yeah. Blish also accuratenly predicted that as the decades passed,
the US and the Soviets would become more and more like each other.
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration


"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Lynn McGuire
2019-07-07 18:09:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Johnny1A
I recently reread _Cities In Flight_ by James Blish, and was
struck by how prescient a few of Blish's technologies were.
At one point in one of the stories (written in the early 60s)
the protagonist queries the city's library computer system about
a subject. The machine answers his question, but it also serves
up a list of 'related topics', in much the same way search
algorithms often work (or are supposed to work) on the Internet.
The machine and the terminal are not like ours, but they work
remarkably like it.
Not as prescient as Murray Leinster's "A Logic Named Joe," but
yeah. Blish also accuratenly predicted that as the decades passed,
the US and the Soviets would become more and more like each other.
Thank goodness that the USA does not have a gulag. Yet.

Lynn
Alan Baker
2019-07-07 18:14:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Johnny1A
I recently reread _Cities In Flight_ by James Blish, and was
struck by how prescient a few of Blish's technologies were.
At one point in one of the stories (written in the early 60s)
the protagonist queries the city's library computer system about
a subject.  The machine answers his question, but it also serves
up a list of 'related topics', in much the same way search
algorithms often work (or are supposed to work) on the Internet.
  The machine and the terminal are not like ours, but they work
remarkably like it.
Not as prescient as Murray Leinster's "A Logic Named Joe," but
yeah. Blish also accuratenly predicted that as the decades passed,
the US and the Soviets would become more and more like each other.
Thank goodness that the USA does not have a gulag.  Yet.
Lynn
But it's got concentration camps, so way to go!
Johnny1A
2019-07-07 20:32:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Johnny1A
I recently reread _Cities In Flight_ by James Blish, and was
struck by how prescient a few of Blish's technologies were.
At one point in one of the stories (written in the early 60s)
the protagonist queries the city's library computer system about
a subject.  The machine answers his question, but it also serves
up a list of 'related topics', in much the same way search
algorithms often work (or are supposed to work) on the Internet.
  The machine and the terminal are not like ours, but they work
remarkably like it.
Not as prescient as Murray Leinster's "A Logic Named Joe," but
yeah. Blish also accuratenly predicted that as the decades passed,
the US and the Soviets would become more and more like each other.
Thank goodness that the USA does not have a gulag.  Yet.
Lynn
But it's got concentration camps, so way to go!
Of course, the 'concentration camps' exist only in the fevered imaginations of the more gullible members of the public, and the actual problem with the detention camps is caused by the inaction and misaction of the very legislators who are acting the most shocked by it.

If the laws were changed to enable the detention camps to not exist, then they could rapidly be eliminated. But the same people who are pretending to be horrified and outraged by them find them very useful politically, and have no desire to actually solve the border problem or even ameliorate it.

(This includes high-ranking Senators and Congressmen of both parties, large swaths of the news media, and big chunks of corporate America. It's bipartisan corruption. AOC and Nancy Pelosi are at fault, so are Mitch McConnell and (until last year) Paul Ryan. _Especially_ Paul Ryan.
Alan Baker
2019-07-07 20:56:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Johnny1A
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Johnny1A
I recently reread _Cities In Flight_ by James Blish, and was
struck by how prescient a few of Blish's technologies were.
At one point in one of the stories (written in the early
60s) the protagonist queries the city's library computer
system about a subject. The machine answers his question,
but it also serves up a list of 'related topics', in much the
same way search algorithms often work (or are supposed to
work) on the Internet. The machine and the terminal are not
like ours, but they work remarkably like it.
Not as prescient as Murray Leinster's "A Logic Named Joe," but
yeah. Blish also accuratenly predicted that as the decades
passed, the US and the Soviets would become more and more like
each other.
Thank goodness that the USA does not have a gulag. Yet.
Lynn
But it's got concentration camps, so way to go!
Of course, the 'concentration camps' exist only in the fevered
imaginations of the more gullible members of the public, and the
actual problem with the detention camps is caused by the inaction and
misaction of the very legislators who are acting the most shocked by
it.
What about the "detention camps" makes them distinct from "concentration
camps", Johnny?
Post by Johnny1A
If the laws were changed to enable the detention camps to not exist,
then they could rapidly be eliminated. But the same people who are
pretending to be horrified and outraged by them find them very useful
politically, and have no desire to actually solve the border problem
or even ameliorate it.
(This includes high-ranking Senators and Congressmen of both parties,
large swaths of the news media, and big chunks of corporate America.
It's bipartisan corruption. AOC and Nancy Pelosi are at fault, so
are Mitch McConnell and (until last year) Paul Ryan. _Especially_
Paul Ryan.
Ninapenda Jibini
2019-07-07 23:18:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Johnny1A
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Johnny1A
I recently reread _Cities In Flight_ by James Blish, and
was struck by how prescient a few of Blish's technologies
were.
At one point in one of the stories (written in the early
60s) the protagonist queries the city's library computer
system about a subject. The machine answers his question,
but it also serves up a list of 'related topics', in much
the same way search algorithms often work (or are supposed
to work) on the Internet. The machine and the terminal are
not like ours, but they work remarkably like it.
Not as prescient as Murray Leinster's "A Logic Named Joe,"
but yeah. Blish also accuratenly predicted that as the
decades passed, the US and the Soviets would become more and
more like each other.
Thank goodness that the USA does not have a gulag. Yet.
Lynn
But it's got concentration camps, so way to go!
Of course, the 'concentration camps' exist only in the fevered
imaginations of the more gullible members of the public, and
the actual problem with the detention camps is caused by the
inaction and misaction of the very legislators who are acting
the most shocked by it.
What about the "detention camps" makes them distinct from
"concentration camps", Johnny?
The biggest difference is how long people stay in them. The
detainees, once they are vetted as unlikely to be violent
criminals, are let go, usually to say with someone they say is a
relative. The exceptions are people who are known criminals, and
people who must be medically quarantined as a matter of public
safety because they have communicable diseases (and there are quite
a few of them) or been exposed to someone who has (and there are
even more of them).

You will, of course, lie about all this, because you're incapable
of not doing so. I expectd you'll do some simple Google searches -
it would only take seconds - and find out I'm right, *so* *that*
you can lie about it. That seems to be how your illness presents
more often.
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration


"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Johnny1A
2019-07-08 07:05:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Johnny1A
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Johnny1A
I recently reread _Cities In Flight_ by James Blish, and was
struck by how prescient a few of Blish's technologies were.
At one point in one of the stories (written in the early
60s) the protagonist queries the city's library computer
system about a subject. The machine answers his question,
but it also serves up a list of 'related topics', in much the
same way search algorithms often work (or are supposed to
work) on the Internet. The machine and the terminal are not
like ours, but they work remarkably like it.
Not as prescient as Murray Leinster's "A Logic Named Joe," but
yeah. Blish also accuratenly predicted that as the decades
passed, the US and the Soviets would become more and more like
each other.
Thank goodness that the USA does not have a gulag. Yet.
Lynn
But it's got concentration camps, so way to go!
Of course, the 'concentration camps' exist only in the fevered
imaginations of the more gullible members of the public, and the
actual problem with the detention camps is caused by the inaction and
misaction of the very legislators who are acting the most shocked by
it.
What about the "detention camps" makes them distinct from "concentration
camps", Johnny?
Because they aren't there with the intent of killing, very few people have died in them, and they wouldn't be there _at all_ if the government didn't privately not want to stop illegal immigration. They only exist for lack of any better options under current law, and the 'concentration camp' line is political BS meant to create a false impression.

To put it simply, the people calling them concentration camps are lying. There was enough backlash over it that AOC had to backtrack, as did some of her supporters. One person even claimed that she didn't mean to compare them to Hitler, she meant to compare them to the Boer War! :lol:
Alan Baker
2019-07-08 07:24:51 UTC
Permalink
I recently reread _Cities In Flight_ by James Blish, and was
Post by Johnny1A
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Johnny1A
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Johnny1A
struck by how prescient a few of Blish's technologies
were.
At one point in one of the stories (written in the early
60s) the protagonist queries the city's library computer
system about a subject. The machine answers his
question, but it also serves up a list of 'related
topics', in much the same way search algorithms often
work (or are supposed to work) on the Internet. The
machine and the terminal are not like ours, but they work
remarkably like it.
Not as prescient as Murray Leinster's "A Logic Named Joe,"
but yeah. Blish also accuratenly predicted that as the
decades passed, the US and the Soviets would become more
and more like each other.
Thank goodness that the USA does not have a gulag. Yet.
Lynn
But it's got concentration camps, so way to go!
Of course, the 'concentration camps' exist only in the fevered
imaginations of the more gullible members of the public, and the
actual problem with the detention camps is caused by the inaction
and misaction of the very legislators who are acting the most
shocked by it.
What about the "detention camps" makes them distinct from
"concentration camps", Johnny?
Because they aren't there with the intent of killing, very few people
have died in them, and they wouldn't be there _at all_ if the
government didn't privately not want to stop illegal immigration.
They only exist for lack of any better options under current law, and
the 'concentration camp' line is political BS meant to create a false
impression.
The intent of killing has never been a necessary component for something
to be a concentration camp, Johnny.
Post by Johnny1A
To put it simply, the people calling them concentration camps are
lying. There was enough backlash over it that AOC had to backtrack,
as did some of her supporters. One person even claimed that she
didn't mean to compare them to Hitler, she meant to compare them to
No. They are NOT lying:

'concenttration camp

noun

a place where large numbers of people, especially political prisoners or
members of persecuted minorities, are deliberately imprisoned in a
relatively small area with inadequate facilities, sometimes to provide
forced labor or to await mass execution. The term is most strongly
associated with the several hundred camps established by the Nazis in
Germany and occupied Europe in 1933–45, among the most infamous being
Dachau, Belsen, and Auschwitz.'

Note the "sometimes" in there.
Johnny1A
2019-07-08 08:02:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Johnny1A
I recently reread _Cities In Flight_ by James Blish, and was
Post by Johnny1A
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Johnny1A
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Johnny1A
struck by how prescient a few of Blish's technologies
were.
At one point in one of the stories (written in the early
60s) the protagonist queries the city's library computer
system about a subject. The machine answers his
question, but it also serves up a list of 'related
topics', in much the same way search algorithms often
work (or are supposed to work) on the Internet. The
machine and the terminal are not like ours, but they work
remarkably like it.
Not as prescient as Murray Leinster's "A Logic Named Joe,"
but yeah. Blish also accuratenly predicted that as the
decades passed, the US and the Soviets would become more
and more like each other.
Thank goodness that the USA does not have a gulag. Yet.
Lynn
But it's got concentration camps, so way to go!
Of course, the 'concentration camps' exist only in the fevered
imaginations of the more gullible members of the public, and the
actual problem with the detention camps is caused by the inaction
and misaction of the very legislators who are acting the most
shocked by it.
What about the "detention camps" makes them distinct from
"concentration camps", Johnny?
Because they aren't there with the intent of killing, very few people
have died in them, and they wouldn't be there _at all_ if the
government didn't privately not want to stop illegal immigration.
They only exist for lack of any better options under current law, and
the 'concentration camp' line is political BS meant to create a false
impression.
The intent of killing has never been a necessary component for something
to be a concentration camp, Johnny.
Post by Johnny1A
To put it simply, the people calling them concentration camps are
lying. There was enough backlash over it that AOC had to backtrack,
as did some of her supporters. One person even claimed that she
didn't mean to compare them to Hitler, she meant to compare them to
'concenttration camp
noun
a place where large numbers of people, especially political prisoners or
members of persecuted minorities, are deliberately imprisoned in a
relatively small area with inadequate facilities, sometimes to provide
forced labor or to await mass execution. The term is most strongly
associated with the several hundred camps established by the Nazis in
Germany and occupied Europe in 1933–45, among the most infamous being
Dachau, Belsen, and Auschwitz.'
Note the "sometimes" in there.
Wrong.

It doesn't matter what the dictionary definition is, because that's not why the 'concentration camp' lie is being told. It's consciously meant to evoke an illegitimate and improper comparison to the Nazi death camps.

The people expressing the loudest fake outrage about the detention camps are the same people keeping them in business and spread the 'concentration camp' lie.
J. Clarke
2019-07-08 10:02:36 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 8 Jul 2019 01:02:56 -0700 (PDT), Johnny1A
Post by Johnny1A
Post by Johnny1A
I recently reread _Cities In Flight_ by James Blish, and was
Post by Johnny1A
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Johnny1A
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Johnny1A
struck by how prescient a few of Blish's technologies
were.
At one point in one of the stories (written in the early
60s) the protagonist queries the city's library computer
system about a subject. The machine answers his
question, but it also serves up a list of 'related
topics', in much the same way search algorithms often
work (or are supposed to work) on the Internet. The
machine and the terminal are not like ours, but they work
remarkably like it.
Not as prescient as Murray Leinster's "A Logic Named Joe,"
but yeah. Blish also accuratenly predicted that as the
decades passed, the US and the Soviets would become more
and more like each other.
Thank goodness that the USA does not have a gulag. Yet.
Lynn
But it's got concentration camps, so way to go!
Of course, the 'concentration camps' exist only in the fevered
imaginations of the more gullible members of the public, and the
actual problem with the detention camps is caused by the inaction
and misaction of the very legislators who are acting the most
shocked by it.
What about the "detention camps" makes them distinct from
"concentration camps", Johnny?
Because they aren't there with the intent of killing, very few people
have died in them, and they wouldn't be there _at all_ if the
government didn't privately not want to stop illegal immigration.
They only exist for lack of any better options under current law, and
the 'concentration camp' line is political BS meant to create a false
impression.
The intent of killing has never been a necessary component for something
to be a concentration camp, Johnny.
Post by Johnny1A
To put it simply, the people calling them concentration camps are
lying. There was enough backlash over it that AOC had to backtrack,
as did some of her supporters. One person even claimed that she
didn't mean to compare them to Hitler, she meant to compare them to
'concenttration camp
noun
a place where large numbers of people, especially political prisoners or
members of persecuted minorities, are deliberately imprisoned in a
relatively small area with inadequate facilities, sometimes to provide
forced labor or to await mass execution. The term is most strongly
associated with the several hundred camps established by the Nazis in
Germany and occupied Europe in 1933–45, among the most infamous being
Dachau, Belsen, and Auschwitz.'
Note the "sometimes" in there.
Wrong.
It doesn't matter what the dictionary definition is, because that's not why the 'concentration camp' lie is being told. It's consciously meant to evoke an illegitimate and improper comparison to the Nazi death camps.
The people expressing the loudest fake outrage about the detention camps are the same people keeping them in business and spread the 'concentration camp' lie.
Uh, the point is that people trying to enter the US unlawfully are not
"persecuted minorities", they are legitimatly suspected of committing
a crime. We don't put them in the facility based on their ethnicity,
religion, or other minority status, we put them in the facility
because we have good reason to believe that they are in the country
unlawfully or because they wish to enter the country without a valid
visa and are unwilling to fill out the paperwork and then wait in
Mexico for their visa to be provided.

That the facilities are inadequate is not a matter of intention, it's
a matter of funding in combination with an unexpectedly large number
of inmates.
Quadibloc
2019-07-08 11:07:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Uh, the point is that people trying to enter the US unlawfully are not
"persecuted minorities", they are legitimatly suspected of committing
a crime. We don't put them in the facility based on their ethnicity,
religion, or other minority status, we put them in the facility
because we have good reason to believe that they are in the country
unlawfully or because they wish to enter the country without a valid
visa and are unwilling to fill out the paperwork and then wait in
Mexico for their visa to be provided.
Ah, but it is precisely their ethnicity that is the reason they even *need* a
visa to enter the United States.

Also, one doesn't get a visa to enter a country as a refugee claimant, nor is it
permitted for normal forms of transportation to carry refugee claimants into a
country.

John Savard
Thomas Koenig
2019-07-08 18:53:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Ah, but it is precisely their ethnicity that is the reason they even *need* a
visa to enter the United States.
Huh?

Any German citizen (never mind his ethnicity) can travel to the US as a
tourist or on a business trip under ESTA.

Any German citizen (never mind his ethnicity) needs a visa to stay in
the US for longer, or to work there.
J. Clarke
2019-07-09 00:12:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Uh, the point is that people trying to enter the US unlawfully are not
"persecuted minorities", they are legitimatly suspected of committing
a crime. We don't put them in the facility based on their ethnicity,
religion, or other minority status, we put them in the facility
because we have good reason to believe that they are in the country
unlawfully or because they wish to enter the country without a valid
visa and are unwilling to fill out the paperwork and then wait in
Mexico for their visa to be provided.
Ah, but it is precisely their ethnicity that is the reason they even *need* a
visa to enter the United States.
No, it is not their ethnicity, it is their nationality.
Post by Quadibloc
Also, one doesn't get a visa to enter a country as a refugee claimant, nor is it
permitted for normal forms of transportation to carry refugee claimants into a
country.
In any case, just about anyone who is a citizen of any country in the
Americas except Cuba, Colombia, and Venezuela can come into the US for
90 days, which should cover the time needed to apply for asylum.
nuny@bid.nes
2019-07-09 02:25:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Uh, the point is that people trying to enter the US unlawfully are not
"persecuted minorities", they are legitimatly suspected of committing
a crime. We don't put them in the facility based on their ethnicity,
religion, or other minority status, we put them in the facility
because we have good reason to believe that they are in the country
unlawfully or because they wish to enter the country without a valid
visa and are unwilling to fill out the paperwork and then wait in
Mexico for their visa to be provided.
Ah, but it is precisely their ethnicity that is the reason they even *need* a
visa to enter the United States.
No, you stupid racist motherfucker, it's their BIRTH NATIONALITY that makes them need a visa!

I just realized that your nym refers to your heads up your ass causing you constant cerebral constipation.


