Tuesday, December 25, 2007

Season's Greetings

Merry Christmas to all who read my blog!

31 comments:

Robin said...

Merry Christmas

Anonymous said...

Merry Christmas to you and your family!

Becky

Rick Hickey said...

Merry Christmas and a GREAT 2008!
Feliz Navidad to your lovely Wife.

Anonymous said...

A Spanish greeting on Daniel's blog? Sacre bleu!

Anonymous said...

She understands English, Rick.

Anonymous said...

wonder how long this will take to turn into a flame fest.

Merry Christmas

Anonymous said...

Ok gringito Daniel. Just like thousands of USA born immigrants, you seem to have plenty to say about immigrants born outside the USA--legal or illegal. I have heard enough about your concerns regarding public services to illegals, them taking our highly paid jobs at McDonalds, taking your plushy jobs as lawn mowers, blahablahablahablah. I will tell you where our tax dollars are being wasted. And I say OUR $$s because disgustingly enough, I pay more taxes a year than many white boys could ever think of earning in your life-time. What I find most disgusting is the fact that while you are placing focuse on illigal alians, your own people are screwing you and yours openly and right under your nose. Have you ever attended one of the thousands or meetings that take place every years within every single government agency? Let me tell you a little about those meetings. First of all, I would like to remind you all good old Oregonians that 90% (my guess) of information within the walls of any government office, is public. You might want to take the time to request copies of state employees pay status, copies of meeting minutes, copies of any thing to do with department expenditures if you wish to verify my statements. Oh, that's right! The meetings....or "social clubs" will be a more fitted term. Those meetings usually begin with the repetitious introductions although every one knows every one already, food....OH BOY, DON'T EVER FORGET THE POUNDS OF CARBS AND FATTY FOODS THOSE SLIM STATE EMPLOYEES NEED. They work so hard sitting on their nalgas all day long. In those meetings very critical subjects are discussed, extensive planning on needed changes to better public services, discussions on the additional staff they must hire in order to meet the objective of providing critical services to you and your families, and the list of items in those agendas can go on and on. What most of you legal allians to the government don't know, is that thousands of our dollars are mismanaged by inept, corrupted administrators who use meetings time only to hear themselves talk. The numerous social problems we've been hearing about since I can remember, are the same discussions taking place in government meetings every single year. So, they hire new staff as they planned last years, but the problems do not disappear. The public continues to stand in line for hours to obtain a driver's license, food stamps, cash assistance, medical, housing, business licenses, etc., no problem solved. Oooops! I'm sorry...DHS just found a solution to their ineffectiveness, they found a solution to better their system. They will bring a Californian to teach them how to do their job. This surf boy is going to come to Oregon and for 3.5million dollars, not pesos, will teach DHS how to use their time wisely. When you figure the average manager in the State of Oregon is earning some thing like $90 to $125 thousand dollars (with benefits, PERS, vacation, personal and sick leave, etc) a year, and they attend at least 6 to 7 unproductive meetings a week, each meeting lasting an average of 3 to 4 hours X 15 to 20 managers, how much of our tax dollars are warming up confference room chairs? This is not exclusive to DHS, we have the Employment Department, ODOT, Tax and Rev., Child Support, Child Care, and additionally all the so called "stakeholders" meaning hundreds of non-state agencies funded by tax-payers' dollars as well, HOW MUCH ARE YOUR DAMN LEGAL ALIANS/CITIZENS/UNETHICAL/LIERS/DECEIVERS/WHAT EVER YOU WANT TO CALL THEM, ARE MISUSING OUR HARD EARNING DOLLARS????? These are the issues you should be concerned with, not illegal alliens. Yes, I am a damn Mexican, but I am also a US Citizen. I am a damn Mexican who has been working my a.. off longer than thousands of US born citizens even contemplated getting their foot in the work force. I educated myself, I put in my time and energy, dedication and integrity to obtain a government job, and what do I see now that I'm in....HUNDREDS OF WHITE (LEGAL MAY I ADD) GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES WHO DON'T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT SCREWING YOU AND YOUR FAMILY BY MISUSING OUR TAX DOLLARS IN MEETINGS, MEETINGS, AND MORE MEETINGS IN WHICH THE SAME DAMN ISSUES THAT WERE DISCUSSED SEVEN OR EIGHT YEARS AGO, ARES STILL THE SAME ISSUES THEY ALL USE AS AN EXCUSE TO GET TOGETHER AND IMPRESS ONE ANOTHERS WITH A NEW PHRASE, A NEWLY DISCOVERED SENTENCE THEY HEARD ON T.V., OR SIMPLY SHOW OFF THEIR NEWLY ACQUIRED OUTFIT, CAR, HOUSE, etc. Those are the people you and every tax payer should be after, not the overly used subject of illigal alians. What you are all doing is shadowing the importance to "How and Who is using my tax dollars" issue by re-directing the attention to an issue that you and I will not resolve. My great-grand parents experience simmilar attacks back in the day. Leave it alone,...go after the pot of gold hiding in conference rooms withing the State of Oregon. A loyal US Citizen who earned the tittle.