Mark L. Fergerson
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2019-07-08 16:12:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 8 Jul 2019 01:02:56 -0700 (PDT), Johnny1A
Post by Johnny1A
Post by Johnny1A
On Sunday, July 7, 2019 at 3:56:03 PM UTC-5, Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
On Sunday, July 7, 2019 at 1:12:41 PM UTC-5, Alan Baker
I recently reread _Cities In Flight_ by James Blish, and was
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Johnny1A
struck by how prescient a few of Blish's technologies were.
At one point in one of the stories (written in the
early 60s) the protagonist queries the city's library
computer system about a subject. The machine answers
his question, but it also serves up a list of 'related
topics', in much the same way search algorithms often
work (or are supposed to work) on the Internet. The
machine and the terminal are not like ours, but they
work remarkably like it.
Not as prescient as Murray Leinster's "A Logic Named
Joe," but yeah. Blish also accuratenly predicted that
as the decades passed, the US and the Soviets would
become more and more like each other.
Thank goodness that the USA does not have a gulag. Yet.
Lynn
But it's got concentration camps, so way to go!
Of course, the 'concentration camps' exist only in the
fevered imaginations of the more gullible members of the
public, and the actual problem with the detention camps is
caused by the inaction and misaction of the very
legislators who are acting the most shocked by it.
What about the "detention camps" makes them distinct from
"concentration camps", Johnny?
Because they aren't there with the intent of killing, very
few people have died in them, and they wouldn't be there _at
all_ if the government didn't privately not want to stop
illegal immigration. They only exist for lack of any better
options under current law, and the 'concentration camp' line
is political BS meant to create a false impression.
The intent of killing has never been a necessary component for
something to be a concentration camp, Johnny.
To put it simply, the people calling them concentration
camps are lying. There was enough backlash over it that AOC
had to backtrack, as did some of her supporters. One person
even claimed that she didn't mean to compare them to Hitler,
'concenttration camp
noun
a place where large numbers of people, especially political
prisoners or members of persecuted minorities, are
deliberately imprisoned in a relatively small area with
inadequate facilities, sometimes to provide forced labor or to
await mass execution. The term is most strongly associated
with the several hundred camps established by the Nazis in
Germany and occupied Europe in 1933–45, among the most
infamous being Dachau, Belsen, and Auschwitz.'
Note the "sometimes" in there.
Wrong.
It doesn't matter what the dictionary definition is, because
that's not why the 'concentration camp' lie is being told. It's
consciously meant to evoke an illegitimate and improper
comparison to the Nazi death camps.
The people expressing the loudest fake outrage about the
detention camps are the same people keeping them in business and
spread the 'concentration camp' lie.
Uh, the point is that people trying to enter the US unlawfully
are not "persecuted minorities", they are legitimatly suspected
of committing a crime. We don't put them in the facility based
on their ethnicity, religion, or other minority status, we put
them in the facility because we have good reason to believe that
they are in the country unlawfully
Not quite. *Being* in the country illegally illegally isn't a
crime, it's a civil offense. We have reason to believe they *have*
*entered* the country illegally (mostly, be apprehending them in
the act, often because they turn themselves in), which *is* a
crime, albeit a minor one.
Post by J. Clarke
or because they wish to enter
the country without a valid visa and are unwilling to fill out
the paperwork and then wait in Mexico for their visa to be
provided.
That the facilities are inadequate is not a matter of intention,
it's a matter of funding in combination with an unexpectedly
large number of inmates.
Six months ago it was a matter of funding in combination with an
unexpectedly large number of inmates. Now, at four months in a row
of an order of magnitude more people apprehended per month than in
the past, with CBP betting for more money to deal with it, it *is*
a matter of intention. Congress, especially House Democrats,
*intend* to not allocate more money to deal with an order of
magnitude more people in the detention centers. They *must* intend
it, because they _keep doing it_. *So* *that* they can complain how
horrible the system is.
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2019-07-08 16:05:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Johnny1A
To put it simply, the people calling them concentration camps
are lying.
Only those that know what they're saying is untrue. For the most
part, people like Alan and AOC are just repeating what they've been
spoon fed by their lords and masters, like good little sheeple.
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
Ninapenda Jibini
2019-07-07 23:13:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Johnny1A
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Johnny1A
I recently reread _Cities In Flight_ by James Blish, and
was struck by how prescient a few of Blish's technologies
were.
At one point in one of the stories (written in the early
60s) the protagonist queries the city's library computer
system about a subject.  The machine answers his question,
but it also serves up a list of 'related topics', in much
the same way search algorithms often work (or are supposed
to work) on the Internet.   The machine and the terminal
are not like ours, but they work remarkably like it.
Not as prescient as Murray Leinster's "A Logic Named Joe,"
but yeah. Blish also accuratenly predicted that as the
decades passed, the US and the Soviets would become more and
more like each other.
Thank goodness that the USA does not have a gulag.  Yet.
Lynn
But it's got concentration camps, so way to go!
Of course, the 'concentration camps' exist only in the fevered
imaginations of the more gullible members of the public,
You mean Alan? Cuz that describes him perfectly. Gobbles down
whatever propaganda he's spoon fed by his masters.
Post by Johnny1A
and the
actual problem with the detention camps is caused by the
inaction and misaction of the very legislators who are acting
the most shocked by it.
And conditions are significantly better than they were during the
Obama administration, despite an *order* *of* *magnitude* more
people being detained.
Post by Johnny1A
If the laws were changed to enable the detention camps to not
exist, then they could rapidly be eliminated. But the same
people who are pretending to be horrified and outraged by them
find them very useful politically, and have no desire to
actually solve the border problem or even ameliorate it.
And have flatly refused to allocate more money to handle the
massive influx.
Post by Johnny1A
(This includes high-ranking Senators and Congressmen of both
parties, large swaths of the news media, and big chunks of
corporate America. It's bipartisan corruption. AOC and Nancy
Pelosi are at fault, so are Mitch McConnell and (until last
year) Paul Ryan. _Especially_ Paul Ryan.
The Republicans have no more interest in actually doing anything
than the Democrats, the primary blame rests firmly on the
Democrats, since they control the House, and financial bills have
to start there. The Senate *can't* do anything until the House
Democrats stop profiting from the suffering of those they insist
are innocent victims.
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration


"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Titus G
2019-07-08 05:10:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
And conditions are significantly better than they were during the
Obama administration, despite an *order* *of* *magnitude* more
people being detained.
Our concentration camps are better than your concentration camps?
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
The Republicans have no more interest in actually doing anything
than the Democrats, the primary blame rests firmly on the
Democrats, since they control the House, and financial bills have
to start there. The Senate *can't* do anything until the House
Democrats stop profiting from the suffering of those they insist
are innocent victims.
“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.”

Seriously, as a 10 year old or younger, my preference would have been to
be a detainee in a well lit USA concentration camp with golden doors
separated from my parents rather than being exhausted and impoverished
making Nike shoes in a factory in Honduras separated from my parents. As
an adult, I do not know, as my imagination can not comprehend such
misfortune. Sorry Alan Baker, I'm with Jibini on this one.

But, there are a lot of unhappy Jews who claim that it is a short step
from concentration camp, (mass detention of civilians), to death camps,
(self explanatory).
Johnny1A
2019-07-08 07:14:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Titus G
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
And conditions are significantly better than they were during the
Obama administration, despite an *order* *of* *magnitude* more
people being detained.
Our concentration camps are better than your concentration camps?
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
The Republicans have no more interest in actually doing anything
than the Democrats, the primary blame rests firmly on the
Democrats, since they control the House, and financial bills have
to start there. The Senate *can't* do anything until the House
Democrats stop profiting from the suffering of those they insist
are innocent victims.
“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.”
That poem is widely quoted, but it's mostly irrelevant in today's world. It certainly isn't a justification for unlimited illegal immigration, and even back in the day, getting in was scene as a privilege, not a right.
Post by Titus G
Seriously, as a 10 year old or younger, my preference would have been to
be a detainee in a well lit USA concentration camp with golden doors
separated from my parents rather than being exhausted and impoverished
making Nike shoes in a factory in Honduras separated from my parents. As
an adult, I do not know, as my imagination can not comprehend such
misfortune. Sorry Alan Baker, I'm with Jibini on this one.
But, there are a lot of unhappy Jews who claim that it is a short step
from concentration camp, (mass detention of civilians), to death camps,
(self explanatory).
A lot, or a few very loud ones in the political establishment?

Remember, most of the outrage over this is fake, and the 'concentration camp' comparison is political BS intended to create false analogies to Nazi Germany. It's no different than people who try to place the idea of a wall on the border to keep people _out_ in the same category as the Berlin Wall, meant to keep people _in_. The comparison is silly, but it's not meant to be believed intellectually but the resonate _emotionally_.
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2019-07-08 16:20:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Titus G
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
And conditions are significantly better than they were during
the Obama administration, despite an *order* *of* *magnitude*
more people being detained.
Our concentration camps are better than your concentration
camps?
Given how long most people spend in them before being released,
only a racist propagandist, or complete fool, would ccompare the
detention centers to concentration camps.
Post by Titus G
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
The Republicans have no more interest in actually doing
anything than the Democrats, the primary blame rests firmly on
the Democrats, since they control the House, and financial
bills have to start there. The Senate *can't* do anything until
the House Democrats stop profiting from the suffering of those
they insist are innocent victims.
“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.”
"The Constitution isn't a suicide pact."
Post by Titus G
Seriously, as a 10 year old or younger, my preference would have
been to be a detainee in a well lit USA concentration camp with
golden doors separated from my parents rather than being
exhausted and impoverished making Nike shoes in a factory in
Honduras separated from my parents. As an adult, I do not know,
as my imagination can not comprehend such misfortune. Sorry Alan
Baker, I'm with Jibini on this one.
But, there are a lot of unhappy Jews who claim that it is a
short step from concentration camp, (mass detention of
civilians), to death camps, (self explanatory).
Or so claim the propagandists. The only people I've seen acutally
making that comparison have been leftist moonbats and their
sheeple.
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
Johnny1A
2019-07-08 07:10:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Johnny1A
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Johnny1A
I recently reread _Cities In Flight_ by James Blish, and
was struck by how prescient a few of Blish's technologies
were.
At one point in one of the stories (written in the early
60s) the protagonist queries the city's library computer
system about a subject.  The machine answers his question,
but it also serves up a list of 'related topics', in much
the same way search algorithms often work (or are supposed
to work) on the Internet.   The machine and the terminal
are not like ours, but they work remarkably like it.
Not as prescient as Murray Leinster's "A Logic Named Joe,"
but yeah. Blish also accuratenly predicted that as the
decades passed, the US and the Soviets would become more and
more like each other.
Thank goodness that the USA does not have a gulag.  Yet.
Lynn
But it's got concentration camps, so way to go!
Of course, the 'concentration camps' exist only in the fevered
imaginations of the more gullible members of the public,
You mean Alan? Cuz that describes him perfectly. Gobbles down
whatever propaganda he's spoon fed by his masters.
Post by Johnny1A
and the
actual problem with the detention camps is caused by the
inaction and misaction of the very legislators who are acting
the most shocked by it.
And conditions are significantly better than they were during the
Obama administration, despite an *order* *of* *magnitude* more
people being detained.
Post by Johnny1A
If the laws were changed to enable the detention camps to not
exist, then they could rapidly be eliminated. But the same
people who are pretending to be horrified and outraged by them
find them very useful politically, and have no desire to
actually solve the border problem or even ameliorate it.
And have flatly refused to allocate more money to handle the
massive influx.
Post by Johnny1A
(This includes high-ranking Senators and Congressmen of both
parties, large swaths of the news media, and big chunks of
corporate America. It's bipartisan corruption. AOC and Nancy
Pelosi are at fault, so are Mitch McConnell and (until last
year) Paul Ryan. _Especially_ Paul Ryan.
The Republicans have no more interest in actually doing anything
than the Democrats, the primary blame rests firmly on the
Democrats, since they control the House, and financial bills have
to start there. The Senate *can't* do anything until the House
Democrats stop profiting from the suffering of those they insist
are innocent victims.
True...but the GOP had control of the House, Senate, and White House from January 2017 to January 2019. Yet somehow, mysteriously, Ryan and McConnell failed to take any meaningful steps to address illegal immigration, to reform the asylum laws, or to reign in the ridiculous court rulings that helped created this mess. In fact, when they did manage to get a bill through both chambers, it usually looked more like the same stuff the Dems keep trying to pass.

The Dems absolutely want maximum immigration, they want to import voters. But the business wing of the GOP is just as anxious to import cheap labor and customers. The rank and file of the GOP wants immigration reductions and border enforcement, the donors want ever more immigration.

I've noticed that now that Pelosi is in control in the House, McConnell is suddenly talking tougher on immigration. Big shock. He knows it's safe to do so because there's no chance of anything getting done.
J. Clarke
2019-07-08 10:26:40 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 8 Jul 2019 00:10:03 -0700 (PDT), Johnny1A
Post by Johnny1A
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Johnny1A
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Johnny1A
I recently reread _Cities In Flight_ by James Blish, and
was struck by how prescient a few of Blish's technologies
were.
At one point in one of the stories (written in the early
60s) the protagonist queries the city's library computer
system about a subject.  The machine answers his question,
but it also serves up a list of 'related topics', in much
the same way search algorithms often work (or are supposed
to work) on the Internet.   The machine and the terminal
are not like ours, but they work remarkably like it.
Not as prescient as Murray Leinster's "A Logic Named Joe,"
but yeah. Blish also accuratenly predicted that as the
decades passed, the US and the Soviets would become more and
more like each other.
Thank goodness that the USA does not have a gulag.  Yet.
Lynn
But it's got concentration camps, so way to go!
Of course, the 'concentration camps' exist only in the fevered
imaginations of the more gullible members of the public,
You mean Alan? Cuz that describes him perfectly. Gobbles down
whatever propaganda he's spoon fed by his masters.
Post by Johnny1A
and the
actual problem with the detention camps is caused by the
inaction and misaction of the very legislators who are acting
the most shocked by it.
And conditions are significantly better than they were during the
Obama administration, despite an *order* *of* *magnitude* more
people being detained.
Post by Johnny1A
If the laws were changed to enable the detention camps to not
exist, then they could rapidly be eliminated. But the same
people who are pretending to be horrified and outraged by them
find them very useful politically, and have no desire to
actually solve the border problem or even ameliorate it.
And have flatly refused to allocate more money to handle the
massive influx.
Post by Johnny1A
(This includes high-ranking Senators and Congressmen of both
parties, large swaths of the news media, and big chunks of
corporate America. It's bipartisan corruption. AOC and Nancy
Pelosi are at fault, so are Mitch McConnell and (until last
year) Paul Ryan. _Especially_ Paul Ryan.
The Republicans have no more interest in actually doing anything
than the Democrats, the primary blame rests firmly on the
Democrats, since they control the House, and financial bills have
to start there. The Senate *can't* do anything until the House
Democrats stop profiting from the suffering of those they insist
are innocent victims.
True...but the GOP had control of the House, Senate, and White House from January 2017 to January 2019. Yet somehow, mysteriously, Ryan and McConnell failed to take any meaningful steps to address illegal immigration, to reform the asylum laws, or to reign in the ridiculous court rulings that helped created this mess. In fact, when they did manage to get a bill through both chambers, it usually looked more like the same stuff the Dems keep trying to pass.
The Dems absolutely want maximum immigration, they want to import voters. But the business wing of the GOP is just as anxious to import cheap labor and customers.
Hold on. Who actually uses illegals? My information is that it's
mostly mom and pop farms, not big agribusiness. One estimate was that
if illegals were all rounded up and deported and no more were coming
in 3500 dairy farms in New York would have to close. That's not big
business capable of buying the whole Congress. That's a bunch of
small businesses in one state that is notoriously blue. They also have
presence in other kinds of business, but again it doesn't seem to be
in "big business", it seems to be in small scale operations--you won't
see illegals building a skyscraper in New York, you'll see them
building houses in East Bufmuck. You also won't see them on the
production line at Boeing but you may see them in some small scale
tailor shop. The notion that the kind of business that can buy a
majority of politicians in DC wants illegals just doesn't make any
sense.

As for customers, poor people aren't customers for much of anything
except Good Will. Rich people buy new, poor people buy used when they
can and when they can't they buy the cheapest thing they can find. And
illegals are for the most part poor.
Post by Johnny1A
The rank and file of the GOP wants immigration reductions and border enforcement, the donors want ever more immigration.
Immigration reduction and border enforcement are unrelated. We could
have a billion immigrants a minute and still have border enforcement.
I don't see any evidence that "the rank and file" wants immigration
reduction. Best boss I ever worked for was an immigrant. Best
co-worker I ever had the same. Neither is cheap labor. But I do see
a lot of people, including most of the immigrants I talk to, wanting
strong border enforcement. Immigrants are especially adamant about
it--they had to go through all the processes and procedures to get a
work permit, then a green card, then citizenship, so why should
somebody else come waltzing in and get to stay without going through
all that?

64 percent of Americans at the most recent Gallup poll say that
immigration should be kept the same or increased. That's more than
say that they approve of any candidate for President.
Post by Johnny1A
I've noticed that now that Pelosi is in control in the House, McConnell is suddenly talking tougher on immigration. Big shock. He knows it's safe to do so because there's no chance of anything getting done.
Quadibloc
2019-07-08 11:11:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Hold on. Who actually uses illegals? My information is that it's
mostly mom and pop farms, not big agribusiness. One estimate was that
if illegals were all rounded up and deported and no more were coming
in 3500 dairy farms in New York would have to close. That's not big
business capable of buying the whole Congress. That's a bunch of
small businesses in one state that is notoriously blue. They also have
presence in other kinds of business, but again it doesn't seem to be
in "big business", it seems to be in small scale operations--you won't
see illegals building a skyscraper in New York, you'll see them
building houses in East Bufmuck. You also won't see them on the
production line at Boeing but you may see them in some small scale
tailor shop. The notion that the kind of business that can buy a
majority of politicians in DC wants illegals just doesn't make any
sense.
That is true. But big business _does_ generally favor low tariffs and more open
borders. Even if it has too much to lose to dare to hire illegals directly,
therefore, it certainly can favor policies which make legal immigration of
ordinary working-class people from Mexico easier (or, for that matter, even
possible).

John Savard
J. Clarke
2019-07-09 00:14:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Hold on. Who actually uses illegals? My information is that it's
mostly mom and pop farms, not big agribusiness. One estimate was that
if illegals were all rounded up and deported and no more were coming
in 3500 dairy farms in New York would have to close. That's not big
business capable of buying the whole Congress. That's a bunch of
small businesses in one state that is notoriously blue. They also have
presence in other kinds of business, but again it doesn't seem to be
in "big business", it seems to be in small scale operations--you won't
see illegals building a skyscraper in New York, you'll see them
building houses in East Bufmuck. You also won't see them on the
production line at Boeing but you may see them in some small scale
tailor shop. The notion that the kind of business that can buy a
majority of politicians in DC wants illegals just doesn't make any
sense.
That is true. But big business _does_ generally favor low tariffs and more open
borders. Even if it has too much to lose to dare to hire illegals directly,
therefore, it certainly can favor policies which make legal immigration of
ordinary working-class people from Mexico easier (or, for that matter, even
possible).
Very few people in the US object to anyone coming in legally. The
notion that there is resistance to "immigrants" is a ploy. Discussion
starts with "illegal immigrants" and then very quickly one side drops
the "illegal" and starts accusing the other of hating immigrants.
Quadibloc
2019-07-09 03:08:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Very few people in the US object to anyone coming in legally.
It is true that very few people in the U.S. object to the people who came in
legally as individuals. Legal immigrants aren't, commonly, targets for racism to a
great extent.

However, people are concerned about illegal immigration not _only_ because it is
illegal, and so the people engaging in it are showing disrespect for the law...
but because they believe that this immigration is of a kind that _should_ be
illegal.

There are a great many Americans who, in my opinion quite legitimately, want to
restrict immigration sufficiently that American employers have no choice to pay
higher wages for the jobs Americans "don't want to do", or do without. They want
an economy where more Americans can not only get jobs, but be paid union wages
for them. That means one where competition for jobs by laborers is to be kept
low, and competition by companies for workers is kept high.

This, of course, has nothing to do with racism. Although if an overly generous
immigration policy is in place for a while, of course the resentment will spill
over into racism.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2019-07-09 03:31:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Very few people in the US object to anyone coming in legally.
It is true that very few people in the U.S. object to the people who came in
legally as individuals. Legal immigrants aren't, commonly, targets for racism to a
great extent.
However, people are concerned about illegal immigration not _only_ because it is
illegal, and so the people engaging in it are showing disrespect for the law...
but because they believe that this immigration is of a kind that _should_ be
illegal.
I think there's pretty much agreement that sneaking across the border
or overstaying your visa _should_ be illegal. It is everywhere else.
Post by Quadibloc
There are a great many Americans who, in my opinion quite legitimately, want to
restrict immigration sufficiently that American employers have no choice to pay
higher wages for the jobs Americans "don't want to do", or do without.
You mean they want employers to obey the minimum wage law rather than
circumventing it by hiring illegals who they can control with the
threat of deportation.
Post by Quadibloc
They want
an economy where more Americans can not only get jobs, but be paid union wages
for them.
Generally speaking, if it's a union shop illegals don't get to work
there.
Post by Quadibloc
That means one where competition for jobs by laborers is to be kept
low, and competition by companies for workers is kept high.
This, of course, has nothing to do with racism. Although if an overly generous
immigration policy is in place for a while, of course the resentment will spill
over into racism.
The problem is that we have millions of illegals. No other country in
the world is in that situation, including yours, and it's not because
they hate immigrants or are racists or any of that bullshit.
Quadibloc
2019-07-09 11:27:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
You mean they want employers to obey the minimum wage law rather than
circumventing it by hiring illegals who they can control with the
threat of deportation.
I agree that's one of the things they want. However, I believe that many working-
class Americans want more. They want a return to the economic conditions of the
postwar boom, and are not really concerned by the claims of economists that this
is not possible.

John Savard
Scott Lurndal
2019-07-11 19:13:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
You mean they want employers to obey the minimum wage law rather
than circumventing it by hiring illegals who they can control
with the threat of deportation.
Not at all. The goal (among the ones sane enough to figure out what
they're jibbering about) is a living wage. As in, a wage you can
live on. Minimum wage isn't it in the overwhelming majority of the
US. In Los Angeles, for instance, if you worked 40 hours a week at
the federal minimum wage (California's is already higher), the
average one bedroom apartment rents for more than your gross, pre-
tax income. Half a a two bedroom apartment is about equal to your
take-home pay. While California's minimum wage is higher, it's
still not enough to live on without subsidies from either family
(who are probably as poor as you are), or far more likely, the
tazpayers.
Or renting a room in a boarding house, or getting a roommate
or three until (and if) you can afford to live on your own.
Dimensional Traveler
2019-07-11 20:04:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by J. Clarke
You mean they want employers to obey the minimum wage law rather
than circumventing it by hiring illegals who they can control
with the threat of deportation.
Not at all. The goal (among the ones sane enough to figure out what
they're jibbering about) is a living wage. As in, a wage you can
live on. Minimum wage isn't it in the overwhelming majority of the
US. In Los Angeles, for instance, if you worked 40 hours a week at
the federal minimum wage (California's is already higher), the
average one bedroom apartment rents for more than your gross, pre-
tax income. Half a a two bedroom apartment is about equal to your
take-home pay. While California's minimum wage is higher, it's
still not enough to live on without subsidies from either family
(who are probably as poor as you are), or far more likely, the
tazpayers.
Or renting a room in a boarding house, or getting a roommate
or three until (and if) you can afford to live on your own.
"Half a a two bedroom apartment is about equal to your take-home pay."
Roommates don't help enough, unless you are talking three or four people
sleeping in the same bed.
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2019-07-11 20:31:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by J. Clarke
You mean they want employers to obey the minimum wage law
rather than circumventing it by hiring illegals who they can
control with the threat of deportation.
Not at all. The goal (among the ones sane enough to figure out
what they're jibbering about) is a living wage. As in, a wage
you can live on. Minimum wage isn't it in the overwhelming
majority of the US. In Los Angeles, for instance, if you
worked 40 hours a week at the federal minimum wage
(California's is already higher), the average one bedroom
apartment rents for more than your gross, pre- tax income.
Half a a two bedroom apartment is about equal to your
take-home pay. While California's minimum wage is higher, it's
still not enough to live on without subsidies from either
family (who are probably as poor as you are), or far more
likely, the tazpayers.
Or renting a room in a boarding house, or getting a roommate
or three until (and if) you can afford to live on your own.
"Half a a two bedroom apartment is about equal to your take-home
pay." Roommates don't help enough, unless you are talking three
or four people sleeping in the same bed.
Indeed. The "four familes living in a one bedroom apartment with no
running water or sewer service" stereotype is firmly grounded in
reality.

Mind you, LA has among the highest housing costs in the US (though
there are places that are significatnly higher - earn $100,000/year
in Silicon Valley and you will literally be homeless or driving
hours a day on your commute). But the current powers that be are
quite deliberately making it worse, not better.
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2019-07-11 20:28:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by J. Clarke
You mean they want employers to obey the minimum wage law
rather than circumventing it by hiring illegals who they can
control with the threat of deportation.
Not at all. The goal (among the ones sane enough to figure out
what they're jibbering about) is a living wage. As in, a wage
you can live on. Minimum wage isn't it in the overwhelming
majority of the US. In Los Angeles, for instance, if you worked
40 hours a week at the federal minimum wage (California's is
already higher), the average one bedroom apartment rents for
more than your gross, pre- tax income. Half a a two bedroom
apartment is about equal to your take-home pay. While
California's minimum wage is higher, it's still not enough to
live on without subsidies from either family (who are probably
as poor as you are), or far more likely, the tazpayers.
Or renting a room in a boarding house, or getting a roommate
or three
or 30.
Post by Scott Lurndal
until (and if) you can afford to live on your own.
Which will _never_ happen for most people living on minimum wage.

So, fuck poor people who want to live decently, eh? No privacy for
you!

BTW, that kind of close living quarters has health affects - the
treatment of which will also be subsidized by the taxpayers.
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
Kevrob
2019-07-11 21:11:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by J. Clarke
You mean they want employers to obey the minimum wage law rather
than circumventing it by hiring illegals who they can control
with the threat of deportation.
Not at all. The goal (among the ones sane enough to figure out what
they're jibbering about) is a living wage. As in, a wage you can
live on. Minimum wage isn't it in the overwhelming majority of the
US. In Los Angeles, for instance, if you worked 40 hours a week at
the federal minimum wage (California's is already higher), the
average one bedroom apartment rents for more than your gross, pre-
tax income. Half a a two bedroom apartment is about equal to your
take-home pay. While California's minimum wage is higher, it's
still not enough to live on without subsidies from either family
(who are probably as poor as you are), or far more likely, the
tazpayers.
Or renting a room in a boarding house, or getting a roommate
or three until (and if) you can afford to live on your own.
Unintended consequences department: as part of the 1960s/1970s
"urban renewal," many cities tore down SRO hotels: "single room
occupancy."

[quote]

Some viewed the removal of SRO hotels as a good thing, as it meant the
"removal of substandard housing and unwanted neighbors" and their "public
nuisance"; on the other hand, it was also viewed as causing more homelessness.

....

SROs are a viable housing option for students, single tenants, seasonal or
other traveling workers, empty nester widows/widowers, divorced men, low-
income people, or others who do not want or need large dwellings or private
domestic appliances. The smaller size and limited amenities in SROs generally
make them a more affordable housing option, especially in gentrifying
neighborhoods or urban areas with high land values and high rents.

[/quote] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_room_occupancy

In RightPondia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedsit

Musical accompanionment.....



Many US communities block SRO-type housing through zoning.

This case went to the US Supreme Court. Our family built a house
across the harbor, in a much less tony village. It was still
pretty nice, though, especially after the summer bungalows
were either converted to year-round residences, or torn down
and structures that could stand up to winter took their place.
A certain rustic charm was lost, however. No more sleeping
out on the porch on a hot night, now that you have whole-
house air conditioning, and the porch has been replaced by an
actual living room/parlor/family room/media room.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Village_of_Belle_Terre_v._Boraas

It wasn't long after Belle Terre won their victory, that other
Long Island towns started getting stricter with unrelated folks
sharing a house.

https://www.nytimes.com/1975/08/31/archives/long-island-draws-the-line-on-groupers-li-draws-the-line-on.html

Every once in a while the local Fire Departments run across modified*
single-family homes with a dozen or so people living in them. The FDs
haven't been given revised floor plans of these places, which are not up
to NFPA code, by a long shot, and they get shut down, like this one:

https://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2007/02/14/2336540.htm

* Local officials would call them "illegal conversions."
the courts, re: Belle Terre v Boraas would probably
back them up.


Kevin R
Quadibloc
2019-07-11 23:14:24 UTC
Permalink
Best I can tell, virtually all racism, ultimately, is far more
about money (and who doesn't have it) than skin color. Very people
racists, or people who hate them (and are just as racist, only in
the other direction) recognize this, or will even admit it to
themselves.
I've tended to classify racism into two forms, which I will call "Type A racism"
and "Type B racism".

Black people in the United States, and First Nations people in Canada, are
victims of Type A racism. So the caricature is that they're stupid, lazy, and
violent criminals - derived, of course, from the consequences of being poor.

In the 19th century, recent Jewish immigrants to the United States were affected
by Type A racism, and so were the Chinese. Today, though, Jews and Asians tend
to be victims of "Type B racism". Favored by the government, stealing the good
jobs, running the world behind the scenes, that sort of thing. Chinese people in
Indonesia, or the Ibo in Nigeria, were targets of the more severe forms of this
type of racism.

The other stuff, like the resentment of victims of racism for the group that
they have problems with, I would class under ethnocentricism.

John Savard
David DeLaney
2019-07-16 12:26:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
I've tended to classify racism into two forms, which I will call "Type A
racism" and "Type B racism".
... so which one does Type Q racism fall under?

Dave, existence proof was left to the reader long ago
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
my gatekeeper archives are no longer accessible :( / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
David DeLaney
2019-07-16 12:24:06 UTC
Permalink
Minimum wage in the US is a sick, sadistic joke.
Come to Knoxville.

The rent in my apartment complex has risen 100% since I've been living here ...
it's now at $450/month.

Dave, granted, this has always been a strong candidate for Cheapest Apartments
In Town, but it's not in a _bad_ neighborhood, or bad shape - just a poor one.
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
my gatekeeper archives are no longer accessible :( / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Scott Lurndal
2019-07-09 13:22:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Very few people in the US object to anyone coming in legally.
Then why has it become so blame hard to get a legitimate visitor
visa? Even from old friends in Europe.
Quadibloc
2019-07-11 23:31:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Very few people in the US object to anyone coming in legally.
The notion that there is resistance to "immigrants" is a ploy.
Discussion starts with "illegal immigrants" and then very
quickly one side drops the "illegal" and starts accusing the
other of hating immigrants.
One side flat won't use the word "illegal." Ever.
Ah, yes. They're "undocumented aliens". Unfortunately, the INS is currently
operating under the delusion that there is some law of which they've run afoul
which permits them to be apprehended and deported.

No, they can't _really_ mean that. If they did, they would be calling for INS
agents to be put in jail for kidnapping.

Instead, this is like calling the mentally retarded "exceptional", or someone
confined to a wheelchair "mobility challenged". It's intended to avoid calling
attention to, and reminding people of, the fact that illegal immigrants are
where they should not be, by their own choice and will, because that would only
encourage people to be negative and judgmental about them instead of
compassionate.

I'm amazed that Obama wasn't able to do better than DACA. Some degree of compassion in the exercise of the law is reasonable. But in general, for the country to have an adult conversation about immigration policy, the first thing that has to be admitted is:

for a rich country surrounded by a world filled with poverty,

it is impossible and unsustainable to have open borders, and therefore

by its very nature, immigration policy will be cruel to many innocent people who
had the misfortune of being born in the poor part of the world.

The only way to avoid the unfairness of locking the poor masses of the world out
of the opportunities individuals from among them would have in the rich world...
is by fixing the whole world, so that every single country on the planet is a
wealthy industrialized liberal democracy. (The word "liberal" is required:
otherwise, the majority might vote to discriminate against a minority group,
leading to the existence of some people with a legitimate need to immigrate.)

However, the nation having an adult conversation about immigration is unlikely
to happen. Most people over the age of majority, or at least so it seems, are
not "adults" in the sense that they cannot bear to think about, or even admit
the possibility of, some unpleasantness that cannot immediately be remedied if
only a few nasty people would stop what they're doing.

The idea that there are problems we might not be able to solve for a long time
to come (aside from the lack of a specifically technological solution, like a
cure for cancer or old age) is anathema to them.

John Savard
Johnny1A
2019-07-15 05:55:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Very few people in the US object to anyone coming in legally.
The notion that there is resistance to "immigrants" is a ploy.
Discussion starts with "illegal immigrants" and then very
quickly one side drops the "illegal" and starts accusing the
other of hating immigrants.
One side flat won't use the word "illegal." Ever.
Ah, yes. They're "undocumented aliens". Unfortunately, the INS is currently
operating under the delusion that there is some law of which they've run afoul
which permits them to be apprehended and deported.
No, they can't _really_ mean that. If they did, they would be calling for INS
agents to be put in jail for kidnapping.
Depends on who 'they' refers to. I have no doubt that some of the organized activists would happily imprison or worse the enforcement personnel if they only could. Some of them boast about that.

But you're right, of course, that most of the Dem politicians and associates who have started to parrot the talking points don't actually _mean_ it, in the sense of sincere personal belief.

But they're prepared to act on it to a considerable degree for political reasons.
Post by Quadibloc
Instead, this is like calling the mentally retarded "exceptional", or someone
confined to a wheelchair "mobility challenged". It's intended to avoid calling
attention to, and reminding people of, the fact that illegal immigrants are
where they should not be, by their own choice and will, because that would only
encourage people to be negative and judgmental about them instead of
compassionate.
Of course the goal is to cloud the issue. 'Undocumented migrant' sounds more emotionally neutral than the precise and legally accurate term 'illegal alien'.

For a little while, I was started to hear 'undocumented American' as a term preferred over 'undocumented migrant', but that hadn't really taken hold yet when Trump ran and blew up the progression of euphemisms.
Post by Quadibloc
I'm amazed that Obama wasn't able to do better than DACA.
At that time, the Dems had not yet written off the white working class as potential constituents, so his own party was split on immigration as an issue, which hamstrung how far he could risk going. The GOP was split too, of course, but along a different fracture line.

The Dems really, _really_ wanted GOP buy-in for their immigration policies. They forced Obamacare through without GOP support, and it turned into a political catastrophe for the Dems in 2010, and it would have been worse for them than it was if the GOP hadn't approached the election with their usual mix of incompetence and self-defeating cluelessness.

That's part of why the Dems, when they had the House, the Senate, and Obama in the White House, never passed an immigration amnesty. In theory they could have, in theory they had the votes, and they had all the usual bogus polls and media narratives claiming the public was for it.

But they knew better. There would be no political upside in passing amnesty alone, it would have handed the GOP a huge weapon against them. So they insisted they needed a 'bipartisan' bill, so they could share the blame, and Obama had to be content with what he thought the public might actually support.
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2019-07-08 16:31:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 8 Jul 2019 00:10:03 -0700 (PDT), Johnny1A
On Sunday, July 7, 2019 at 6:13:55 PM UTC-5, Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
On Sunday, July 7, 2019 at 1:12:41 PM UTC-5, Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Johnny1A
I recently reread _Cities In Flight_ by James Blish,
and was struck by how prescient a few of Blish's
technologies were.
At one point in one of the stories (written in the
early 60s) the protagonist queries the city's library
computer system about a subject.  The machine answers
his question, but it also serves up a list of 'related
topics', in much the same way search algorithms often
work (or are supposed to work) on the Internet.   The
machine and the terminal are not like ours, but they
work remarkably like it.
Not as prescient as Murray Leinster's "A Logic Named
Joe," but yeah. Blish also accuratenly predicted that as
the decades passed, the US and the Soviets would become
more and more like each other.
Thank goodness that the USA does not have a gulag.  Yet.
Lynn
But it's got concentration camps, so way to go!
Of course, the 'concentration camps' exist only in the
fevered imaginations of the more gullible members of the
public,
You mean Alan? Cuz that describes him perfectly. Gobbles down
whatever propaganda he's spoon fed by his masters.
and the
actual problem with the detention camps is caused by the
inaction and misaction of the very legislators who are
acting the most shocked by it.
And conditions are significantly better than they were during
the Obama administration, despite an *order* *of* *magnitude*
more people being detained.
If the laws were changed to enable the detention camps to
not exist, then they could rapidly be eliminated. But the
same people who are pretending to be horrified and outraged
by them find them very useful politically, and have no
desire to actually solve the border problem or even
ameliorate it.
And have flatly refused to allocate more money to handle the
massive influx.
(This includes high-ranking Senators and Congressmen of both
parties, large swaths of the news media, and big chunks of
corporate America. It's bipartisan corruption. AOC and
Nancy Pelosi are at fault, so are Mitch McConnell and (until
last year) Paul Ryan. _Especially_ Paul Ryan.
The Republicans have no more interest in actually doing
anything than the Democrats, the primary blame rests firmly on
the Democrats, since they control the House, and financial
bills have to start there. The Senate *can't* do anything
until the House Democrats stop profiting from the suffering of
those they insist are innocent victims.
True...but the GOP had control of the House, Senate, and White
House from January 2017 to January 2019. Yet somehow,
mysteriously, Ryan and McConnell failed to take any meaningful
steps to address illegal immigration, to reform the asylum laws,
or to reign in the ridiculous court rulings that helped created
this mess. In fact, when they did manage to get a bill through
both chambers, it usually looked more like the same stuff the
Dems keep trying to pass.
The Dems absolutely want maximum immigration, they want to
import voters. But the business wing of the GOP is just as
anxious to import cheap labor and customers.
Hold on. Who actually uses illegals? My information is that
it's mostly mom and pop farms, not big agribusiness. One
estimate was that if illegals were all rounded up and deported
and no more were coming in 3500 dairy farms in New York would
have to close. That's not big business capable of buying the
whole Congress. That's a bunch of small businesses in one state
that is notoriously blue. They also have presence in other kinds
of business, but again it doesn't seem to be in "big business",
it seems to be in small scale operations--you won't see illegals
building a skyscraper in New York, you'll see them building
houses in East Bufmuck. You also won't see them on the
production line at Boeing but you may see them in some small
scale tailor shop. The notion that the kind of business that
can buy a majority of politicians in DC wants illegals just
doesn't make any sense.
It's all about extracting money from their base.

Democrats cry that the evil Republicans want to oppressed all these
poor, innocent people who only want a better life here, and put
them all in concentration camps and gas them, so please send us
money.

Republicans cry that illegals are subhuman animals come here to
rape our women and kick our dogs, so please send us money.

As long as it's kept a crisis, we need "leaders" to lead the charge
to "solve" it. If we ever *did* solve it, both parties would lose
millions, probably tens of millions, in donations every year.

Now that it actually *is* a crisis, where both parties stand is
blindingly obvious even to idiots. Only those that are literally
delusional don't see it.
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
Juho Julkunen
2019-07-08 18:28:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
As long as it's kept a crisis, we need "leaders" to lead the charge
to "solve" it. If we ever *did* solve it, both parties would lose
millions, probably tens of millions, in donations every year.
I don't think that's true. They just need *a* crisis. It doesn't have
to be this one; there's always the next one.

Of course, if one is at hand, there's no need to manufacture another.
--
Juho Julkunen
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2019-07-08 19:36:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Juho Julkunen
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
As long as it's kept a crisis, we need "leaders" to lead the
charge to "solve" it. If we ever *did* solve it, both parties
would lose millions, probably tens of millions, in donations
every year.
I don't think that's true. They just need *a* crisis. It doesn't
have to be this one; there's always the next one.
A first rate crisis takes time to craft. And if this crisis ends,
despite the diligent efforts of the idiots in DC, they will be taken
by surprise.
Post by Juho Julkunen
Of course, if one is at hand, there's no need to manufacture
another.
That's why they try to keep one in reserve at all times.
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
Johnny1A
2019-07-08 18:43:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 8 Jul 2019 00:10:03 -0700 (PDT), Johnny1A
Post by Johnny1A
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Johnny1A
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Johnny1A
I recently reread _Cities In Flight_ by James Blish, and
was struck by how prescient a few of Blish's technologies
were.
At one point in one of the stories (written in the early
60s) the protagonist queries the city's library computer
system about a subject.  The machine answers his question,
but it also serves up a list of 'related topics', in much
the same way search algorithms often work (or are supposed
to work) on the Internet.   The machine and the terminal
are not like ours, but they work remarkably like it.
Not as prescient as Murray Leinster's "A Logic Named Joe,"
but yeah. Blish also accuratenly predicted that as the
decades passed, the US and the Soviets would become more and
more like each other.
Thank goodness that the USA does not have a gulag.  Yet.
Lynn
But it's got concentration camps, so way to go!
Of course, the 'concentration camps' exist only in the fevered
imaginations of the more gullible members of the public,
You mean Alan? Cuz that describes him perfectly. Gobbles down
whatever propaganda he's spoon fed by his masters.
Post by Johnny1A
and the
actual problem with the detention camps is caused by the
inaction and misaction of the very legislators who are acting
the most shocked by it.
And conditions are significantly better than they were during the
Obama administration, despite an *order* *of* *magnitude* more
people being detained.
Post by Johnny1A
If the laws were changed to enable the detention camps to not
exist, then they could rapidly be eliminated. But the same
people who are pretending to be horrified and outraged by them
find them very useful politically, and have no desire to
actually solve the border problem or even ameliorate it.
And have flatly refused to allocate more money to handle the
massive influx.
Post by Johnny1A
(This includes high-ranking Senators and Congressmen of both
parties, large swaths of the news media, and big chunks of
corporate America. It's bipartisan corruption. AOC and Nancy
Pelosi are at fault, so are Mitch McConnell and (until last
year) Paul Ryan. _Especially_ Paul Ryan.
The Republicans have no more interest in actually doing anything
than the Democrats, the primary blame rests firmly on the
Democrats, since they control the House, and financial bills have
to start there. The Senate *can't* do anything until the House
Democrats stop profiting from the suffering of those they insist
are innocent victims.
True...but the GOP had control of the House, Senate, and White House from January 2017 to January 2019. Yet somehow, mysteriously, Ryan and McConnell failed to take any meaningful steps to address illegal immigration, to reform the asylum laws, or to reign in the ridiculous court rulings that helped created this mess. In fact, when they did manage to get a bill through both chambers, it usually looked more like the same stuff the Dems keep trying to pass.
The Dems absolutely want maximum immigration, they want to import voters. But the business wing of the GOP is just as anxious to import cheap labor and customers.
Hold on. Who actually uses illegals? My information is that it's
mostly mom and pop farms, not big agribusiness. One estimate was that
if illegals were all rounded up and deported and no more were coming
in 3500 dairy farms in New York would have to close. That's not big
business capable of buying the whole Congress. That's a bunch of
small businesses in one state that is notoriously blue.
Collectively, that adds up to a big business, able to put pressure on their representatives and senators.

Also, employers don't have to _use_ illegals (or legal immigrants for that matter), to get the benefit of reduced wages. Their presence, and willingness to work for lower wages, lowers the general wage level. The (sometimes spoken, sometimes not) _threat_ of being replaced by immigrants is often sufficient to suppress wage demands.

Yes, there are bogus studies claiming otherwise. Everyone knows better, including the businesses funding the bogus studies.
Post by J. Clarke
As for customers, poor people aren't customers for much of anything
except Good Will. Rich people buy new, poor people buy used when they
can and when they can't they buy the cheapest thing they can find. And
illegals are for the most part poor.
What do you think is driving all this talk of 'guaranteed wages' and the like out of Silicon Valley and other big corporate groups? They want to import customers and then they want the public to subsidize their purchasing power.

It's a side effect of thee sub-replacement native female fertility rate that's been in effect for the last few decades.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
The rank and file of the GOP wants immigration reductions and border enforcement, the donors want ever more immigration.
Immigration reduction and border enforcement are unrelated. We could
have a billion immigrants a minute and still have border enforcement.
I don't see any evidence that "the rank and file" wants immigration
reduction.
You do remember _Donald J. Trump_ pulling the biggest Presidential election upset in decades in 2016? There were various reasons for that, but the second biggest ones were that he was willing to criticize the GOP's beloved trade liberalizations, and the biggest reason, the one that caused him to take off like a rocket when he came down that escalator, was immigration.