Anonymous said...

She understands English...

Hey MOONDOG:

It's been a day or two since you posted...TOO COLD, ARE YOU SOUTH OF THE BORDER?

If so...stay there!!!

Anonymous said...

DEAR ANON 7:56 PM

ALIANS???????? DEAR ANON OVERPAID GOVERMENT WORKER...try, just try the spell checker!!!


"them taking our highly paid jobs at McDonalds:"

On those highly paid jobs: These wonderful hard working people couldn't pass a drug test to take what is a 30-40 thousand dollar a year job as a trucker. How do I KNOW THAT? I see them each day on the road DRIVING, those that could pass a drug test..TRY AGAIN ON THAT ONE, not to mention 12-17 dollars hour construction jobs, bank teller, jobs, salesman in retail outlets....YOU NAME IT,THEIR THERE.



many white boys : RACIST COMMENT!

illigal alians, ???? YOU TOOK A HIGHLY PAID STATE JOB, AND YOU SPELL "ILLIGAL ALIANS: like that?

No wonder the state is fucked up.


your own people are screwing you and yours openly : Yeah, well no kidding...but so are you and all your ILLEGAL COUSINS!



HOW MUCH ARE YOUR DAMN LEGAL ALIANS/CITIZENS/UNETHICAL/LIERS/DECEIVERS/WHAT EVER YOU WANT TO CALL THEM, ARE MISUSING OUR HARD EARNING DOLLARS????? :

YOU, NEED YOUR BUTT SPANKED.

You come here, you take our social services, you screw 12-15 year old kids for "anchor babies"(yeah I know, it's your culture) BS, IF IT IS...it's taking advantage of current laws to overpopulate (not good for the enviroment) you crap in our fields and water, then expect us to pay the bills for the damage it does.



go after the pot of gold hiding in conference rooms withing the State of Oregon. A loyal US Citizen who earned the tittle.



(title..moron!!!)

(title..moron!!!) (title..moron!!!)

You do have the waste part right, but you're in the middle of it, and could never blow the horn on your pardners in crime, or your illegal cousins.

I HATE TACO BELL...f/u

Anonymous said...

GOOD READING:


From: Roy Beck, President, NumbersUSA
Date: Wednesday 26DEC07 Noon EST


How well does each candidate promise to end future illegal immigration and to resist all amnesties?

FRIENDS, this is a re-send of an email I tried to get out Saturday night. But we learned that most major internet services blocked it. There are so many public disagreements about where the Presidential candidates really stand on all the immigration issues. I want all of you to have access to this best tracking of those positions. (I apologize to all of you who are getting this more than once.) -- ROY

FIRST SENT: Saturday 22DEC07 -- 7 p.m. EST

DEAR FRIENDS,

We have just updated our ratings on the 14 top Presidential candidates based on 16 immigration categories. Take a look here.

To the right in this email are how the 14 stack up in two categories:


Opposition to amnesty, plus a commitment to cause most present illegal aliens to go home over time through an Attrition Through Enforcement policy


An overall plan for preventing future illegal immigration

Please note that our ratings do NOT amount to endorsements. Nor do they convey anything about the character, the strength or any other positions about the candidates. We know that every one of these candidates has supporters among the users of NumbersUSA for a lot of different reasons.

Also note that these ratings are based on all evidence available as of 21DEC07. We will modify the ratings at any time a candidate changes position.

Our ratings are based overwhelmingly on promises and not on their actions in past political office (you can see our rating for past actions on The Grid).