It's probably the biggest single animating issue among Republican voters now, because everything else links to it. The only faction in the GOP that wants increased immigration, now, is the dominant business wing, who are small in numbers but influential in money.

It's true that legal and illegal immigration are two different issues. In theory, you can have tight border control and immigration enforcement, and still allow massive legal immigration. In practice, the two are tightly linked because the GOP voter base (and a lot of the Dem voter base, for that matter) want less immigration _period_, while the elites of both parties want more.

A lot of GOP business advocates and lobbyists have proposed solving the illegal immigrant problem by simply letting everyone that wants one have a work permit. Voila! All legal! The GOP voters find that idea lacking in merit. They want fewer immigrants period, and no illegal immigrants _at all_.

It's bidding fair to tear the GOP apart, in fact.
Post by J. Clarke
Best boss I ever worked for was an immigrant. Best
co-worker I ever had the same. Neither is cheap labor. But I do see
a lot of people, including most of the immigrants I talk to, wanting
strong border enforcement. Immigrants are especially adamant about
it--they had to go through all the processes and procedures to get a
work permit, then a green card, then citizenship, so why should
somebody else come waltzing in and get to stay without going through
all that?
No doubt. One of the frustrations of the Democratic Party elites is that Hispanics and immigrants in general refuse to think as a bloc. I have no doubt that many legal immigrants are _infuriated_ by illegal immigration.

But the elites in both parties want _open borders_, whether they admit it aloud or not (the Dems have started admitting it, but they've privately wanted it for a long time).
Post by J. Clarke
64 percent of Americans at the most recent Gallup poll say that
immigration should be kept the same or increased. That's more than
say that they approve of any candidate for President.
Yeah, but in case you didn't know it, the polling on this subject (and on Trump's approval for that matter) is garbage. The results you get depend sensitively on how you phrase the question, and the polling groups tend to phrase it to maximize the 'open borders' position.

There's a constant barrage of 'immigration is good' from the media, the politicians, the corporations, Hollywood, etc., year in and year out. It's a measure of how powerful emotions are on this that they can't get the 'more immigrant' polling numbers any higher than they are.
J. Clarke
2019-07-09 00:32:12 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 8 Jul 2019 11:43:32 -0700 (PDT), Johnny1A
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 8 Jul 2019 00:10:03 -0700 (PDT), Johnny1A
Post by Johnny1A
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Johnny1A
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Johnny1A
I recently reread _Cities In Flight_ by James Blish, and
was struck by how prescient a few of Blish's technologies
were.
At one point in one of the stories (written in the early
60s) the protagonist queries the city's library computer
system about a subject.  The machine answers his question,
but it also serves up a list of 'related topics', in much
the same way search algorithms often work (or are supposed
to work) on the Internet.   The machine and the terminal
are not like ours, but they work remarkably like it.
Not as prescient as Murray Leinster's "A Logic Named Joe,"
but yeah. Blish also accuratenly predicted that as the
decades passed, the US and the Soviets would become more and
more like each other.
Thank goodness that the USA does not have a gulag.  Yet.
Lynn
But it's got concentration camps, so way to go!
Of course, the 'concentration camps' exist only in the fevered
imaginations of the more gullible members of the public,
You mean Alan? Cuz that describes him perfectly. Gobbles down
whatever propaganda he's spoon fed by his masters.
Post by Johnny1A
and the
actual problem with the detention camps is caused by the
inaction and misaction of the very legislators who are acting
the most shocked by it.
And conditions are significantly better than they were during the
Obama administration, despite an *order* *of* *magnitude* more
people being detained.
Post by Johnny1A
If the laws were changed to enable the detention camps to not
exist, then they could rapidly be eliminated. But the same
people who are pretending to be horrified and outraged by them
find them very useful politically, and have no desire to
actually solve the border problem or even ameliorate it.
And have flatly refused to allocate more money to handle the
massive influx.
Post by Johnny1A
(This includes high-ranking Senators and Congressmen of both
parties, large swaths of the news media, and big chunks of
corporate America. It's bipartisan corruption. AOC and Nancy
Pelosi are at fault, so are Mitch McConnell and (until last
year) Paul Ryan. _Especially_ Paul Ryan.
The Republicans have no more interest in actually doing anything
than the Democrats, the primary blame rests firmly on the
Democrats, since they control the House, and financial bills have
to start there. The Senate *can't* do anything until the House
Democrats stop profiting from the suffering of those they insist
are innocent victims.
True...but the GOP had control of the House, Senate, and White House from January 2017 to January 2019. Yet somehow, mysteriously, Ryan and McConnell failed to take any meaningful steps to address illegal immigration, to reform the asylum laws, or to reign in the ridiculous court rulings that helped created this mess. In fact, when they did manage to get a bill through both chambers, it usually looked more like the same stuff the Dems keep trying to pass.
The Dems absolutely want maximum immigration, they want to import voters. But the business wing of the GOP is just as anxious to import cheap labor and customers.
Hold on. Who actually uses illegals? My information is that it's
mostly mom and pop farms, not big agribusiness. One estimate was that
if illegals were all rounded up and deported and no more were coming
in 3500 dairy farms in New York would have to close. That's not big
business capable of buying the whole Congress. That's a bunch of
small businesses in one state that is notoriously blue.
Collectively, that adds up to a big business, able to put pressure on their representatives and senators.
If they're well organized. But they don't have the wealth to put
pressure on anybody outside of their state like, say, ConAgra might.
Post by Johnny1A
Also, employers don't have to _use_ illegals (or legal immigrants for that matter), to get the benefit of reduced wages. Their presence, and willingness to work for lower wages, lowers the general wage level. The (sometimes spoken, sometimes not) _threat_ of being replaced by immigrants is often sufficient to suppress wage demands.
Actually, they do. The US has a national minimum wage. Illegals will
work for less than that wage. Legal immigrants and citizens in
general will not.

However "immigrant" and "low wages" are not synonymous. I'm pretty
sure that the Chinese actuary, the Chinese programmer, the Polish
manager, and the Polish data scientist I work with all make far above
the median wage.
Post by Johnny1A
Yes, there are bogus studies claiming otherwise. Everyone knows better, including the businesses funding the bogus studies.
Post by J. Clarke
As for customers, poor people aren't customers for much of anything
except Good Will. Rich people buy new, poor people buy used when they
can and when they can't they buy the cheapest thing they can find. And
illegals are for the most part poor.
What do you think is driving all this talk of 'guaranteed wages' and the like out of Silicon Valley and other big corporate groups? They want to import customers and then they want the public >to subsidize their purchasing power.
I have no idea what you are talking about. I have never heard the
term "guaranteed wages" in any context in the US. There is an effort
by the Democrats to increase the minimum wage, however that is
generally opposed by business. Is that what you are talking about?
Post by Johnny1A
It's a side effect of thee sub-replacement native female fertility rate that's been in effect for the last few decades.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
The rank and file of the GOP wants immigration reductions and border enforcement, the donors want ever more immigration.
Immigration reduction and border enforcement are unrelated. We could
have a billion immigrants a minute and still have border enforcement.
I don't see any evidence that "the rank and file" wants immigration
reduction.
You do remember _Donald J. Trump_ pulling the biggest Presidential election upset in decades in 2016?
Sorry, but losing the popular vote and barely scraping together enough
electoral votes is hardly a "big upset".
Post by Johnny1A
There were various reasons for that,
The major one being that nobody but the hard core at each end really
gave a damn which one won.
Post by Johnny1A
but the second biggest ones were that he was willing to criticize the GOP's beloved trade liberalizations, and the biggest reason, the one that caused him to take off like a rocket when he came down that escalator, was immigration.
ILLEGAL immigration. That and immigration from countries which are
believed to export terrorists. Not ALL immigration.
Post by Johnny1A
It's probably the biggest single animating issue among Republican voters now, because everything else links to it. The only faction in the GOP that wants increased immigration, now, is the dominant business wing, who are small in numbers but influential in money.
2/3 of the voters in the US are fine with keeping the current level or
increasing the number of LEGAL immigrants. The LEGAL immigrants don't
want any ILLEGAL immigrants.
Post by Johnny1A
It's true that legal and illegal immigration are two different issues.
Yes, they are. In practice as well.
Post by Johnny1A
In theory, you can have tight border control and immigration enforcement, and still allow massive legal immigration. In practice, the two are tightly linked because the GOP voter base (and a lot of the Dem voter base, for that matter) want less immigration _period_, while the elites of both parties want more.
Then why do polls show the opposite of what you are claiming?
Post by Johnny1A
A lot of GOP business advocates and lobbyists have proposed solving the illegal immigrant problem by simply letting everyone that wants one have a work permit.
You keep using this word GOP. I think it does not mean what you think
it means. The GOP is the Republican Party. It is the Democrats who
want to let anyone in who wants to come.
Post by Johnny1A
Voila! All legal! The GOP voters find that idea lacking in merit. They want fewer immigrants period, and no illegal immigrants _at all_.
It's bidding fair to tear the GOP apart, in fact.
No, it's bidding fair to tear the opposition to the GOP apart.
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Best boss I ever worked for was an immigrant. Best
co-worker I ever had the same. Neither is cheap labor. But I do see
a lot of people, including most of the immigrants I talk to, wanting
strong border enforcement. Immigrants are especially adamant about
it--they had to go through all the processes and procedures to get a
work permit, then a green card, then citizenship, so why should
somebody else come waltzing in and get to stay without going through
all that?
No doubt. One of the frustrations of the Democratic Party elites is that Hispanics and immigrants in general refuse to think as a bloc. I have no doubt that many legal immigrants are _infuriated_ by illegal immigration.
But the elites in both parties want _open borders_, whether they admit it aloud or not (the Dems have started admitting it, but they've privately wanted it for a long time).
That would be news to the President and the Senate.
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
64 percent of Americans at the most recent Gallup poll say that
immigration should be kept the same or increased. That's more than
say that they approve of any candidate for President.
Yeah, but in case you didn't know it, the polling on this subject (and on Trump's approval for that matter) is garbage. The results you get depend sensitively on how you phrase the question, and the polling groups tend to phrase it to maximize the 'open borders' position.
OK, find me a poll that says that the majority want less LEGAL
immigration. It's easy to say "the polls are garbage". Do you have
better evidence?
Post by Johnny1A
There's a constant barrage of 'immigration is good' from the media, the politicians, the corporations, Hollywood, etc., year in and year out. It's a measure of how powerful emotions are on this that they can't get the 'more immigrant' polling numbers any higher than they are.
Not "more immigrants", "more immigration". The current level of
immigration results in "more immigrants". The question is at what
rate we should increase the number. About a third of the public is
happy with the current rate of increase, a third wants a lower rate,
and a third wants a higher rate.
David Johnston
2019-07-09 01:56:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 8 Jul 2019 11:43:32 -0700 (PDT), Johnny1A
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 8 Jul 2019 00:10:03 -0700 (PDT), Johnny1A
Post by Johnny1A
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Johnny1A
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Johnny1A
I recently reread _Cities In Flight_ by James Blish, and
was struck by how prescient a few of Blish's technologies
were.
At one point in one of the stories (written in the early
60s) the protagonist queries the city's library computer
system about a subject.  The machine answers his question,
but it also serves up a list of 'related topics', in much
the same way search algorithms often work (or are supposed
to work) on the Internet.   The machine and the terminal
are not like ours, but they work remarkably like it.
Not as prescient as Murray Leinster's "A Logic Named Joe,"
but yeah. Blish also accuratenly predicted that as the
decades passed, the US and the Soviets would become more and
more like each other.
Thank goodness that the USA does not have a gulag.  Yet.
Lynn
But it's got concentration camps, so way to go!
Of course, the 'concentration camps' exist only in the fevered
imaginations of the more gullible members of the public,
You mean Alan? Cuz that describes him perfectly. Gobbles down
whatever propaganda he's spoon fed by his masters.
Post by Johnny1A
and the
actual problem with the detention camps is caused by the
inaction and misaction of the very legislators who are acting
the most shocked by it.
And conditions are significantly better than they were during the
Obama administration, despite an *order* *of* *magnitude* more
people being detained.
Post by Johnny1A
If the laws were changed to enable the detention camps to not
exist, then they could rapidly be eliminated. But the same
people who are pretending to be horrified and outraged by them
find them very useful politically, and have no desire to
actually solve the border problem or even ameliorate it.
And have flatly refused to allocate more money to handle the
massive influx.
Post by Johnny1A
(This includes high-ranking Senators and Congressmen of both
parties, large swaths of the news media, and big chunks of
corporate America. It's bipartisan corruption. AOC and Nancy
Pelosi are at fault, so are Mitch McConnell and (until last
year) Paul Ryan. _Especially_ Paul Ryan.
The Republicans have no more interest in actually doing anything
than the Democrats, the primary blame rests firmly on the
Democrats, since they control the House, and financial bills have
to start there. The Senate *can't* do anything until the House
Democrats stop profiting from the suffering of those they insist
are innocent victims.
True...but the GOP had control of the House, Senate, and White House from January 2017 to January 2019. Yet somehow, mysteriously, Ryan and McConnell failed to take any meaningful steps to address illegal immigration, to reform the asylum laws, or to reign in the ridiculous court rulings that helped created this mess. In fact, when they did manage to get a bill through both chambers, it usually looked more like the same stuff the Dems keep trying to pass.
The Dems absolutely want maximum immigration, they want to import voters. But the business wing of the GOP is just as anxious to import cheap labor and customers.
Hold on. Who actually uses illegals? My information is that it's
mostly mom and pop farms, not big agribusiness. One estimate was that
if illegals were all rounded up and deported and no more were coming
in 3500 dairy farms in New York would have to close. That's not big
business capable of buying the whole Congress. That's a bunch of
small businesses in one state that is notoriously blue.
Collectively, that adds up to a big business, able to put pressure on their representatives and senators.
If they're well organized. But they don't have the wealth to put
pressure on anybody outside of their state like, say, ConAgra might.
Post by Johnny1A
Also, employers don't have to _use_ illegals (or legal immigrants for that matter), to get the benefit of reduced wages. Their presence, and willingness to work for lower wages, lowers the general wage level. The (sometimes spoken, sometimes not) _threat_ of being replaced by immigrants is often sufficient to suppress wage demands.
Actually, they do. The US has a national minimum wage. Illegals will
work for less than that wage. Legal immigrants and citizens in
general will not.
However "immigrant" and "low wages" are not synonymous. I'm pretty
sure that the Chinese actuary, the Chinese programmer, the Polish
manager, and the Polish data scientist I work with all make far above
the median wage.
Post by Johnny1A
Yes, there are bogus studies claiming otherwise. Everyone knows better, including the businesses funding the bogus studies.
Post by J. Clarke
As for customers, poor people aren't customers for much of anything
except Good Will. Rich people buy new, poor people buy used when they
can and when they can't they buy the cheapest thing they can find. And
illegals are for the most part poor.
What do you think is driving all this talk of 'guaranteed wages' and the like out of Silicon Valley and other big corporate groups? They want to import customers and then they want the public >to subsidize their purchasing power.
I have no idea what you are talking about. I have never heard the
term "guaranteed wages" in any context in the US. There is an effort
by the Democrats to increase the minimum wage, however that is
generally opposed by business. Is that what you are talking about?
Post by Johnny1A
It's a side effect of thee sub-replacement native female fertility rate that's been in effect for the last few decades.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
The rank and file of the GOP wants immigration reductions and border enforcement, the donors want ever more immigration.
Immigration reduction and border enforcement are unrelated. We could
have a billion immigrants a minute and still have border enforcement.
I don't see any evidence that "the rank and file" wants immigration
reduction.
You do remember _Donald J. Trump_ pulling the biggest Presidential election upset in decades in 2016?
Sorry, but losing the popular vote and barely scraping together enough
electoral votes is hardly a "big upset".
Post by Johnny1A
There were various reasons for that,
The major one being that nobody but the hard core at each end really
gave a damn which one won.
Post by Johnny1A
but the second biggest ones were that he was willing to criticize the GOP's beloved trade liberalizations, and the biggest reason, the one that caused him to take off like a rocket when he came down that escalator, was immigration.
ILLEGAL immigration.
Nope. Immigration. Trump is opposed to immigration, at lease from
anywhere outside of Europe.
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2019-07-11 18:52:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 8 Jul 2019 11:43:32 -0700 (PDT), Johnny1A
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 8 Jul 2019 00:10:03 -0700 (PDT), Johnny1A
On Sunday, July 7, 2019 at 6:13:55 PM UTC-5, Ninapenda
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
On Sunday, July 7, 2019 at 1:12:41 PM UTC-5, Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Johnny1A
I recently reread _Cities In Flight_ by James Blish,
and was struck by how prescient a few of Blish's
technologies were.
At one point in one of the stories (written in the
early 60s) the protagonist queries the city's library
computer system about a subject.  The machine answers
his question, but it also serves up a list of 'related
topics', in much the same way search algorithms often
work (or are supposed to work) on the Internet.   The
machine and the terminal are not like ours, but they
work remarkably like it.
Not as prescient as Murray Leinster's "A Logic Named
Joe," but yeah. Blish also accuratenly predicted that
as the decades passed, the US and the Soviets would
become more and more like each other.
Thank goodness that the USA does not have a gulag. 
Yet.
Lynn
But it's got concentration camps, so way to go!
Of course, the 'concentration camps' exist only in the
fevered imaginations of the more gullible members of the
public,
You mean Alan? Cuz that describes him perfectly. Gobbles
down whatever propaganda he's spoon fed by his masters.
and the
actual problem with the detention camps is caused by the
inaction and misaction of the very legislators who are
acting the most shocked by it.
And conditions are significantly better than they were
during the Obama administration, despite an *order* *of*
*magnitude* more people being detained.
If the laws were changed to enable the detention camps to
not exist, then they could rapidly be eliminated. But the
same people who are pretending to be horrified and
outraged by them find them very useful politically, and
have no desire to actually solve the border problem or
even ameliorate it.
And have flatly refused to allocate more money to handle
the massive influx.
(This includes high-ranking Senators and Congressmen of
both parties, large swaths of the news media, and big
chunks of corporate America. It's bipartisan corruption.
AOC and Nancy Pelosi are at fault, so are Mitch McConnell
and (until last year) Paul Ryan. _Especially_ Paul Ryan.
The Republicans have no more interest in actually doing
anything than the Democrats, the primary blame rests firmly
on the Democrats, since they control the House, and
financial bills have to start there. The Senate *can't* do
anything until the House Democrats stop profiting from the
suffering of those they insist are innocent victims.
True...but the GOP had control of the House, Senate, and
White House from January 2017 to January 2019. Yet somehow,
mysteriously, Ryan and McConnell failed to take any
meaningful steps to address illegal immigration, to reform
the asylum laws, or to reign in the ridiculous court rulings
that helped created this mess. In fact, when they did
manage to get a bill through both chambers, it usually
looked more like the same stuff the Dems keep trying to
pass.
The Dems absolutely want maximum immigration, they want to
import voters. But the business wing of the GOP is just as
anxious to import cheap labor and customers.
Hold on. Who actually uses illegals? My information is that
it's mostly mom and pop farms, not big agribusiness. One
estimate was that if illegals were all rounded up and
deported and no more were coming in 3500 dairy farms in New
York would have to close. That's not big business capable of
buying the whole Congress. That's a bunch of small
businesses in one state that is notoriously blue.
Collectively, that adds up to a big business, able to put
pressure on their representatives and senators.
If they're well organized. But they don't have the wealth to
put pressure on anybody outside of their state like, say,
ConAgra might.
Post by Johnny1A
Also, employers don't have to _use_ illegals (or legal
immigrants for that matter), to get the benefit of reduced
wages. Their presence, and willingness to work for lower
wages, lowers the general wage level. The (sometimes spoken,
sometimes not) _threat_ of being replaced by immigrants is
often sufficient to suppress wage demands.
Actually, they do. The US has a national minimum wage.
Illegals will work for less than that wage. Legal immigrants
and citizens in general will not.
However "immigrant" and "low wages" are not synonymous. I'm
pretty sure that the Chinese actuary, the Chinese programmer,
the Polish manager, and the Polish data scientist I work with
all make far above the median wage.
Post by Johnny1A
Yes, there are bogus studies claiming otherwise. Everyone
knows better, including the businesses funding the bogus
studies.
Post by J. Clarke
As for customers, poor people aren't customers for much of
anything except Good Will. Rich people buy new, poor people
buy used when they can and when they can't they buy the
cheapest thing they can find. And illegals are for the most
part poor.
What do you think is driving all this talk of 'guaranteed
wages' and the like out of Silicon Valley and other big
corporate groups? They want to import customers and then they
want the public >to subsidize their purchasing power.
I have no idea what you are talking about. I have never heard
the term "guaranteed wages" in any context in the US. There is
an effort by the Democrats to increase the minimum wage,
however that is generally opposed by business. Is that what
you are talking about?
Post by Johnny1A
It's a side effect of thee sub-replacement native female
fertility rate that's been in effect for the last few decades.
Post by J. Clarke
The rank and file of the GOP wants immigration reductions
and border enforcement, the donors want ever more
immigration.
Immigration reduction and border enforcement are unrelated.
We could have a billion immigrants a minute and still have
border enforcement. I don't see any evidence that "the rank
and file" wants immigration reduction.
You do remember _Donald J. Trump_ pulling the biggest
Presidential election upset in decades in 2016?
Sorry, but losing the popular vote and barely scraping together
enough electoral votes is hardly a "big upset".
Post by Johnny1A
There were various reasons for that,
The major one being that nobody but the hard core at each end
really gave a damn which one won.
Post by Johnny1A
but the second biggest ones were that he was willing to
criticize the GOP's beloved trade liberalizations, and the
biggest reason, the one that caused him to take off like a
rocket when he came down that escalator, was immigration.
ILLEGAL immigration.
Nope. Immigration. Trump is opposed to immigration, at lease
from anywhere outside of Europe.
So you have a source on that?
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
Quadibloc
2019-07-11 23:34:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by David Johnston
Nope. Immigration. Trump is opposed to immigration, at lease
from anywhere outside of Europe.
So you have a source on that?
Slovenia and Russia are both parts of Europe, but, yes, I remember noticing on
YouTube that they have some hot babes in Mexico doing the TV weather forecasts,
so I suppose there is at least *some* immigration, even from Mexico, that Trump
would not oppose.

John Savard
Johnny1A
2019-07-09 04:41:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 8 Jul 2019 11:43:32 -0700 (PDT), Johnny1A
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 8 Jul 2019 00:10:03 -0700 (PDT), Johnny1A
Post by Johnny1A
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Johnny1A
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Johnny1A
I recently reread _Cities In Flight_ by James Blish, and
was struck by how prescient a few of Blish's technologies
were.
At one point in one of the stories (written in the early
60s) the protagonist queries the city's library computer
system about a subject.  The machine answers his question,
but it also serves up a list of 'related topics', in much
the same way search algorithms often work (or are supposed
to work) on the Internet.   The machine and the terminal
are not like ours, but they work remarkably like it.
Not as prescient as Murray Leinster's "A Logic Named Joe,"
but yeah. Blish also accuratenly predicted that as the
decades passed, the US and the Soviets would become more and
more like each other.
Thank goodness that the USA does not have a gulag.  Yet.
Lynn
But it's got concentration camps, so way to go!
Of course, the 'concentration camps' exist only in the fevered
imaginations of the more gullible members of the public,
You mean Alan? Cuz that describes him perfectly. Gobbles down
whatever propaganda he's spoon fed by his masters.
Post by Johnny1A
and the
actual problem with the detention camps is caused by the
inaction and misaction of the very legislators who are acting
the most shocked by it.
And conditions are significantly better than they were during the
Obama administration, despite an *order* *of* *magnitude* more
people being detained.
Post by Johnny1A
If the laws were changed to enable the detention camps to not
exist, then they could rapidly be eliminated. But the same
people who are pretending to be horrified and outraged by them
find them very useful politically, and have no desire to
actually solve the border problem or even ameliorate it.
And have flatly refused to allocate more money to handle the
massive influx.
Post by Johnny1A
(This includes high-ranking Senators and Congressmen of both
parties, large swaths of the news media, and big chunks of
corporate America. It's bipartisan corruption. AOC and Nancy
Pelosi are at fault, so are Mitch McConnell and (until last
year) Paul Ryan. _Especially_ Paul Ryan.
The Republicans have no more interest in actually doing anything
than the Democrats, the primary blame rests firmly on the
Democrats, since they control the House, and financial bills have
to start there. The Senate *can't* do anything until the House
Democrats stop profiting from the suffering of those they insist
are innocent victims.
True...but the GOP had control of the House, Senate, and White House from January 2017 to January 2019. Yet somehow, mysteriously, Ryan and McConnell failed to take any meaningful steps to address illegal immigration, to reform the asylum laws, or to reign in the ridiculous court rulings that helped created this mess. In fact, when they did manage to get a bill through both chambers, it usually looked more like the same stuff the Dems keep trying to pass.
The Dems absolutely want maximum immigration, they want to import voters. But the business wing of the GOP is just as anxious to import cheap labor and customers.
Hold on. Who actually uses illegals? My information is that it's
mostly mom and pop farms, not big agribusiness. One estimate was that
if illegals were all rounded up and deported and no more were coming
in 3500 dairy farms in New York would have to close. That's not big
business capable of buying the whole Congress. That's a bunch of
small businesses in one state that is notoriously blue.
Collectively, that adds up to a big business, able to put pressure on their representatives and senators.
If they're well organized. But they don't have the wealth to put
pressure on anybody outside of their state like, say, ConAgra might.
Post by Johnny1A
Also, employers don't have to _use_ illegals (or legal immigrants for that matter), to get the benefit of reduced wages. Their presence, and willingness to work for lower wages, lowers the general wage level. The (sometimes spoken, sometimes not) _threat_ of being replaced by immigrants is often sufficient to suppress wage demands.
Actually, they do. The US has a national minimum wage. Illegals will
work for less than that wage. Legal immigrants and citizens in
general will not.
However "immigrant" and "low wages" are not synonymous. I'm pretty
sure that the Chinese actuary, the Chinese programmer, the Polish
manager, and the Polish data scientist I work with all make far above
the median wage.
Post by Johnny1A
Yes, there are bogus studies claiming otherwise. Everyone knows better, including the businesses funding the bogus studies.
Post by J. Clarke
As for customers, poor people aren't customers for much of anything
except Good Will. Rich people buy new, poor people buy used when they
can and when they can't they buy the cheapest thing they can find. And
illegals are for the most part poor.
What do you think is driving all this talk of 'guaranteed wages' and the like out of Silicon Valley and other big corporate groups? They want to import customers and then they want the public >to subsidize their purchasing power.
I have no idea what you are talking about. I have never heard the
term "guaranteed wages" in any context in the US. There is an effort
by the Democrats to increase the minimum wage, however that is
generally opposed by business. Is that what you are talking about?
No. There's been talk over the last couple of years of reviving an old lefty idea, a 'guaranteed wage' paid by the government to everyone, employed or not. It was long considered a defeated silly idea, but now you're seeing people like Zuckerberg talking about it. It's not headline news yet, but it's being talked about.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
It's a side effect of thee sub-replacement native female fertility rate that's been in effect for the last few decades.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
The rank and file of the GOP wants immigration reductions and border enforcement, the donors want ever more immigration.
Immigration reduction and border enforcement are unrelated. We could
have a billion immigrants a minute and still have border enforcement.
I don't see any evidence that "the rank and file" wants immigration
reduction.
You do remember _Donald J. Trump_ pulling the biggest Presidential election upset in decades in 2016?
Sorry, but losing the popular vote and barely scraping together enough
electoral votes is hardly a "big upset".
Oh yes it does. Under normal conditions, Trump winning even the GOP primaries would have been _unthinkable_, much less defeating Hillary in the general. It caught the entire Establishment by surprise, and they are still reeling.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
There were various reasons for that,
The major one being that nobody but the hard core at each end really
gave a damn which one won.
Post by Johnny1A
but the second biggest ones were that he was willing to criticize the GOP's beloved trade liberalizations, and the biggest reason, the one that caused him to take off like a rocket when he came down that escalator, was immigration.
ILLEGAL immigration. That and immigration from countries which are
believed to export terrorists. Not ALL immigration.
Post by Johnny1A
It's probably the biggest single animating issue among Republican voters now, because everything else links to it. The only faction in the GOP that wants increased immigration, now, is the dominant business wing, who are small in numbers but influential in money.
2/3 of the voters in the US are fine with keeping the current level or
increasing the number of LEGAL immigrants. The LEGAL immigrants don't
want any ILLEGAL immigrants.
Post by Johnny1A
It's true that legal and illegal immigration are two different issues.
Yes, they are. In practice as well.
Wrong.

Trump was elected because a growing swath of the population wants less immigration in general, and he was the _only_ candidate willing to talk about that in any meaningful way.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
In theory, you can have tight border control and immigration enforcement, and still allow massive legal immigration. In practice, the two are tightly linked because the GOP voter base (and a lot of the Dem voter base, for that matter) want less immigration _period_, while the elites of both parties want more.
Then why do polls show the opposite of what you are claiming?
Because the pollsters want it that way. The polls that get the media attention are written to give the impression that immigration is popular. Rephrase the questions and the numbers plummet, but the media isn't interested in that side of it, for the most part.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
A lot of GOP business advocates and lobbyists have proposed solving the illegal immigrant problem by simply letting everyone that wants one have a work permit.
You keep using this word GOP. I think it does not mean what you think
it means. The GOP is the Republican Party. It is the Democrats who
want to let anyone in who wants to come.
So, privately, do most of the business lobbyists and Congressional leadership among the Republicans. They just learned from painful experience that their voters don't agree and so they don't dare say what they want. Don't pay any attention to what they say. Watch what they _do_, and _don't do_.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
Voila! All legal! The GOP voters find that idea lacking in merit. They want fewer immigrants period, and no illegal immigrants _at all_.
It's bidding fair to tear the GOP apart, in fact.
No, it's bidding fair to tear the opposition to the GOP apart.
Apparently you're totally out of touch with current politics. The GOP is at war with itself over immigration, and has been for years.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Best boss I ever worked for was an immigrant. Best
co-worker I ever had the same. Neither is cheap labor. But I do see
a lot of people, including most of the immigrants I talk to, wanting
strong border enforcement. Immigrants are especially adamant about
it--they had to go through all the processes and procedures to get a
work permit, then a green card, then citizenship, so why should
somebody else come waltzing in and get to stay without going through
all that?
No doubt. One of the frustrations of the Democratic Party elites is that Hispanics and immigrants in general refuse to think as a bloc. I have no doubt that many legal immigrants are _infuriated_ by illegal immigration.
But the elites in both parties want _open borders_, whether they admit it aloud or not (the Dems have started admitting it, but they've privately wanted it for a long time).
That would be news to the President and the Senate.
Wrong.

If the Republican Senators wanted to control the border, or limit legal immigration, they had a Heaven-sent opportunity in 2017 and 2018. All they had to do was pass the bills to do it, and Trump would have signed them. Instead, they hemmed and hawed and tried to put together a general amnesty, and signally failed, over and over, to fund border enforcement.

Ignore what they say. Watch what they _do_, and what they _don't do_. That tells the real story.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
64 percent of Americans at the most recent Gallup poll say that
immigration should be kept the same or increased. That's more than
say that they approve of any candidate for President.
Yeah, but in case you didn't know it, the polling on this subject (and on Trump's approval for that matter) is garbage. The results you get depend sensitively on how you phrase the question, and the polling groups tend to phrase it to maximize the 'open borders' position.
OK, find me a poll that says that the majority want less LEGAL
immigration. It's easy to say "the polls are garbage". Do you have
better evidence?
Yes. The defeat of Cantor in the primaries in 2014. The humiliating defeat of Jeb Bush (who was supposed to be inevitable) in the 2016 primaries. The upset election of Trump in 2016. Three successive meltdowns of attempted immigration amnesties in 2006 and 2007. The crash and burn of Marco Rubio's presidential dreams after he backed the Gang of 8 amnesty bill in 2013.

The poll that counts is taken on election day.

The polls are garbage because the pollsters have an agenda, because the theoretical and the practical are different, and because of what amounts to Bradley and reverse-Bradley effect.

For ex, if you ask the public, 'Would you support legalization and a path to citizenship for illegals in exchange for strong border security from now on?' you usually get a positive response. That gets cited as evidence of public support for amnesty bills.

Yet the amnesty bills flame out over and over in the face of public resistance. Why? Because enough of the public has tumbled to the fact that if you pass a comprehensive amnesty-for-security bill, only the amnesty ever happens, the enforcement gets dropped.

So that poll question produces bogus data, because the people saying they'd support it don't believe it's actually on offer. If you ask them, "Would you back a path to citizenship and legalization in exchange for a promise of enforcement that won't ever be fulfilled?" you'll get a different answer.
J. Clarke
2019-07-09 05:16:31 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 8 Jul 2019 21:41:45 -0700 (PDT), Johnny1A
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 8 Jul 2019 11:43:32 -0700 (PDT), Johnny1A
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 8 Jul 2019 00:10:03 -0700 (PDT), Johnny1A
Post by Johnny1A
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Johnny1A
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Johnny1A
I recently reread _Cities In Flight_ by James Blish, and
was struck by how prescient a few of Blish's technologies
were.
At one point in one of the stories (written in the early
60s) the protagonist queries the city's library computer
system about a subject.  The machine answers his question,
but it also serves up a list of 'related topics', in much
the same way search algorithms often work (or are supposed
to work) on the Internet.   The machine and the terminal
are not like ours, but they work remarkably like it.
Not as prescient as Murray Leinster's "A Logic Named Joe,"
but yeah. Blish also accuratenly predicted that as the
decades passed, the US and the Soviets would become more and
more like each other.
Thank goodness that the USA does not have a gulag.  Yet.
Lynn
But it's got concentration camps, so way to go!
Of course, the 'concentration camps' exist only in the fevered
imaginations of the more gullible members of the public,
You mean Alan? Cuz that describes him perfectly. Gobbles down
whatever propaganda he's spoon fed by his masters.
Post by Johnny1A
and the
actual problem with the detention camps is caused by the
inaction and misaction of the very legislators who are acting
the most shocked by it.
And conditions are significantly better than they were during the
Obama administration, despite an *order* *of* *magnitude* more
people being detained.
Post by Johnny1A
If the laws were changed to enable the detention camps to not
exist, then they could rapidly be eliminated. But the same
people who are pretending to be horrified and outraged by them
find them very useful politically, and have no desire to
actually solve the border problem or even ameliorate it.
And have flatly refused to allocate more money to handle the
massive influx.
Post by Johnny1A
(This includes high-ranking Senators and Congressmen of both
parties, large swaths of the news media, and big chunks of
corporate America. It's bipartisan corruption. AOC and Nancy
Pelosi are at fault, so are Mitch McConnell and (until last
year) Paul Ryan. _Especially_ Paul Ryan.
The Republicans have no more interest in actually doing anything
than the Democrats, the primary blame rests firmly on the
Democrats, since they control the House, and financial bills have
to start there. The Senate *can't* do anything until the House
Democrats stop profiting from the suffering of those they insist
are innocent victims.
True...but the GOP had control of the House, Senate, and White House from January 2017 to January 2019. Yet somehow, mysteriously, Ryan and McConnell failed to take any meaningful steps to address illegal immigration, to reform the asylum laws, or to reign in the ridiculous court rulings that helped created this mess. In fact, when they did manage to get a bill through both chambers, it usually looked more like the same stuff the Dems keep trying to pass.
The Dems absolutely want maximum immigration, they want to import voters. But the business wing of the GOP is just as anxious to import cheap labor and customers.
Hold on. Who actually uses illegals? My information is that it's
mostly mom and pop farms, not big agribusiness. One estimate was that
if illegals were all rounded up and deported and no more were coming
in 3500 dairy farms in New York would have to close. That's not big
business capable of buying the whole Congress. That's a bunch of
small businesses in one state that is notoriously blue.
Collectively, that adds up to a big business, able to put pressure on their representatives and senators.
If they're well organized. But they don't have the wealth to put
pressure on anybody outside of their state like, say, ConAgra might.
Post by Johnny1A
Also, employers don't have to _use_ illegals (or legal immigrants for that matter), to get the benefit of reduced wages. Their presence, and willingness to work for lower wages, lowers the general wage level. The (sometimes spoken, sometimes not) _threat_ of being replaced by immigrants is often sufficient to suppress wage demands.
Actually, they do. The US has a national minimum wage. Illegals will
work for less than that wage. Legal immigrants and citizens in
general will not.
However "immigrant" and "low wages" are not synonymous. I'm pretty
sure that the Chinese actuary, the Chinese programmer, the Polish
manager, and the Polish data scientist I work with all make far above
the median wage.
Post by Johnny1A
Yes, there are bogus studies claiming otherwise. Everyone knows better, including the businesses funding the bogus studies.
Post by J. Clarke
As for customers, poor people aren't customers for much of anything
except Good Will. Rich people buy new, poor people buy used when they
can and when they can't they buy the cheapest thing they can find. And
illegals are for the most part poor.
What do you think is driving all this talk of 'guaranteed wages' and the like out of Silicon Valley and other big corporate groups? They want to import customers and then they want the public >to subsidize their purchasing power.
I have no idea what you are talking about. I have never heard the
term "guaranteed wages" in any context in the US. There is an effort
by the Democrats to increase the minimum wage, however that is
generally opposed by business. Is that what you are talking about?
No. There's been talk over the last couple of years of reviving an old lefty idea, a 'guaranteed wage' paid by the government to everyone, employed or not. It was long considered a defeated silly idea, but now you're seeing people like Zuckerberg talking about it. It's not headline news yet, but it's being talked about.
That's not a wage. A wage is what you're paid for work. If you want
to google it and find recent relevant hits, try "Universal Basic
Income". For a relevant experiment try "Negative Income Tax".
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
It's a side effect of thee sub-replacement native female fertility rate that's been in effect for the last few decades.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
The rank and file of the GOP wants immigration reductions and border enforcement, the donors want ever more immigration.
Immigration reduction and border enforcement are unrelated. We could
have a billion immigrants a minute and still have border enforcement.
I don't see any evidence that "the rank and file" wants immigration
reduction.
You do remember _Donald J. Trump_ pulling the biggest Presidential election upset in decades in 2016?
Sorry, but losing the popular vote and barely scraping together enough
electoral votes is hardly a "big upset".
Oh yes it does. Under normal conditions, Trump winning even the GOP primaries would have been _unthinkable_, much less defeating Hillary in the general. It caught the entire Establishment by surprise, and they are still reeling.
Money talks. He had lots of money.
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
There were various reasons for that,
The major one being that nobody but the hard core at each end really
gave a damn which one won.
Post by Johnny1A
but the second biggest ones were that he was willing to criticize the GOP's beloved trade liberalizations, and the biggest reason, the one that caused him to take off like a rocket when he came down that escalator, was immigration.
ILLEGAL immigration. That and immigration from countries which are
believed to export terrorists. Not ALL immigration.
Post by Johnny1A
It's probably the biggest single animating issue among Republican voters now, because everything else links to it. The only faction in the GOP that wants increased immigration, now, is the dominant business wing, who are small in numbers but influential in money.
2/3 of the voters in the US are fine with keeping the current level or
increasing the number of LEGAL immigrants. The LEGAL immigrants don't
want any ILLEGAL immigrants.
Post by Johnny1A
It's true that legal and illegal immigration are two different issues.
Yes, they are. In practice as well.
Wrong.
Trump was elected because a growing swath of the population wants less immigration in general, and he was the _only_ candidate willing to talk about that in any meaningful way.
You keep asserting that. Show me supporting evidence. That you
believe it doesn't make it true.
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
In theory, you can have tight border control and immigration enforcement, and still allow massive legal immigration. In practice, the two are tightly linked because the GOP voter base (and a lot of the Dem voter base, for that matter) want less immigration _period_, while the elites of both parties want more.
Then why do polls show the opposite of what you are claiming?
Because the pollsters want it that way. The polls that get the media attention are written to give the impression that immigration is popular. Rephrase the questions and the numbers plummet, but the media isn't interested in that side of it, for the most part.
OK, show us _your_ evidence. Or is all you have an opinion?
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
A lot of GOP business advocates and lobbyists have proposed solving the illegal immigrant problem by simply letting everyone that wants one have a work permit.
You keep using this word GOP. I think it does not mean what you think
it means. The GOP is the Republican Party. It is the Democrats who
want to let anyone in who wants to come.
So, privately, do most of the business lobbyists and Congressional leadership among the Republicans. They just learned from painful experience that their voters don't agree and so they don't dare say what they want. Don't pay any attention to what they say. Watch what they _do_, and _don't do_.
So what do they do? And how do they know what the voters want if the
polls all lie? Do they have mind-readers on staff or something?
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
Voila! All legal! The GOP voters find that idea lacking in merit. They want fewer immigrants period, and no illegal immigrants _at all_.
It's bidding fair to tear the GOP apart, in fact.
No, it's bidding fair to tear the opposition to the GOP apart.
Apparently you're totally out of touch with current politics. The GOP is at war with itself over immigration, and has been for years.
I don't see any war in the Republican party, but I do see one in the
Democratic Party where Nancy Pelosi is struggling to keep the fringe
elements from blowing the election.
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Best boss I ever worked for was an immigrant. Best
co-worker I ever had the same. Neither is cheap labor. But I do see
a lot of people, including most of the immigrants I talk to, wanting
strong border enforcement. Immigrants are especially adamant about
it--they had to go through all the processes and procedures to get a
work permit, then a green card, then citizenship, so why should
somebody else come waltzing in and get to stay without going through
all that?
No doubt. One of the frustrations of the Democratic Party elites is that Hispanics and immigrants in general refuse to think as a bloc. I have no doubt that many legal immigrants are _infuriated_ by illegal immigration.
But the elites in both parties want _open borders_, whether they admit it aloud or not (the Dems have started admitting it, but they've privately wanted it for a long time).
That would be news to the President and the Senate.
Wrong.
If they all wanted open borders they would have them.
Post by Johnny1A
If the Republican Senators wanted to control the border, or limit legal immigration, they had a Heaven-sent opportunity in 2017 and 2018.
Who said that they want to limit legal immigration? Only _you_. Legal
immigration and open borders are different issues. Open borders means
that anybody who wants to can come waltzing in and stay as long as he
wants to without so much as a "by-your-leave". A billion immigrants a
nanosecond is not "open borders" if each of them has to make his
presence known, has restrictions on what he can do, and has to leave
if he doesn't obtain a residency permit.