I have been on the radio nationwide constantly this week, talking about these ratings. Everybody wants to know how these candidates truly stack up. We h ave received a high volume of email from many of you about our previous ratings. Many of your comments have helped us further refine our ratings for this time. To comment about this Alert or the Candidates Grid, or to request tech help, click here and fill out our Help Form.


WHAT TO DO WITH THESE RATINGS


If you are supporting one of these candidates for reasons other than immigration, please look at the deficiencies of your candidate on immigration and contact the campaign office.

You can view many details about what each candidate says on the website, in debates and to the media by clicking on the photo of that candidate at the top of the Candidates Grid.

Most of the candidates have been moving at least slowly toward our position for sensible immigration policies as the campaign has moved forward. The public is having an effect. You can push the candidates further.


COMMENTS ABOUT THE 'AMNESTY' RATINGS


Overall these are pretty disappointing. Now that Rep. Tom Tancredo has dropped out of the race, only two candidates (THOMPSON & HUNTER) are left who have vigorous and thorough enough opposition to amnesty to warrant an EXCELLENT rating.

Ron Paul still gets a GOOD rating and could get an EXCELLENT if he would make clear how he plans to handle the illegal aliens here if they don't get an amnesty. We don't find a public commitment to Attrition Through Enforcement, although we feel he probably has it.

Romney and Huckabee were earning themselves a GOOD rating just a couple of weeks ago. But both went on national TV and hemmed and hawed around amnesty questions, thoroughly c onfusing their message and raising grave doubts about their commitment to Attrition Through Enforcement as the solution for the 12-20 million illegal aliens now in our country. Both seemed defensive and more interested in being liked and thought politically correct by their media questioner than in making clear promises to the voters.

You can read their muddled statements on their Candidate Page by clicking on their photo on The Grid. If these candidates truly understood the promises they have on their websites -- and truly believed them -- they would be able to confidently respond to media questions. At the most charitable, I would say Romney and Huckabee just haven't spent enough time learning the issue.

Top staffers of the Romney and Huckabee campaigns -- like staffers of several others this month -- have been in contact with us. They have promised us that their candidates simply misspoke on these recent network shows and can truly be counted on to stand against amnesties. The staffers made fairly persuasive cases. But their candidates -- and their websites -- have not themselves made new statements that offer that persuasive case to the public. So, the final word for now on their positions has to be found in what they told Tim Russert and Chris Wallace. Perhaps after Christmas.

Hard to believe that Giuliani is in the same BAD category as John 'Amnesty King' McCain. But McCain has improved from his 'ABYSMAL' rating of last summer. He now wants to wait until a little later to reward illegal aliens with a path to citizenship. Giuliani has pretty close to the same position, although not quite as clearly stated. Interestingly, we don't find any sign that Giuliani's website even tries to say that he is opposed to amnesty.

One host of an ABC talk show in Los Angeles yesterday told me that he has been supporting Giuliani for a lot of other reasons but was fully spooked whe n he saw our immigration Grid. I told him that he and a lot of other Guiliani supporters need to scare a little sense into him on this issue.

And that is my advice for all of you who are supporting Democratic candidates for President. Because NumbersUSA is so thoroughly bi-partisan and works with so many Democratic allies in Congress, I desperately tried to find some way that I could rate at least one Democratic candidate above 'ABYSMAL' on amnesty. But so far, not a one dares step out from the pack and take the anti-amnesty position that polls show the majority of Democratic voters favor.

On one of my Iowa radio shows yesterday, I admonished Democrats in Iowa to push their candidates harder in forums. The host said Democratic voters HAVE been bringing up the issues, but the Democratic candidates just continually dance around the subject and don't get what the voters want. I'm not quite sure what to advise except to ask all of you in contact with Democratic candidates to keep trying.

Right now, all the Democratic candidates are putting themselves at a severe disadvantage to win the fall general election, according to recent polls as described in the article at the bottom of this email.


WOULDN'T YOU THINK THE RATINGS WOULD BE HIGHER FOR 'STOPPING FUTURE ILLEGAL IMMGIRATION?'


These ratings may do more than anything to show how stupid many of these candidates think voters are.

The common response of candidates when pushed on illegal immigration is that "we probably have to find a way to accommodate the undocumented people already here but we definitely need to re-establish the rule of law and stop future illegal immigration."

But only 5 of the 14 candidates of the two Parties earns an EXCELLENT or GOOD for their overall stands on immigration enforcement.