I don't know why you are having so much trouble with this concept.
Post by Johnny1A
All they had to do was pass the bills to do it, and Trump would have signed them. Instead, they hemmed and hawed and tried to put together a general amnesty, and signally failed, over and over, to fund border enforcement.
They failed to fund a wall that nobody with any sense thinks will do
any good, because most illegals get in legally and then don't go home
when their visa is up. Rounding them up is tough when you don't have
a police state.
Post by Johnny1A
Ignore what they say. Watch what they _do_, and what they _don't do_. That tells the real story.
You claim they want open borders but they did not create open borders,
so what they do contradicts what you say they want.
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Johnny1A
Post by J. Clarke
64 percent of Americans at the most recent Gallup poll say that
immigration should be kept the same or increased. That's more than
say that they approve of any candidate for President.
Yeah, but in case you didn't know it, the polling on this subject (and on Trump's approval for that matter) is garbage. The results you get depend sensitively on how you phrase the question, and the polling groups tend to phrase it to maximize the 'open borders' position.
OK, find me a poll that says that the majority want less LEGAL
immigration. It's easy to say "the polls are garbage". Do you have
better evidence?
Yes. The defeat of Cantor in the primaries in 2014.
Some representative from Virginia. That's indicative of the views of
his district, not the nation as a whole.
Post by Johnny1A
The humiliating defeat of Jeb Bush (who was supposed to be inevitable) in the 2016 primaries. The upset election of Trump in 2016. Three successive meltdowns of attempted immigration amnesties in 2006 and 2007.
You're the only one who seems to think that immigration policy had
anything to do with that.
Post by Johnny1A
The crash and burn of Marco Rubio's presidential dreams after he backed the Gang of 8 amnesty bill in 2013.
I'm sorry, but an amnesty isn't about legal immigration, it's about
letting illegals get away with something. We did that once and if we
do it again then our immigration laws become meaningless.
Post by Johnny1A
The poll that counts is taken on election day.
So all you have, really, is your opinion and your notion of why a few
politicians lost elections.
Post by Johnny1A
The polls are garbage because the pollsters have an agenda, because the theoretical and the practical are different, and because of what amounts to Bradley and reverse-Bradley effect.
What is Gallup's agenda and on what information do you base that
contention?
Post by Johnny1A
For ex, if you ask the public, 'Would you support legalization and a path to citizenship for illegals in exchange for strong border security from now on?' you usually get a positive response. That gets cited as evidence of public support for amnesty bills.
The question asked was:
"In your view, should immigration be kept at its present level,
increased, or decreased." Now maybe you can find some kind of bias in
that but it seems pretty straightforward to me.
Post by Johnny1A
Yet the amnesty bills flame out over and over in the face of public resistance. Why?
Because amnesty isn't about legal immigration, it's about pardoning
criminals.
Post by Johnny1A
Because enough of the public has tumbled to the fact that if you pass a comprehensive amnesty-for-security bill, only the amnesty ever happens, the enforcement gets dropped.
Which has nothing whatsoever to do with legal immigration.
Post by Johnny1A
So that poll question produces bogus data, because the people saying they'd support it don't believe it's actually on offer. If you ask them, "Would you back a path to citizenship and legalization in exchange for a promise of enforcement that won't ever be fulfilled?" you'll get a different answer.
Except that we were not talking about amnesty, we were talking about
the number of people who immigrate legally every year.
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2019-07-08 16:27:18 UTC
Permalink
On Sunday, July 7, 2019 at 6:13:55 PM UTC-5, Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
On Sunday, July 7, 2019 at 1:12:41 PM UTC-5, Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Johnny1A
I recently reread _Cities In Flight_ by James Blish, and
was struck by how prescient a few of Blish's
technologies were.
At one point in one of the stories (written in the early
60s) the protagonist queries the city's library computer
system about a subject.  The machine answers his
question, but it also serves up a list of 'related
topics', in much the same way search algorithms often
work (or are supposed to work) on the Internet.   The
machine and the terminal are not like ours, but they
work remarkably like it.
Not as prescient as Murray Leinster's "A Logic Named
Joe," but yeah. Blish also accuratenly predicted that as
the decades passed, the US and the Soviets would become
more and more like each other.
Thank goodness that the USA does not have a gulag.  Yet.
Lynn
But it's got concentration camps, so way to go!
Of course, the 'concentration camps' exist only in the
fevered imaginations of the more gullible members of the
public,
You mean Alan? Cuz that describes him perfectly. Gobbles down
whatever propaganda he's spoon fed by his masters.
and the
actual problem with the detention camps is caused by the
inaction and misaction of the very legislators who are acting
the most shocked by it.
And conditions are significantly better than they were during
the Obama administration, despite an *order* *of* *magnitude*
more people being detained.
If the laws were changed to enable the detention camps to not
exist, then they could rapidly be eliminated. But the same
people who are pretending to be horrified and outraged by
them find them very useful politically, and have no desire to
actually solve the border problem or even ameliorate it.
And have flatly refused to allocate more money to handle the
massive influx.
(This includes high-ranking Senators and Congressmen of both
parties, large swaths of the news media, and big chunks of
corporate America. It's bipartisan corruption. AOC and
Nancy Pelosi are at fault, so are Mitch McConnell and (until
last year) Paul Ryan. _Especially_ Paul Ryan.
The Republicans have no more interest in actually doing
anything than the Democrats, the primary blame rests firmly on
the Democrats, since they control the House, and financial
bills have to start there. The Senate *can't* do anything until
the House Democrats stop profiting from the suffering of those
they insist are innocent victims.
True...but the GOP had control of the House, Senate, and White
House from January 2017 to January 2019.
Interestingly, and perhaps meaningfully, the big upsurge in
illegals being detained didn't start until March 2019, when it went
to over 100,000.
Yet somehow,
mysteriously, Ryan and McConnell failed to take any meaningful
steps to address illegal immigration, to reform the asylum laws,
or to reign in the ridiculous court rulings that helped created
this mess. In fact, when they did manage to get a bill through
both chambers, it usually looked more like the same stuff the
Dems keep trying to pass.
No arguments on the obvious fact that neither party has any
interesting immigration reform. Both depend on lots of illegal
immigrants to generate millions in donations to their reelection
war chests.

The issue of money for CBP, however, is recent, as is the outright
propaganda campaign about conditions. Both post-date the Democrats
taking control of the House, where any solutions must start.
The Dems absolutely want maximum immigration, they want to
import voters.
Legal or otherwise, in long standing Democrat traditions. (As
opposed to Republicans, whose long standing tradition is to
suppress legitimate voters.)
But the business wing of the GOP is just as
anxious to import cheap labor and customers.
Both are utterly committed to keeping it at a crisis level, because
that gets their base to send them millions in donations.
The rank and file
of the GOP wants immigration reductions and border enforcement,
the donors want ever more immigration.
And the pols - on both sides - want ever more donations.
I've noticed that now that Pelosi is in control in the House,
McConnell is suddenly talking tougher on immigration. Big
shock. He knows it's safe to do so because there's no chance of
anything getting done.
Business as usual.
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
Titus G
2019-07-11 03:02:15 UTC
Permalink
snip re: Concentration Camps.

https://www.neveragainaction.com/press/for-immediate-release-two-hundred-jews-shut-down-elizabeth-detention-center-36-arrested-say-never-again-is-now

Perhaps not "a lot" but maybe just the extremist tip of an iceberg?
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2019-07-11 20:22:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Titus G
snip re: Concentration Camps.
https://www.neveragainaction.com/press/for-immediate-release-two-
hundred-jews-shut-down-elizabeth-detention-center-36-arrested-say
-never-again-is-now
Perhaps not "a lot" but maybe just the extremist tip of an
iceberg?
Any group of people as large as "Jews" in the US will have a certain
number of gullible idiots. 200 is statistical noise in the overal
jewish population.
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
Quadibloc
2019-07-08 11:04:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Johnny1A
Of course, the 'concentration camps' exist only in the fevered imaginations of
the more gullible members of the public, and the actual problem with the
detention camps is caused by the inaction and misaction of the very
legislators who are acting the most shocked by it.
If the laws were changed to enable the detention camps to not exist, then they
could rapidly be eliminated. But the same people who are pretending to be
horrified and outraged by them find them very useful politically, and have no
desire to actually solve the border problem or even ameliorate it.
(This includes high-ranking Senators and Congressmen of both parties, large
swaths of the news media, and big chunks of corporate America. It's
bipartisan corruption. AOC and Nancy Pelosi are at fault, so are Mitch
McConnell and (until last year) Paul Ryan. _Especially_ Paul Ryan.
This is simply untrue. You are trying to make excuses for Donald Trump. The bad
conditions at the border would not exist if the United States did not attempt to
detain these people, but simply took down their names, and allowed them
temporary work permits in the U.S. while their refugee claims were being heard.

The situation, therefore, is entirely the result of Trump's noncompliance with
the reasonable demands of people like Nancy Pelosi and AOC.

John Savard
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2019-07-08 16:39:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Johnny1A
Of course, the 'concentration camps' exist only in the fevered
imaginations of the more gullible members of the public, and
the actual problem with the detention camps is caused by the
inaction and misaction of the very legislators who are acting
the most shocked by it.
If the laws were changed to enable the detention camps to not
exist, then they could rapidly be eliminated. But the same
people who are pretending to be horrified and outraged by them
find them very useful politically, and have no desire to
actually solve the border problem or even ameliorate it.
(This includes high-ranking Senators and Congressmen of both
parties, large swaths of the news media, and big chunks of
corporate America. It's bipartisan corruption. AOC and Nancy
Pelosi are at fault, so are Mitch McConnell and (until last
year) Paul Ryan. _Especially_ Paul Ryan.
This is simply untrue. You are trying to make excuses for Donald
Trump. The bad conditions at the border would not exist if the
United States did not attempt to detain these people, but simply
took down their names, and allowed them temporary work permits
in the U.S. while their refugee claims were being heard.
Free clue, dumbass: That's essentially what they do now. There's
just a step in between where we try to figure out if they're
dangerous - known criminals, or infected with a communicable
disease.

Or would you prefer that unaccmpanied children be handed over to
whoever wants them? Or that people infected with tuberculosis, and
those exposed to them (who are also no vaccinated) be turned loose
without treatment?

Entering the US is a crime. A minor crime, which is why they are
normally given a court date and released, but a crime, nonetheless.
Civilized countries do not ignore crimes. Only barbarians believe
we should.
Post by Quadibloc
The situation, therefore, is entirely the result of Trump's
noncompliance with the reasonable demands of people like Nancy
Pelosi and AOC.
From most people, I would assume that was sarcasm. From you, I
expect you mean every word of it.

Which is quite a change from your usual rant about nuking brown
people.
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
Quadibloc
2019-07-09 03:37:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Quadibloc
The situation, therefore, is entirely the result of Trump's
noncompliance with the reasonable demands of people like Nancy
Pelosi and AOC.
From most people, I would assume that was sarcasm. From you, I
expect you mean every word of it.
Which is quite a change from your usual rant about nuking brown
people.
Actually, it is sarcasm, but I, at least approximately, mean every word of it at
the same time. Unlike AOC, Nancy Pelosi is _almost_ reasonable.

The United States is a signatory to certain treaties about refugees. It's
unfortunate that a humanitarian crisis in Central America is interfering with
the ability of the United States to plan immigration numbers to coincide with
how the labor market in the United States should function, but if they want to
fix the issue, they can do regime change in Central America, not keep the
refugees out. Which is illegal = because you have signed those treaties.

As for nuking brown people...

After centuries of merrily allowing several of the 50 states to discriminate in
their laws, quite severely, against some people on the grounds of their ethnic
origin, the people of the United States were awakened to how wrong this was by
uncovering the German concentration camps at the end of the Second World War.

This has led to a very commendable change in how people think about racial
equality in the entire Western World.

Could the pendulum have possibly swung too far?

At first, it's hard to imagine how. People of different ethnic origins are in
fact equal, completely so, and any discrimination is unfair on its face.

A court case, involving an actor in a popular science-fiction TV show, LeVar
Burton, led to "racial profiling" becoming illegal in the United States. Police
got around this through "driving while black", making matters worse.

While I wouldn't mind seeing these perjurers shot (by a firing squad, not by an
individual criminal) under some circumstances, racial profiling is difficult to
avoid.

If people from the Arab world made up, say, 10% of the U.S. population, and a
proportion of them significant enough to pose a genuine hazard to the safety of
the average American found the propaganda of groups like al-Qaeda and ISIS
persuasive... because we don't have "pre-crime", or the ability to read people's
minds, rounding up the lot of them and sending them home, however shocking it
may be to current sensibilities would seem pretty hard to avoid.

Or the government could wait, and the ordinary people of the country, with
torches and pitchforks, would take the matter into their own hands, in a
genocidal fashion.

In Canada, we have a military officer who goes around criticizing the
governments of the world in general about their inaction in response to the
genocide in Rwanda. And there was a terrible genocide; a lot of innocent people
of the Tutsi tribe were murdered.

However, these massacres weren't organized by a particular insurgent movement, let alone by the government.

Crack open a history book (well, look up the history; the history of Rwanda won't really rate much space in many history books) and you'll find:

- For quite a few decades, basically ever since decolonization, Rwanda had mostly been under Tutsi minority rule, which was oppressive to the Hutu majority, and

- Rwanda had finally achieved peace and stability under a government that treated the Hutu favorably, and

- A military coup, organized by Tutsis, had just overthrown that government.

So many of the Hutu panicked, and tried to ensure that the Tutsi would never
again profit from being the rulers of the land. Of course it's a pity, but it is
not clear to me how - except through pursuing individual criminal cases - it
could properly be avenged.

Human beings have their limits. It is wise not to push them beyond those limits.

Ideologically-driven liberal politicians, however, are oblivous to that.

Pointing this out has led to people calling me "unprincipled", because if racial
equality were really one of my "principles", then obviously I would treat it
like a religious taboo, and blindly remain faithful to it under all
circumstances whatever.

I may be humane, but I'm not crazy.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2019-07-09 04:30:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Quadibloc
The situation, therefore, is entirely the result of Trump's
noncompliance with the reasonable demands of people like Nancy
Pelosi and AOC.
From most people, I would assume that was sarcasm. From you, I
expect you mean every word of it.
Which is quite a change from your usual rant about nuking brown
people.
Actually, it is sarcasm, but I, at least approximately, mean every word of it at
the same time. Unlike AOC, Nancy Pelosi is _almost_ reasonable.
The United States is a signatory to certain treaties about refugees. It's
unfortunate that a humanitarian crisis in Central America is interfering with
the ability of the United States to plan immigration numbers to coincide with
how the labor market in the United States should function, but if they want to
fix the issue, they can do regime change in Central America, not keep the
refugees out. Which is illegal = because you have signed those treaties.
We are not required by treaty to take every refugee who shows up at
the border. In any case we have historically taken in more refugees
than the entire rest of the world combined and currently take in more
than any other country. That guilt-trip don't fly.

Maybe we should do like the Mexican do and give them free passage to
Canada and let y'all deal with them for while.
Post by Quadibloc
As for nuking brown people...
After centuries of merrily allowing several of the 50 states to discriminate in
their laws, quite severely, against some people on the grounds of their ethnic
origin, the people of the United States were awakened to how wrong this was by
uncovering the German concentration camps at the end of the Second World War.
"Centuries" is a bit of hyperbole, considering that the US is less
than 250 years old and the Civil Right Act was signed more than 50
years ago.
Post by Quadibloc
This has led to a very commendable change in how people think about racial
equality in the entire Western World.
Most of the Western world didn't have a problem with race. Look at
the example of how Eugene Bullard was treated by the French vs the
Americans.
Post by Quadibloc
Could the pendulum have possibly swung too far?
At first, it's hard to imagine how. People of different ethnic origins are in
fact equal, completely so, and any discrimination is unfair on its face.
If the only difference was ethnic origins you would have a point, but
some minorities insist on keeping their culture, which is OK if it's
their culture and they don't go nuts over it, but there's one minority
that insists on sticking to a somewhat-nuts and mostly made-up culture
and becomes angry when one of their own abandons that culture and then
succeeds.
Post by Quadibloc
A court case, involving an actor in a popular science-fiction TV show, LeVar
Burton, led to "racial profiling" becoming illegal in the United States. Police
got around this through "driving while black", making matters worse.
That racial profiling is illegal in the United States would be news to
the ACLU, the Supreme Court, and most law enforcement agencies. There
have been some state and local laws prohibiting it but no Federal law
and no Supreme Court ruling. While it is sometimes a successful
defense it's not something that one should count on.
Post by Quadibloc
While I wouldn't mind seeing these perjurers shot (by a firing squad, not by an
individual criminal) under some circumstances, racial profiling is difficult to
avoid.
If people from the Arab world made up, say, 10% of the U.S. population, and a
proportion of them significant enough to pose a genuine hazard to the safety of
the average American found the propaganda of groups like al-Qaeda and ISIS
persuasive... because we don't have "pre-crime", or the ability to read people's
minds, rounding up the lot of them and sending them home, however shocking it
may be to current sensibilities would seem pretty hard to avoid.
If they are illegal aliens yes. If they are citizens it's a much
tougher sell.
Post by Quadibloc
Or the government could wait, and the ordinary people of the country, with
torches and pitchforks, would take the matter into their own hands, in a
genocidal fashion.
In Canada, we have a military officer who goes around criticizing the
governments of the world in general about their inaction in response to the
genocide in Rwanda. And there was a terrible genocide; a lot of innocent people
of the Tutsi tribe were murdered.
This is business as usual in Africa. 200 years ago the Tutsis woule
have ended up on cotton plantations in the South instead. Whether
that's better than being dead is debatable. One tribe fights another,
the losers die. Over a billion people trying to survive on a
continent that is not particularly conducive to intensive agriculture
leads to conflict.
Post by Quadibloc
However, these massacres weren't organized by a particular insurgent movement, let alone by the government.
- For quite a few decades, basically ever since decolonization, Rwanda had mostly been under Tutsi minority rule, which was oppressive to the Hutu majority, and
- Rwanda had finally achieved peace and stability under a government that treated the Hutu favorably, and
- A military coup, organized by Tutsis, had just overthrown that government.
So many of the Hutu panicked, and tried to ensure that the Tutsi would never
again profit from being the rulers of the land. Of course it's a pity, but it is
not clear to me how - except through pursuing individual criminal cases - it
could properly be avenged.
Human beings have their limits. It is wise not to push them beyond those limits.
Ideologically-driven liberal politicians, however, are oblivous to that.
I don't think that the US is close to any "limits" in regard to
tolerance of different ethnicities.
Post by Quadibloc
Pointing this out has led to people calling me "unprincipled", because if racial
equality were really one of my "principles", then obviously I would treat it
like a religious taboo, and blindly remain faithful to it under all
circumstances whatever.
I may be humane, but I'm not crazy.
John Savard
Quadibloc
2019-07-09 20:12:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Quadibloc
Human beings have their limits. It is wise not to push them beyond those limits.
Ideologically-driven liberal politicians, however, are oblivous to that.
I don't think that the US is close to any "limits" in regard to
tolerance of different ethnicities.
Oh, I don't think it is either. However, some of the liberal reaction to
measures taken in the wake of 9/11 indicated, at least to me, that if the
terrible day ever did arrive when those limits were being approached... the
liberals would go on obliviously with business as usual.

And there are the New Years' Day attacks in Germany.

John Savard
Juho Julkunen
2019-07-09 11:53:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
I may be humane, but I'm not crazy.
John Savard
--
Juho Julkunen
David DeLaney
2019-07-10 01:40:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
I may be humane, but I'm not crazy.
John Savard
I was also gonna point out how often his opening line of "It is (certainly)
true that ..." ends up taking some really twisty detours on its way to his
conclusions. But I think your quote wins the thread, congrats!

Dave, flashing back again to the net.legends FAQ so many years ago
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
my gatekeeper archives are no longer accessible :( / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2019-07-11 18:56:39 UTC
Permalink
On Monday, July 8, 2019 at 10:39:07 AM UTC-6, Jibini Kula
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Quadibloc
The situation, therefore, is entirely the result of Trump's
noncompliance with the reasonable demands of people like
Nancy Pelosi and AOC.
From most people, I would assume that was sarcasm. From you, I
expect you mean every word of it.
Which is quite a change from your usual rant about nuking brown
people.
Actually, it is sarcasm, but I, at least approximately, mean
every word of it at the same time. Unlike AOC, Nancy Pelosi is
_almost_ reasonable.
No, Pelosi is not reasonable. Pelosi is a would-be tyrant, like all
professional politicians at that level. AOC is far more of a
moonbat, but Pelosi is still a leftie moonbat, too.
The United States is a signatory to certain treaties about
refugees. It's unfortunate that a humanitarian crisis in Central
America is interfering with the ability of the United States to
plan immigration numbers to coincide with how the labor market
in the United States should function, but if they want to fix
the issue, they can do regime change in Central America, not
keep the refugees out. Which is illegal = because you have
signed those treaties.
It is also unfortunate that Mexico is so reluctant to take in the
refugees on a permanent basis. But nobody is complaining about
that.
As for nuking brown people...
Heh.
I may be humane, but I'm not crazy.
They're not mutually exclusive.
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
Johnny1A
2019-07-08 18:29:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Johnny1A
Of course, the 'concentration camps' exist only in the fevered imaginations of
the more gullible members of the public, and the actual problem with the
detention camps is caused by the inaction and misaction of the very
legislators who are acting the most shocked by it.
If the laws were changed to enable the detention camps to not exist, then they
could rapidly be eliminated. But the same people who are pretending to be
horrified and outraged by them find them very useful politically, and have no
desire to actually solve the border problem or even ameliorate it.
(This includes high-ranking Senators and Congressmen of both parties, large
swaths of the news media, and big chunks of corporate America. It's
bipartisan corruption. AOC and Nancy Pelosi are at fault, so are Mitch
McConnell and (until last year) Paul Ryan. _Especially_ Paul Ryan.
This is simply untrue. You are trying to make excuses for Donald Trump. The bad
conditions at the border would not exist if the United States did not attempt to
detain these people, but simply took down their names, and allowed them
temporary work permits in the U.S. while their refugee claims were being heard.
Which is open borders, which is what the Dems (and much of the upper level GOP) want. Which sends a message to others wanting in to come on up, you'll get in and be allowed to work, effectively indefinitely.

But it would defeat the purpose of border security, which is that they do _not_ get to come in and work.
Post by Quadibloc
The situation, therefore, is entirely the result of Trump's noncompliance with
the reasonable demands of people like Nancy Pelosi and AOC.
John Savard
I don't know if you're serious or sarcastic here. Pelosi and AOC have yet to explain how doing that keeps them out.
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2019-07-08 19:37:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Johnny1A
But it would defeat the purpose of border security, which is
that they do _not_ get to come in and work.
Not even remotely true. The US has *always* had a process by which
immigrants can do precisely that.

Border security is *us* setting the terms of that process, and
enforcing them.
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
J. Clarke
2019-07-09 00:34:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Johnny1A
Of course, the 'concentration camps' exist only in the fevered imaginations of
the more gullible members of the public, and the actual problem with the
detention camps is caused by the inaction and misaction of the very
legislators who are acting the most shocked by it.
If the laws were changed to enable the detention camps to not exist, then they
could rapidly be eliminated. But the same people who are pretending to be
horrified and outraged by them find them very useful politically, and have no
desire to actually solve the border problem or even ameliorate it.
(This includes high-ranking Senators and Congressmen of both parties, large
swaths of the news media, and big chunks of corporate America. It's
bipartisan corruption. AOC and Nancy Pelosi are at fault, so are Mitch
McConnell and (until last year) Paul Ryan. _Especially_ Paul Ryan.
This is simply untrue. You are trying to make excuses for Donald Trump. The bad
conditions at the border would not exist if the United States did not attempt to
detain these people, but simply took down their names, and allowed them
temporary work permits in the U.S. while their refugee claims were being heard.
Do the laws of the United States allow this?
Post by Quadibloc
The situation, therefore, is entirely the result of Trump's noncompliance with
the reasonable demands of people like Nancy Pelosi and AOC.
What, it's Trumps fault that the ICE enforces the law? If the
Congress doesn't like the law, it's up to them to change it.
Quadibloc
2019-07-09 03:40:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Quadibloc
The situation, therefore, is entirely the result of Trump's noncompliance with
the reasonable demands of people like Nancy Pelosi and AOC.
What, it's Trumps fault that the ICE enforces the law? If the
Congress doesn't like the law, it's up to them to change it.
Well, it's probably partly Trump's fault that the Republicans in Congress are
being so obtuse. However, were we having the same problems when Obama was
President? Or is it just the news media, bringing problems we've had to ages to
light only now, because they don't like Trump?

I think some people have actually claimed that, but I don't believe it.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2019-07-09 03:58:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Quadibloc
The situation, therefore, is entirely the result of Trump's noncompliance with
the reasonable demands of people like Nancy Pelosi and AOC.
What, it's Trumps fault that the ICE enforces the law? If the
Congress doesn't like the law, it's up to them to change it.
Well, it's probably partly Trump's fault that the Republicans in Congress are
being so obtuse. However, were we having the same problems when Obama was
President? Or is it just the news media, bringing problems we've had to ages to
light only now, because they don't like Trump?
In 2017 there were 303,000 apprehensions on the Mexican border.
In 2018 there were 396,579 apprehensions on the Mexican border.
So far in 2019 there have been 593,507.

Whether this reflects an increase in attempts or a change in
enforcement policy I do not know.

And what are the Republicans in Congress being "obtuse" about? A
bipartisan funding bill was enacted recently to provide funding to
deal with the problem.
Post by Quadibloc
I think some people have actually claimed that, but I don't believe it.
John Savard
Johnny1A
2019-07-09 04:53:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Quadibloc
The situation, therefore, is entirely the result of Trump's noncompliance with
the reasonable demands of people like Nancy Pelosi and AOC.
What, it's Trumps fault that the ICE enforces the law? If the
Congress doesn't like the law, it's up to them to change it.
Well, it's probably partly Trump's fault that the Republicans in Congress are
being so obtuse. However, were we having the same problems when Obama was
President? Or is it just the news media, bringing problems we've had to ages to
light only now, because they don't like Trump?
Yes, this went on under Obama. And Bush Jr. And Clinton. And Bush Sr.

The last President before Trump to make a real effort to restrain illegal immigration was Reagan, and he signed an amnesty-for-enforcement bill. The amnesty took effect, the enforcement never happened.

That has not been forgotten.

That's why each attempt at 'comprehensive immigration reform' over the last fifteen years has exploded in the face of the Establishment. They can swear up and down they'll enforce, they can point to the clauses in the bill, but they simply aren't _believed_.

The counter from the public has usually been, "first enforcement, then we do amnesty'. From which the establishment recoils, because they don't want enforcement.
J. Clarke
2019-07-09 05:18:21 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 8 Jul 2019 21:53:08 -0700 (PDT), Johnny1A
Post by Johnny1A
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Quadibloc
The situation, therefore, is entirely the result of Trump's noncompliance with
the reasonable demands of people like Nancy Pelosi and AOC.
What, it's Trumps fault that the ICE enforces the law? If the
Congress doesn't like the law, it's up to them to change it.
Well, it's probably partly Trump's fault that the Republicans in Congress are
being so obtuse. However, were we having the same problems when Obama was
President? Or is it just the news media, bringing problems we've had to ages to
light only now, because they don't like Trump?
Yes, this went on under Obama. And Bush Jr. And Clinton. And Bush Sr.
The last President before Trump to make a real effort to restrain illegal immigration was Reagan, and he signed an amnesty-for-enforcement bill. The amnesty took effect, the enforcement never happened.
That has not been forgotten.
That's why each attempt at 'comprehensive immigration reform' over the last fifteen years has exploded in the face of the Establishment. They can swear up and down they'll enforce, they can point to the clauses in the bill, but they simply aren't _believed_.
The counter from the public has usually been, "first enforcement, then we do amnesty'. From which the establishment recoils, because they don't want enforcement.
They know that the public won't tolerate what they have to do to
enforce.
Ninapenda Jibini
2019-07-07 18:33:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Johnny1A
I recently reread _Cities In Flight_ by James Blish, and was
struck by how prescient a few of Blish's technologies were.
At one point in one of the stories (written in the early 60s)
the protagonist queries the city's library computer system
about a subject. The machine answers his question, but it
also serves up a list of 'related topics', in much the same
way search algorithms often work (or are supposed to work) on
the Internet.
The machine and the terminal are not like ours, but they
work
remarkably like it.
Not as prescient as Murray Leinster's "A Logic Named Joe," but
yeah. Blish also accuratenly predicted that as the decades
passed, the US and the Soviets would become more and more like
each other.
Thank goodness that the USA does not have a gulag. Yet.
According to certain Democrat members of Congress, we have death
camps.
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn: https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration


"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Alan Baker
2019-07-07 20:55:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Johnny1A
I recently reread _Cities In Flight_ by James Blish, and was
struck by how prescient a few of Blish's technologies were.
At one point in one of the stories (written in the early 60s)
the protagonist queries the city's library computer system
about a subject. The machine answers his question, but it
also serves up a list of 'related topics', in much the same
way search algorithms often work (or are supposed to work) on
the Internet.
The machine and the terminal are not like ours, but they
work
remarkably like it.
Not as prescient as Murray Leinster's "A Logic Named Joe," but
yeah. Blish also accuratenly predicted that as the decades
passed, the US and the Soviets would become more and more like
each other.
Thank goodness that the USA does not have a gulag. Yet.
According to certain Democrat members of Congress, we have death
camps.
You have concentration camps, Terry...

...and people are dying in them.
Ninapenda Jibini
2019-07-07 23:16:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Johnny1A
I recently reread _Cities In Flight_ by James Blish, and was
struck by how prescient a few of Blish's technologies were.
At one point in one of the stories (written in the early 60s)
the protagonist queries the city's library computer system
about a subject. The machine answers his question, but it
also serves up a list of 'related topics', in much the same
way search algorithms often work (or are supposed to work) on
the Internet.
The machine and the terminal are not like ours, but they work
remarkably like it.
Not as prescient as Murray Leinster's "A Logic Named Joe," but
yeah. Blish also accuratenly predicted that as the decades
passed, the US and the Soviets would become more and more like
each other.
Thank goodness that the USA does not have a gulag. Yet.
According to certain Democrat members of Congress, we have death
camps.
You have concentration camps, Terry...
Because the Democrats refuse to do anything about it.
Post by Alan Baker
...and people are dying in them.
Given the 130,000+ people per *month* entering the US illegally (go
ahead, lie about it, the proof is in my .sig) it is inevitable that
people will die. With that many people, there _will_ be deaths on a
regular basis, no matter what you do.

And many of them are dying of diseases they had before they entered
the US. It's becoming a very serious medical crisis, made far worse
by the Democrats refusing to allocate money for *that*, too.
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration


"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Quadibloc
2019-07-08 11:14:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
You have concentration camps, Terry...
...and people are dying in them.
Immigration detention camps in the U.S. are... not as they should be.

Their purpose is not to round up a group of people native to the U.S. and keep
them conveniently localized, so even the literal use of the term - in the sense
of the "concentration camps" of the Boer War - is questionable.

As that term is understood today, though, it means only one thing. The death
camps of the Nazis. The point that such a comparison is so illegitimate as to be
surreal is valid.

John Savard
Kevrob
2019-07-08 15:25:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Alan Baker
You have concentration camps, Terry...
...and people are dying in them.
Immigration detention camps in the U.S. are... not as they should be.
Their purpose is not to round up a group of people native to the U.S. and keep
them conveniently localized, so even the literal use of the term - in the sense
of the "concentration camps" of the Boer War - is questionable.
As that term is understood today, though, it means only one thing. The death
camps of the Nazis. The point that such a comparison is so illegitimate as to be
surreal is valid.
To the extent that these people are "asylum seekers," these aren't
"concentration camps," they are refugee camps. Around the world, such
can become effectively permanent settlements, because the host country
has no intention of letting the refugees settle permanently. The question
of "who is a refugee, and who is an economic migrant" would not have come
up prior to the immigration restriction legislation of 1924. A political
revolutionary or activist might have been excluded if he were considered
to have been convicted of a crime, but that was a pretty flexible standard,
as all the Irish rebels and "`48ers" from the Germanies who were let in
show.

There were sometimes Quarantine camps, which through neglect if not
malice became horrible places. See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grosse_Isle,_Quebec

The typhus outbreak was real, not a cover for an exclusion policy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1847_North_American_typhus_epidemic

"Camps" were used to deal with the Cuban Marielitos in 1980.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariel_boatlift

Trump's detention centers could easily, if they haven't already,
be classed with camps where people had to put up with hardship
or even fatal disease, if only out of incompetence or neglect,
not actual malice. Bang people up in overcrowded corners, and if
only a few of them are infected with something contagious, you will
soon have an epidemic on your hands.

https://psmag.com/news/whats-actually-causing-infectious-disease-outbreaks-in-immigrant-detention-centers

This is just a bad system, overall. I don't have a solution.
Hanlon's Razor applies, though.

Kevin R
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2019-07-08 16:42:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Alan Baker
You have concentration camps, Terry...
...and people are dying in them.
Immigration detention camps in the U.S. are... not as they
should be.
Their purpose is not to round up a group of people native to
the U.S. and keep them conveniently localized, so even the
literal use of the term - in the sense of the "concentration
camps" of the Boer War - is questionable.
As that term is understood today, though, it means only one
thing. The death camps of the Nazis. The point that such a
comparison is so illegitimate as to be surreal is valid.
To the extent that these people are "asylum seekers," these
aren't "concentration camps," they are refugee camps. Around
the world, such can become effectively permanent settlements,
because the host country has no intention of letting the
refugees settle permanently. The question of "who is a refugee,
and who is an economic migrant" would not have come up prior to
the immigration restriction legislation of 1924. A political
revolutionary or activist might have been excluded if he were
considered to have been convicted of a crime, but that was a
pretty flexible standard, as all the Irish rebels and "`48ers"
from the Germanies who were let in show.
There were sometimes Quarantine camps, which through neglect if
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grosse_Isle,_Quebec
The typhus outbreak was real, not a cover for an exclusion
policy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1847_North_American_typhus_epidemic
"Camps" were used to deal with the Cuban Marielitos in 1980.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariel_boatlift
Trump's detention centers could easily, if they haven't already,
be classed with camps where people had to put up with hardship
or even fatal disease, if only out of incompetence or neglect,
not actual malice. Bang people up in overcrowded corners, and
if only a few of them are infected with something contagious,
you will soon have an epidemic on your hands.
https://psmag.com/news/whats-actually-causing-infectious-disease-
outbreaks-in-immigrant-detention-centers
This is just a bad system, overall. I don't have a solution.
Hanlon's Razor applies, though.
The solution starts with upping funding for CBP to reflect the
massive influx of detainees.

Given that CBP has been begging for more money for several months,
I'm not sure we can attribute Congress' lack of action to
incompetence any more.
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
Johnny1A
2019-07-08 19:10:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Kevrob
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Alan Baker
You have concentration camps, Terry...
...and people are dying in them.
Immigration detention camps in the U.S. are... not as they
should be.
Their purpose is not to round up a group of people native to
the U.S. and keep them conveniently localized, so even the
literal use of the term - in the sense of the "concentration
camps" of the Boer War - is questionable.
As that term is understood today, though, it means only one
thing. The death camps of the Nazis. The point that such a
comparison is so illegitimate as to be surreal is valid.
To the extent that these people are "asylum seekers," these
aren't "concentration camps," they are refugee camps. Around
the world, such can become effectively permanent settlements,
because the host country has no intention of letting the
refugees settle permanently. The question of "who is a refugee,
and who is an economic migrant" would not have come up prior to
the immigration restriction legislation of 1924. A political
revolutionary or activist might have been excluded if he were
considered to have been convicted of a crime, but that was a
pretty flexible standard, as all the Irish rebels and "`48ers"
from the Germanies who were let in show.
There were sometimes Quarantine camps, which through neglect if
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grosse_Isle,_Quebec
The typhus outbreak was real, not a cover for an exclusion
policy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1847_North_American_typhus_epidemic
"Camps" were used to deal with the Cuban Marielitos in 1980.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariel_boatlift
Trump's detention centers could easily, if they haven't already,
be classed with camps where people had to put up with hardship
or even fatal disease, if only out of incompetence or neglect,
not actual malice. Bang people up in overcrowded corners, and
if only a few of them are infected with something contagious,
you will soon have an epidemic on your hands.
https://psmag.com/news/whats-actually-causing-infectious-disease-
outbreaks-in-immigrant-detention-centers
This is just a bad system, overall. I don't have a solution.
Hanlon's Razor applies, though.
The solution starts with upping funding for CBP to reflect the
massive influx of detainees.
Given that CBP has been begging for more money for several months,
I'm not sure we can attribute Congress' lack of action to
incompetence any more.
--
Terry Austin
In the case of the Dems, it's unquestionably mostly intent. In the case of the GOP...I keep going back and forth. I've found myself confused for years at how much of what the GOP does is self-interested deception, and how much is a cluelessness that beggars the imagination.

I'll just about settle on 'competent malice', then one or more of them will do something so self-destructively stupid, so mind-bogglingly self-defeating, that I swing back to 'clueless'.

I'm sure its both, varying from case to case and individual to individual. But sometimes the party leadership of the GOP seems so utterly out of touch with reality that they even shoot themselves in the foot in terms of personal financial self-interest or just election-winning terms.

Paul Ryan was the poster boy for this.
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2019-07-08 19:46:18 UTC
Permalink
On Monday, July 8, 2019 at 11:42:59 AM UTC-5, Jibini Kula
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Kevrob
On Sunday, July 7, 2019 at 2:55:16 PM UTC-6, Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
You have concentration camps, Terry...
...and people are dying in them.
Immigration detention camps in the U.S. are... not as they
should be.
Their purpose is not to round up a group of people native to
the U.S. and keep them conveniently localized, so even the
literal use of the term - in the sense of the "concentration
camps" of the Boer War - is questionable.
As that term is understood today, though, it means only one
thing. The death camps of the Nazis. The point that such a
comparison is so illegitimate as to be surreal is valid.
To the extent that these people are "asylum seekers," these
aren't "concentration camps," they are refugee camps. Around
the world, such can become effectively permanent settlements,
because the host country has no intention of letting the
refugees settle permanently. The question of "who is a
refugee, and who is an economic migrant" would not have come
up prior to the immigration restriction legislation of 1924.
A political revolutionary or activist might have been
excluded if he were considered to have been convicted of a
crime, but that was a pretty flexible standard, as all the
Irish rebels and "`48ers" from the Germanies who were let in
show.
There were sometimes Quarantine camps, which through neglect
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grosse_Isle,_Quebec
The typhus outbreak was real, not a cover for an exclusion
policy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1847_North_American_typhus_epide
mic
"Camps" were used to deal with the Cuban Marielitos in 1980.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariel_boatlift
Trump's detention centers could easily, if they haven't
already, be classed with camps where people had to put up
with hardship or even fatal disease, if only out of
incompetence or neglect, not actual malice. Bang people up
in overcrowded corners, and if only a few of them are
infected with something contagious, you will soon have an
epidemic on your hands.
https://psmag.com/news/whats-actually-causing-infectious-disea
se- outbreaks-in-immigrant-detention-centers
This is just a bad system, overall. I don't have a solution.
Hanlon's Razor applies, though.
The solution starts with upping funding for CBP to reflect the
massive influx of detainees.
Given that CBP has been begging for more money for several
months, I'm not sure we can attribute Congress' lack of action
to incompetence any more.
--
Terry Austin
In the case of the Dems, it's unquestionably mostly intent. In
the case of the GOP...I keep going back and forth. I've found
myself confused for years at how much of what the GOP does is
self-interested deception, and how much is a cluelessness that
beggars the imagination.
I'll just about settle on 'competent malice', then one or more
of them will do something so self-destructively stupid, so
mind-bogglingly self-defeating, that I swing back to 'clueless'.
I'm sure its both, varying from case to case and individual to
individual. But sometimes the party leadership of the GOP seems
so utterly out of touch with reality that they even shoot
themselves in the foot in terms of personal financial
self-interest or just election-winning terms.
Paul Ryan was the poster boy for this.
The Republican Party was well on its way to no longer existing just
a few years ago, with most of its base going to some third party.
Trump overwhelmed that issue, but it hasn't gone away. Now, the
Democrats are showing their true colors, and it turns out, they're
just as crazy and stupid.