The fact is that under their current p romises, 9 of the 14 candidates -- even if they did everything they promise -- would continue to allow huge flows of illegal immigration into the country.

And, yes, one Democratic candidate -- Chris Dodd -- rates higher than the other Democrats in this category.

in this email:
Latest AMNESTY Ratings For Presidential Candidates (21DEC07)


Excellent

DUNCAN HUNTER

FRED THOMPSON
They are EXCELLENT in pledging through website and speech to oppose amnesties of all kinds for illegal aliens ... advocating Attrition Through Enforcement to cause present 12-20 million illegals to go home over time

Good

RON PAUL
Does a good job of opposing amnesties of all kinds for illegal aliens

Fair

MITT ROMNEY
Does a fair job in pledging through website & speech to oppose amnesty ... public statements create uncertainty about total opposition and about what eventually happens to the illegal aliens now here

Poor

MIKE HUCKABEE
Does a poor job of pledging clear opposition to amnesty for illegal aliens ... public statements sound like at least a portion will eventually get legalization

Bad

RUDY GIULIANI

JOHN McCAIN
While saying that enforcement measures must come first, they would allow most or large numbers of illegal aliens now here to remain and legalize their status

Abysmal

HILARY CLINTON

BARACK OBAMA

JOHN EDWARDS

BILL RICHARDSON

JOE BIDEN

CHRIS DODD

DENNIS KUCINICH
They assertively advocate for the legalization of most or all illegal aliens now here ... do not even requir e that tough enforcement measures against future illegal immigration be in place first


Latest Ratings on Promises to STOP FUTURE ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION(21DEC07)


These ratings are a composite of ratings on 8 specific illegal categories on The Grid, plus the rating on birthright citizenship

Excellent

DUNCAN HUNTER
Excellent promises to stop future illegal immigration

Good

FRED THOMPSON

MIKE HUCKABEE

MITT ROMNEY

RON PAUL
Slightly mixed promises on 9 categories amount to an overall GOOD promise to stop future illegal immigration

Fair

JOHN McCAIN

CHRIS DODD

RUDY GIULIANI
Only fair on promises to stop future illegal immigration

Poor

HILARY CLINTON

BARACK OBAMA

JOHN EDWARDS

BILL RICHARDSON

JOE BIDEN
Poor on promises to stop future illegal immigration

Bad

DENNIS KUCINICH
Bad on promises to stop future illegal immigration


actions in brief:
Congress has left town but the fax machines are still on, and skeleton staffs continue to see what voters have to say.

Please consider sending all faxes that are on your Action Buffet corkboard.
donate now:
Please click here to make any sized donation to keep this grassroots phenomenon strong and effective.

Because of widespread internet blocking of our emails this month, we still remain far below our modest monthly goal of receiving donations from just 1% of the users of the website.

At the time this email is being sent, the thermometer goes up only half way to 0.54%. When you open the email, it will reflect donations as of that moment.

For 10 straight months through November, users of the NumbersUSA website have made the 1% goal that provides the income that can support the minimum lobbying, website activism and education programs of NumbersUSA.
how to reply:
Please do not click 'Reply' button to respond to this message.

To comment about this Alert or to request tech help, click here and fill out our Help Form.

Our staff mans the Help Desk 18 hours a day.



I'm afraid these ratings may feel like lumps of coal in your Christmas stockings. But overall they are somewhat better than a few months ago.

Most of you have a presidential primary or caucus in your state sometime immediately after New Year's Day and through the first week of February. Please do what you can to pressure candidates to offer you better options.

I hope all of you have had good holidays throughout this month and wish you a Merry Christmas next week.

A lot of the fate of our nation in terms of congestion, quality of life, national unity, economic fairness, environmental stewardship and individual liberty will be determined in the next few weeks depending on which two candidates win the nomination and what their stances on immigration turn out to be.

THANKS FOR ALL YOU DO,

http://www.postbulletin.com/newsmanager/templates/localnews_story.asp?z=12&a=320504

Opinion
Immigration could be a deal breaker for voters
12/22/2007

By Peter A. Brown

It has become conventional wisdom that illegal immigration may be the type of political issue that can rile voters, but perhaps not enough to change votes. And besides, the thinking goes, people far from the border really don't care.

These skeptics about the power of the immigration issue to change votes and elections ought to think again. The focus on immigration in the TV ads blanketing Iowa should convince any doubters.

Candidates for the Republican presidential nomination are learning to read the polls -- not just the horse race numbers, but the back pages in surveys that get at voters' gut views.

Data from the nation's three most important general election swing states clearly show that not only do voters care but politicians who cross them on this issue ar e taking a serious electoral risk.

A Quinnipiac University poll released earlier this month looked at attitudes toward immigration policy in Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio, the big three battlegrounds of the Electoral College. No candidate has been elected president since 1960 without carrying two of the three.

What stands out is a consensus that cuts across party lines: Voters want immigration reform focused on stricter enforcement rather than reform that would make it easier to integrate illegal immigrants into American life. And almost a quarter of voters see immigration policy as a potential deal-breaker for them in deciding whom to support for president.

Although the issue is likely to be a bigger deal in the November election -- because in general the likely Democratic nominees are less in favor of strict enforcement than their potential Republican opponents -- it has emerged as a key part of the effort to stop former Gov. Mike Huckabee's fast-rising campaign for the GOP nomination.

Huckabee has zoomed to the top in the Iowa polls, much to the dismay of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who had been leading. Romney's campaign strategy has been built on the idea that he must win Iowa and New Hampshire to create momentum he needs in the larger states that follow. A loss in Iowa would make it very difficult for Romney to win New Hampshire and that would almost certainly doom his candidacy.

That's why Romney has come out swinging hard at Huckabee and he has decided that immigration is the former Baptist minister's Achilles heel. Romney has gone on air with commercials that focus on Huckabee's support for college scholarships for illegal immigrants and for making them eligible for the in-state tuition break available to Arkansas residents, but not U.S. citizens who live elsewhere.

Those are not positions that Huckabee has staked out as a presidential candidate; they are part of his record as governor at a time when immig ration was not the hot-button issue that it is today. Huckabee has responded with his own ads that proclaim his support for border security measures, but that do not mention the actions he took as governor -- doing so would give further credence to Romney's charges.

Huckabee and Romney understand which way the wind is blowing on the issue, even in states without large illegal immigrant populations, and that are far from the Mexican border.

The Quinnipiac survey of Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania provide the evidence for their response. Asked whether U.S. policy on the issue should primarily move in the direction of integrating illegal immigrants into American society or stricter enforcement of the laws against them, there was little difference in the three states. On average 70 percent favored stronger enforcement, 21 percent favored integrating illegal immigrants into American society.

Voters were then asked if they agreed with a presidential candidate "on other issues," but "completely disagreed on the issue of illegal immigration do you think you could still vote for that candidate or not?"

A sizable majority -- an average of 65 percent of voters in those three states -- said that they would vote for the candidate they agreed with on other issues but not on immigration. But an average of 22 percent said that illegal immigration could be a deal-breaker for them when it comes to voting for a candidate.

Of course the data mean three times as many voters don't think it is a deal-breaker than do, Yet, the sizable number who put it in that category underscore the issue's potential clout in anything resembling a close election.

Most interesting is that 27 percent of independents -- the key swing voters who decide elections -- say immigration could turn them away from a candidate, more than either Democrats or Republicans.

As we are seeing now in Iowa, immigration isn't just an issue in border states anymore.

Peter A. Brown is th e assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. Comment at news@postbulletin.com.

anon 7:23 said...

That didn't take long.

Bobkatt said...

Anon 7:56- did you miss the tons of posts about government waste and corruption on this site including the one before this one? Geeeesh.

Merry Christmas to you Daniel and all the posters on this blog.

Anonymous said...

7:56 PM
ANON:

No Bob Katt, he didn't miss it, he was to stupid to read it.

If waste is an issue, OREGON TRAIL CARDS, handed out to these people who have stolen this country.

Notice, I said HAD stolen this country, cause the truth of it..we have lost it.

Anonymous said...

Anon 648 -

When you say "We" have lost the country, who, precisely are you referring to? Moreover, to whom have you lost the country?

Furthermore, what have you lost, exactly?

Your right to vote?

Your freedom of speech?

Your right to bear arms?

Your right to privately worship as you see fit?

Bobkatt said...