It's been a couple of decades since I've been able to tell them
apart with - literally - a score card.
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
Johnny1A
2019-07-08 20:11:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
On Monday, July 8, 2019 at 11:42:59 AM UTC-5, Jibini Kula
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Kevrob
On Sunday, July 7, 2019 at 2:55:16 PM UTC-6, Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
You have concentration camps, Terry...
...and people are dying in them.
Immigration detention camps in the U.S. are... not as they should be.
Their purpose is not to round up a group of people native to
the U.S. and keep them conveniently localized, so even the
literal use of the term - in the sense of the "concentration
camps" of the Boer War - is questionable.
As that term is understood today, though, it means only one
thing. The death camps of the Nazis. The point that such a
comparison is so illegitimate as to be surreal is valid.
To the extent that these people are "asylum seekers," these
aren't "concentration camps," they are refugee camps. Around
the world, such can become effectively permanent settlements,
because the host country has no intention of letting the
refugees settle permanently. The question of "who is a
refugee, and who is an economic migrant" would not have come
up prior to the immigration restriction legislation of 1924.
A political revolutionary or activist might have been
excluded if he were considered to have been convicted of a
crime, but that was a pretty flexible standard, as all the
Irish rebels and "`48ers" from the Germanies who were let in
show.
There were sometimes Quarantine camps, which through neglect
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grosse_Isle,_Quebec
The typhus outbreak was real, not a cover for an exclusion policy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1847_North_American_typhus_epide
mic
"Camps" were used to deal with the Cuban Marielitos in 1980.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariel_boatlift
Trump's detention centers could easily, if they haven't
already, be classed with camps where people had to put up
with hardship or even fatal disease, if only out of
incompetence or neglect, not actual malice. Bang people up
in overcrowded corners, and if only a few of them are
infected with something contagious, you will soon have an
epidemic on your hands.
https://psmag.com/news/whats-actually-causing-infectious-disea
se- outbreaks-in-immigrant-detention-centers
This is just a bad system, overall. I don't have a solution.
Hanlon's Razor applies, though.
The solution starts with upping funding for CBP to reflect the
massive influx of detainees.
Given that CBP has been begging for more money for several
months, I'm not sure we can attribute Congress' lack of action
to incompetence any more.
--
Terry Austin
In the case of the Dems, it's unquestionably mostly intent. In
the case of the GOP...I keep going back and forth. I've found
myself confused for years at how much of what the GOP does is
self-interested deception, and how much is a cluelessness that
beggars the imagination.
I'll just about settle on 'competent malice', then one or more
of them will do something so self-destructively stupid, so
mind-bogglingly self-defeating, that I swing back to 'clueless'.
I'm sure its both, varying from case to case and individual to
individual. But sometimes the party leadership of the GOP seems
so utterly out of touch with reality that they even shoot
themselves in the foot in terms of personal financial
self-interest or just election-winning terms.
Paul Ryan was the poster boy for this.
The Republican Party was well on its way to no longer existing just
a few years ago, with most of its base going to some third party.
Trump overwhelmed that issue, but it hasn't gone away. Now, the
Democrats are showing their true colors, and it turns out, they're
just as crazy and stupid.
It's been a couple of decades since I've been able to tell them
apart with - literally - a score card.
--
Terry Austin
They don't call them the Uniparty for nothing.

I think the current situation started to gel when USSR came apart, taking that source of outside unifying pressure away. Reagan was more in tune with the GOP voters, Bush the Elder was very much ha creature of the Establishment and governed that way (hence one term).

But Clinton continued most of Bush Sr.'s policies, and Bush the Younger left a bunch of Clinton's people in key positions in the executive branch (another 'bad intentions or clueless?' moment), and both Clinton and both the Bushes were big 'free traders'.

Really, Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush Jr., and Obama were in agreement on a bunch of stuff, and it was the stuff they agreed on that increasingly put them out of step with their voters.

By the time we got to 2016, the bipartisan Establishment set out to give the voters a choice of...a Bush or a Clinton. _Again_. They still don't seem to fully 'get' why it all blew up, esp. on the GOP side.

A measure of what I mean about GOP cluelessness. When the Paris terror attacks of 2015 happened, I heard supposedly intelligent GOP commentators and officials say that it would finish off the Trump insurgency, because it would remind GOP voters that the world was dangerous and that they needed trusted, reliable hands in charge.

To which the only rational response in 2015 would have been hysterical laughter, and of course Trump gained ground from what they expected would knock him out, yet again. But the comments themselves hint at a disconnect so deep that it verges on delusion.
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2019-07-08 21:03:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Johnny1A
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
On Monday, July 8, 2019 at 11:42:59 AM UTC-5, Jibini Kula
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
On Monday, July 8, 2019 at 7:14:39 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc
On Sunday, July 7, 2019 at 2:55:16 PM UTC-6, Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
You have concentration camps, Terry...
...and people are dying in them.
Immigration detention camps in the U.S. are... not as
they should be.
Their purpose is not to round up a group of people native
to the U.S. and keep them conveniently localized, so even
the literal use of the term - in the sense of the
"concentration camps" of the Boer War - is questionable.
As that term is understood today, though, it means only
one thing. The death camps of the Nazis. The point that
such a comparison is so illegitimate as to be surreal is
valid.
To the extent that these people are "asylum seekers,"
these aren't "concentration camps," they are refugee
camps. Around the world, such can become effectively
permanent settlements, because the host country has no
intention of letting the refugees settle permanently. The
question of "who is a refugee, and who is an economic
migrant" would not have come up prior to the immigration
restriction legislation of 1924. A political revolutionary
or activist might have been excluded if he were considered
to have been convicted of a crime, but that was a pretty
flexible standard, as all the Irish rebels and "`48ers"
from the Germanies who were let in show.
There were sometimes Quarantine camps, which through
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grosse_Isle,_Quebec
The typhus outbreak was real, not a cover for an exclusion policy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1847_North_American_typhus_ep
ide mic
"Camps" were used to deal with the Cuban Marielitos in
1980.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariel_boatlift
Trump's detention centers could easily, if they haven't
already, be classed with camps where people had to put up
with hardship or even fatal disease, if only out of
incompetence or neglect, not actual malice. Bang people
up in overcrowded corners, and if only a few of them are
infected with something contagious, you will soon have an
epidemic on your hands.
https://psmag.com/news/whats-actually-causing-infectious-di
sea se- outbreaks-in-immigrant-detention-centers
This is just a bad system, overall. I don't have a
solution. Hanlon's Razor applies, though.
The solution starts with upping funding for CBP to reflect
the massive influx of detainees.
Given that CBP has been begging for more money for several
months, I'm not sure we can attribute Congress' lack of
action to incompetence any more.
--
Terry Austin
In the case of the Dems, it's unquestionably mostly intent.
In the case of the GOP...I keep going back and forth. I've
found myself confused for years at how much of what the GOP
does is self-interested deception, and how much is a
cluelessness that beggars the imagination.
I'll just about settle on 'competent malice', then one or
more of them will do something so self-destructively stupid,
so mind-bogglingly self-defeating, that I swing back to
'clueless'.
I'm sure its both, varying from case to case and individual
to individual. But sometimes the party leadership of the GOP
seems so utterly out of touch with reality that they even
shoot themselves in the foot in terms of personal financial
self-interest or just election-winning terms.
Paul Ryan was the poster boy for this.
The Republican Party was well on its way to no longer existing
just a few years ago, with most of its base going to some third
party. Trump overwhelmed that issue, but it hasn't gone away.
Now, the Democrats are showing their true colors, and it turns
out, they're just as crazy and stupid.
It's been a couple of decades since I've been able to tell them
apart with - literally - a score card.
--
Terry Austin
They don't call them the Uniparty for nothing.
I think the current situation started to gel when USSR came
apart, taking that source of outside unifying pressure away.
Reagan was more in tune with the GOP voters, Bush the Elder was
very much ha creature of the Establishment and governed that way
(hence one term).
But Clinton continued most of Bush Sr.'s policies, and Bush the
Younger left a bunch of Clinton's people in key positions in the
executive branch (another 'bad intentions or clueless?' moment),
and both Clinton and both the Bushes were big 'free traders'.
Really, Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush Jr., and Obama were in agreement
on a bunch of stuff, and it was the stuff they agreed on that
increasingly put them out of step with their voters.
By the time we got to 2016, the bipartisan Establishment set out
to give the voters a choice of...a Bush or a Clinton. _Again_.
They still don't seem to fully 'get' why it all blew up, esp. on
the GOP side.
A measure of what I mean about GOP cluelessness. When the Paris
terror attacks of 2015 happened, I heard supposedly intelligent
GOP commentators and officials say that it would finish off the
Trump insurgency, because it would remind GOP voters that the
world was dangerous and that they needed trusted, reliable hands
in charge.
To which the only rational response in 2015 would have been
hysterical laughter, and of course Trump gained ground from what
they expected would knock him out, yet again. But the comments
themselves hint at a disconnect so deep that it verges on
delusion.
TDS goes far, far beyond bordering on delusion. Yeah, people want
trusted and reliable leadership. What the powers that be cannot
graps is that they are neither. Nothing borderline about it.
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
Lynn McGuire
2019-07-09 19:20:36 UTC
Permalink
On 7/8/2019 3:11 PM, Johnny1A wrote:
...>> The Republican Party was well on its way to no longer existing just
Post by Johnny1A
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
a few years ago, with most of its base going to some third party.
Trump overwhelmed that issue, but it hasn't gone away. Now, the
Democrats are showing their true colors, and it turns out, they're
just as crazy and stupid.
It's been a couple of decades since I've been able to tell them
apart with - literally - a score card.
--
Terry Austin
They don't call them the Uniparty for nothing.
...

They are the two sides of the War Party.

Lynn
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2019-07-11 18:59:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
...>> The Republican Party was well on its way to no longer
existing just
Post by Johnny1A
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
a few years ago, with most of its base going to some third
party. Trump overwhelmed that issue, but it hasn't gone away.
Now, the Democrats are showing their true colors, and it turns
out, they're just as crazy and stupid.
It's been a couple of decades since I've been able to tell
them apart with - literally - a score card.
--
Terry Austin
They don't call them the Uniparty for nothing.
...
They are the two sides of the War Party.
No, they are the mobius strip of the War Party. There's no practical
difference between them.
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
Johnny1A
2019-07-08 18:56:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
This is just a bad system, overall. I don't have a solution.
Hanlon's Razor applies, though.
Kevin R
The problem is a side effect of the ongoing power struggles in Washington and the State capitols and in the culture overall. It used to line up along left/right lines, but today that's becoming less relevant than 'commoner vs. aristocrat', or 'main street vs. wall street', however you want to frame it.

One commentator pointed out several years ago that if you looked at the GOP 'vertically', the closer you get to the street level voters, the more it looks like Reagan, the closer you get to the power players and high level elected officials, the more it's like Rockefeller.

That's why GOP voters who voted for restraints on abortion, reduced immigration, more nationalism, over the years, kept getting free trade, social liberalism, and ever more immigration.

The same divide cuts across the Dems. That's a lot of what underlay Sanders vs. Hillary three years ago.

If you were a voter who wanted reduced immigration in 2008, you had a choice of McCain or Obama, both open borders men in practice. In 2012, that same voter had a choice of Romney vs. Obama, another choice of open borders men. The two big parties tried hard to present that same choice again, the party elites desperately wanted 2016 to be Jeb vs. Hillary, both open borders and free trade supporters again.

But this time it finally all blew up. Sanders ended up giving Hillary a serious challenge, and Trump skunked Jeb in the primaries against the opposition of the entire Party apparat and went on to produce the biggest November upset since Truman defeated Dewey.

(Ironically, some of the same underlying dynamics drove both upsets.)

A lot of people don't realize it, but it's a very safe bet that Ryan and McConnell were both privately rooting for Hillary to beat Trump, because Hillary represented business as usual. I don't doubt Ryan and McConnell would have preferred Jeb to Hillary, but Hillary was infinitely preferable to an outsider.

(Of course they couldn't say that out loud, but in politics, it's more revealing to watch actions and inactions than to listen to words.)

Now they're hoping to outwait Trump and get back to 'normal' in 2020 or 2024, but circumstances don't look promising for that. Even if Trump was gone, the forces that produced him (the internal divide and elite unpopularity) would remain.

When one faction or the other gets and holds a solid upper hand, the detention centers will go away, either because we finally get serious about enforcement or because we get open borders.
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2019-07-08 16:40:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Alan Baker
You have concentration camps, Terry...
...and people are dying in them.
Immigration detention camps in the U.S. are... not as they
should be.
Indeed. They're far better than they were under Obama, but with the
massive influx this year, they desperately need more money that
Congress won't allocate.
Post by Quadibloc
Their purpose is not to round up a group of people native to the
U.S. and keep them conveniently localized, so even the literal
use of the term - in the sense of the "concentration camps" of
the Boer War - is questionable.
As that term is understood today, though, it means only one
thing. The death camps of the Nazis. The point that such a
comparison is so illegitimate as to be surreal is valid.
The TDS is strong with Alan.
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
Juho Julkunen
2019-07-08 01:16:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Johnny1A
I recently reread _Cities In Flight_ by James Blish, and was
struck by how prescient a few of Blish's technologies were.
At one point in one of the stories (written in the early 60s)
the protagonist queries the city's library computer system about
a subject. The machine answers his question, but it also serves
up a list of 'related topics', in much the same way search
algorithms often work (or are supposed to work) on the Internet.
The machine and the terminal are not like ours, but they work
remarkably like it.
Not as prescient as Murray Leinster's "A Logic Named Joe," but
yeah. Blish also accuratenly predicted that as the decades passed,
the US and the Soviets would become more and more like each other.
Thank goodness that the USA does not have a gulag. Yet.
But you do have an impressive prison population, occasionally used as a
workforce.
--
Juho Julkunen
Lynn McGuire
2019-07-08 18:40:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Juho Julkunen
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Johnny1A
I recently reread _Cities In Flight_ by James Blish, and was
struck by how prescient a few of Blish's technologies were.
At one point in one of the stories (written in the early 60s)
the protagonist queries the city's library computer system about
a subject. The machine answers his question, but it also serves
up a list of 'related topics', in much the same way search
algorithms often work (or are supposed to work) on the Internet.
The machine and the terminal are not like ours, but they work
remarkably like it.
Not as prescient as Murray Leinster's "A Logic Named Joe," but
yeah. Blish also accuratenly predicted that as the decades passed,
the US and the Soviets would become more and more like each other.
Thank goodness that the USA does not have a gulag. Yet.
But you do have an impressive prison population, occasionally used as a
workforce.
The War on Drugs (tm) has been a disaster to a certain portion of the
population.

Lynn
Dimensional Traveler
2019-07-08 23:17:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Juho Julkunen
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Johnny1A
I recently reread _Cities In Flight_ by James Blish, and was
struck by how prescient a few of Blish's technologies were.
At one point in one of the stories (written in the early 60s)
the protagonist queries the city's library computer system about
a subject.  The machine answers his question, but it also serves
up a list of 'related topics', in much the same way search
algorithms often work (or are supposed to work) on the Internet.
   The machine and the terminal are not like ours, but they work
remarkably like it.
Not as prescient as Murray Leinster's "A Logic Named Joe," but
yeah. Blish also accuratenly predicted that as the decades passed,
the US and the Soviets would become more and more like each other.
Thank goodness that the USA does not have a gulag.  Yet.
But you do have an impressive prison population, occasionally used as a
workforce.
The War on Drugs (tm) has been a disaster to a certain portion of the
population.
Enough so that some question if that is unintentional.
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2019-07-08 23:39:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Juho Julkunen
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Johnny1A
I recently reread _Cities In Flight_ by James Blish, and
was struck by how prescient a few of Blish's technologies
were.
At one point in one of the stories (written in the early
60s) the protagonist queries the city's library computer
system about a subject.  The machine answers his question,
but it also serves up a list of 'related topics', in much
the same way search algorithms often work (or are supposed
to work) on the Internet.    The machine and the terminal
are not like ours, but they work remarkably like it.
Not as prescient as Murray Leinster's "A Logic Named Joe,"
but yeah. Blish also accuratenly predicted that as the
decades passed, the US and the Soviets would become more and
more like each other.
Thank goodness that the USA does not have a gulag.  Yet.
But you do have an impressive prison population, occasionally
used as a workforce.
The War on Drugs (tm) has been a disaster to a certain portion
of the population.
Enough so that some question if that is unintentional.
According to some, math is racist. If you look hard enough, you'll
always find what you're looking for. Whether it's there or not.
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
Alan Baker
2019-07-09 00:14:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Juho Julkunen
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Johnny1A
I recently reread _Cities In Flight_ by James Blish, and
was struck by how prescient a few of Blish's technologies
were.
At one point in one of the stories (written in the early
60s) the protagonist queries the city's library computer
system about a subject.  The machine answers his question,
but it also serves up a list of 'related topics', in much
the same way search algorithms often work (or are supposed
to work) on the Internet.    The machine and the terminal
are not like ours, but they work remarkably like it.
Not as prescient as Murray Leinster's "A Logic Named Joe,"
but yeah. Blish also accuratenly predicted that as the
decades passed, the US and the Soviets would become more and
more like each other.
Thank goodness that the USA does not have a gulag.  Yet.
But you do have an impressive prison population, occasionally
used as a workforce.
The War on Drugs (tm) has been a disaster to a certain portion
of the population.
Enough so that some question if that is unintentional.
According to some, math is racist. If you look hard enough, you'll
always find what you're looking for. Whether it's there or not.
An utterly meaningless reply...
Titus G
2019-07-10 05:54:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Juho Julkunen
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Johnny1A
I recently reread _Cities In Flight_ by James Blish, and
was struck by how prescient a few of Blish's technologies
were.
At one point in one of the stories (written in the early
60s) the protagonist queries the city's library computer
system about a subject.  The machine answers his question,
but it also serves up a list of 'related topics', in much
the same way search algorithms often work (or are supposed
to work) on the Internet.    The machine and the terminal
are not like ours, but they work remarkably like it.
Not as prescient as Murray Leinster's "A Logic Named Joe,"
but yeah. Blish also accuratenly predicted that as the
decades passed, the US and the Soviets would become more and
more like each other.
Thank goodness that the USA does not have a gulag.  Yet.
But you do have an impressive prison population, occasionally
used as a workforce.
The War on Drugs (tm) has been a disaster to a certain portion
of the population.
Enough so that some question if that is unintentional.
According to some, math is racist. If you look hard enough, you'll
always find what you're looking for. Whether it's there or not.
.
Mathamphetamine or Oxycounting?
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
2019-07-08 22:27:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Johnny1A
I recently reread _Cities In Flight_ by James Blish, and was
struck by how prescient a few of Blish's technologies were.
At one point in one of the stories (written in the early 60s)
the protagonist queries the city's library computer system about
a subject. The machine answers his question, but it also serves
up a list of 'related topics', in much the same way search
algorithms often work (or are supposed to work) on the Internet.
The machine and the terminal are not like ours, but they work
remarkably like it.
Not as prescient as Murray Leinster's "A Logic Named Joe," but
yeah. Blish also accuratenly predicted that as the decades passed,
the US and the Soviets would become more and more like each other.
And even "A Logic Named Joe" was predated by "As We May Think" by
Vannevar Bush.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.dreamwidth.org
p***@hotmail.com
2019-07-09 04:17:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Johnny1A
I recently reread _Cities In Flight_ by James Blish, and was struck by how prescient a few of Blish's technologies were.
At one point in one of the stories (written in the early 60s) the protagonist queries the city's library computer system about a subject. The machine answers his question, but it also serves up a list of 'related topics', in much the same way search algorithms often work (or are supposed to work) on the Internet. The machine and the terminal are not like ours, but they work remarkably like it.
Now that you point it out, it does remind me of Amazon:

"People who asked about naturally occurring anti-agathics also asked
about the lost city."

Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist
Johnny1A
2019-07-15 05:41:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by Johnny1A
I recently reread _Cities In Flight_ by James Blish, and was struck by how prescient a few of Blish's technologies were.
At one point in one of the stories (written in the early 60s) the protagonist queries the city's library computer system about a subject. The machine answers his question, but it also serves up a list of 'related topics', in much the same way search algorithms often work (or are supposed to work) on the Internet. The machine and the terminal are not like ours, but they work remarkably like it.
"People who asked about naturally occurring anti-agathics also asked
about the lost city."
Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist
Not only that, but Blish also foresaw the phenomenon of 'search caution', that is, his character is hesitant to ask the machines directly about his actual interest, because he knows that the search will be recorded and might attract official attention (since he _thought_ he was asking about something potentially clandestine). So he tried to phrase his question to the 'search engine' of the city computers indirectly and safely.
Loading...