Anon9:58- your right to vote?
Rigged voting machines. Ballots thrown out. Selective people not allowed to vote. Candidate for president not allowed to be in public debate. etc.

your freedom of speech?
Wire tapping. No Habeas Corpus. Hate crime legislation that criminalizes free speech. The attempt to quiet talk radio. Tased for asking a question. Minutemen not allowed to speak at "liberal" college.
your right to bear arms?
Constant attack on 2nd amendment. Constant addition of rules and regs. for gun owners.
The country is being lost by the constant attempt to establish the North American Union. The NAFTA super highway. The invasion of millions of illegals allowed and encouraged by the government and employers. The turning over of sovereignty to the U.N. through the LOST treaty, NAFTA, CAFTA, and now the global warming tax scam.
If you think that we any longer have a government run by the free American citizen you beyond all hope.

The answer, Ron Paul, back to the Constitution. Any thing else is more of the same. Globalism is the death of the American Dream.

Anonymous said...

I'm no big fan of globalization, either. But I'm also a realist, and recognize globalization as what it is: largely the result of the resounding victory of capitalist idealism over socialism, and also as something driven by forces larger than all of us, our government included, and something from which we cannot turn back.

I don't really care if the hegemony of the US is fading, or if we are moving toward some sort of an international governance structure. I don't have delusions about Americans being any better than persons who happened to be born in a different country. The United States of America is but a blip on the sweeping radar screen of human history. It will someday not exist, and I'm fine with that; it's just history running its course.

I do believe that all individuals are created equally and should have equal opportunity for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and that up this point in history, the United States has been the champion of ensuring those rights to individuals living within its borders (though at times, trampling on the rights of indivuals living outside its borders).

As the US transitions from its role as the world's superpower, to a nation on more equal footing with other nations, whatever governance structure we adopt, I hope that it will continue to put the rights of individual humans above all others.

Rick Hickey said...

Yes I know she speaks English, I was showing respect for her heritage.

Anonymous said...

The United States of America is but a blip on the sweeping radar screen of human history. It will someday not exist, and I'm fine with that; it's just history running its course.


I read this post, I read it again, and I'm convinced of one thing....WE ARE A SICK NATION, THE MENTAL ILLNESS OF LIBERALISM IS A CANCER.

You know what we do with cancer, we kill it, we cut it out, we burn it in such a fire it never appears again.

I'd love to have the money to track this SOB down...INVITE HIM OUTSIDE..into a dark area of a dim lit street, and wrap him in a Mexican flag, then .....perhaps someone would like to pickup where I left off.. I'm so pissed, I can't continue..

Anonymous said...

track me down? and then do what, tough guy?

What I meant was that the forces of globalization will alter the international scene in ways unimaginable, but not in our lifetime. It will probably change the way we think about sovereign nations. That obviously gives you great anxiety. Not me.

I also wasn't advocating for the end of the United States as a nation; I'm just saying history suggests it is not the end all-be all of national forms. I'm sure the citizens of ancient Rome or Athens could never have imagined that their "nation" would eventually not exist, but it did happen.

I guess what i was saying is that I'm not so blinded by nationalism as to take an objective look at the world (people have been on Earth for how many thousands of years? the U.S. isn't even 300 years old, thus, a rather small part of human history). Get over it...or would you rather infringe on my right to free speech by wrapping me in a Mexican flag (?) and doing what...?

Bobkatt said...

anon 12:00pm- You obviously don't comprehend that the main objective of globalization is to trample individual human rights and replace them with the centralized universal collective rights.
No one is suggesting that Americans are better than anyone else. However, I believe that the American system is designed better than any other system to guarantee individual private
rights. I support this contention by the fact that so many people want to come here and will risk their lives to do so.
As far as all individuals having an equal opportunity for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, that's up to them to demand and insure that. We can't absorb everyone in the world that wants to come here and we can't go around the world and force it on others. P.S. we don't have a stellar record of protecting the rights of various groups within this country.
I see us on the same track that guaranteed the end of other great civilizations and wish to stop or at least delay that outcome. You apparently wish to continue down this path and guarantee it.

Anonymous said...

Trickey Rickey Hickey: "showing respect for heritage?" ROTFLMAO. Now that's a new one.

Damn....that's the funniest thing I've heard all year on this blog Rick. Thanks for the memories.

ROTFLMAO.

Anonymous said...

Even SHE doesnt RESPECT her own heritage. Why bother?

Anonymous said...

Bobkatt --

"You obviously don't comprehend that the main objective of globalization is to trample individual human rights and replace them with the centralized universal collective rights."

Is this the mission statement of the official Globalization Federation? Or is this your interpretation of the "motives" of globalization? If the latter, I think it betrays a simplistic understanding of the countervailing trends inherent in the globalization phenomenon.

"However, I believe that the American system is designed better than any other system to guarantee individual private
rights."

To date, sure, I'll agree with you on that. But I think we can both agree that we've been heading in a different direction, at least since the early 1980s, and especially since 9/11. It seems we disagree about who's responsible for this. You appear fixated on what you deem the unsavory cultural influence of immigrants, especially the illegal ones. I'd rather focus on those in power - our government officials - who are complicit in the takeover of our system by powerful corporate and corporate-related interest groups. They are co-opting the democratic process. My sense is that we've lost our sense of what it means to be a beacon of democracy, and seem to assume that we can retain this role merely through rhetoric, while allowing our actions to run contrary. My sense is that other nations are becoming more genuinely democratic than us, but I don't know enough about the political processes in other countries to speak with any authority on the issue. Apparently you do.

"I support this contention by the fact that so many people want to come here and will risk their lives to do so."

Sure. I've read that immigration is the sincerest form of flattery. But insofar as this is true, we have reason to be concerned, as it is becoming increasingly apparent that the U.S. is no longer, hands down, the most desireable destination for immigrants. Sure, many still want to come here because they either have family here, or because they live in a poor nation in geographical proximity to the U.S., but all signs point to the U.S. as falling as a desired destination for immigrants. Already, the rate of immigration by high skilled persons (doctors, scientists, engineers) has plummeted. If immigration is the sincerest form of flattery, what does this say about America?

"I see us on the same track that guaranteed the end of other great civilizations and wish to stop or at least delay that outcome."

So do I, but it has nothing to do with immigration. Everyone on this blog seems obsessed to pin every perceived problem facing the country on immigration. History repeats itself like a broken record sometimes.

"You apparently wish to continue down this path and guarantee it."

No I don't. I just lose all hope when I see foolish policies such as those bandied about here gain any traction whatsoever. You act as if policies can be undertaken to "undo" globalization. Perhaps they can, but if you wanted to rapidly undo it, you would usher in the collapse of this nation, and probably the security of the world quite rapidly. More realistically, globalization can't be undone, and advocating a policy of extreme isolationism, in this day-and-age, is a non-starter (unless you're North Korea). I've seen more sensible policies that seek to mitigate the harmful and unsettling effects of globalization on workaday individuals like you and me. I would recommend "Globalization and Its Discontents" by Joseph Stiglitz.

To Anon 623 - If ever there was a threat to democracy encased in one individual it was you, wishing physical violence on me for simply expressing a prediction about the course the United States will take in the future. What is this, Pakistan?

Anonymous said...

anon 623 = Miglavs

Anonymous said...

For any of you interested in reading about globalization, and its implications for our lives, I would recommend reading Tony Judt's review of Robert Reich's (former secretary of labor) new book "Supercapitalism: The Transformation of Business, Democracy, and Everyday Life". I think it resonates with what I've been trying to argue here about globalization, and my sense that all of your energies are misplaced trying to pin all of the changes you're perceiving on immigrants.

I don't know how to do a link, but if you google "judt supercapitalism new york review of books" you will get a link.

Alternatively, copy and paste this link
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20853

Scottiebill said...

Anon 11:32 refers to a work written by Robert Reisch as some sort of reference to "global warming". One has to remember that Reisch was in the Clinton administration. I wouldn't trust any thing he writes about much of anything any more than I trust anything Clinton VP AlGore has to say or write about, especially "global warming". Neither Reisch or Gore have a degree in anything that in any way relates to this. But, yet, a lot of people are buying into this b.s. they are peddling. The next thing they will be offering up is beach-front property in Arizona.

Anonymous said...

scottiebill: dumbass

Scottiebill said...

Anon 10:15, If you want to look at a dumbass, check out your mirror in your bathroom. There you will find a true dumbass.

Anonymous said...

scottiebill - if you'd lay your knee-jerk political biases to rest just long enough to read the piece, you'd see that Judt gives the book a rather scathing review; and I agree with it wholeheartedly.

You should focus more on content, less on labels.

Anonymous said...

p.s., scottiebill - neither my post nor the tony judt review has anything to say about "global warming". It was about "globalization".

beginning to think anon1015 might be on to something...

Anonymous said...

I'm convinced 1015 is right