Posted 2:42 PM by Steve
Immigration

O.K. It's a issue that I need to address. I have avoided this issue for a long time because I tend to part ways with my conservative brethren on it. Economics is not a limited-sum game and the more individuals we have in the game the better. I have no problem with legal immigration. I think that those who wish to come to the United States with good intentions and the hope to create a better future for themselves (inadvertently creating a better future for America) are welcome with open arms. We all remember vividly images of Ellis Island and the inscription on the statue of liberty " 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!"

I also have experience dealing with the bureaucracy of the federal government. If I wanted to emigrate from my country to America I would be extremely frustrated by the process. I can at least sympathize with those who have good intentions but illegally immigrate to our nation without excusing their actions.

First and foremost, we are a nation of laws. Anyone who wants to come to America wants to do so for freedom. Economic freedom, political freedom, religious freedom, etc.. These are all part and parcel of the American Dream. But it must be understood that we have these freedoms because of our laws. It is the law that looks at all people equally. It is the law that protects the rich and the poor.

The streets of America are indeed paved with gold for the innovator, the visionary, the inventor. If you can can provide a good or service Americans wish to pay for, you can truly start in the streets and make it to the top. This isn't simply because the standard of living is so high in America. To be accurate, the high standard of living in America and the opportunity for the average person to make it big comes from the same source: Our economic freedom.

I use this term for a specific reason. Economic freedom. This is the ratio of the amount of revenue a person creates to the amount the government lets him keep. For instance, say I work 40 hours a week and generate $1000 on a weekly basis. The government takes a certain percentage of that $1000 because as a citizen I am responsible to reimburse the government for services provided such as schools, roads, military protection, police, legal institutions, etc.

This percentage determines my level of economic freedom. In America we have a lot of economic freedom compared to some parts of the world. We used to have much more. After WWII in the 1950's, a man could support a family with a single full time job while being a home owner and living a relatively comfortable lifestyle. The largest line-items on this man's list of expenditures were his home, products that he bought for the home and his automobile.

Today in America, after 40 years of socialist influence, the average American's single largest expenditure is local, state and federal taxes. These institutions have grown bloated and far exceeded their constitutional mandate. One of the reasons why is that we have not strictly enforced immigration laws. It has been estimated that illegal immigrants cost our nation $93,120,000,000 per year* This is an additional expense that tax paying American citizens must subsidize. This $93 Billion isn't the whole story because a majority of those illegal immigrants contribute to the economy with their labor and through various taxes, fees, etc.

That being said, it is safe to say that their presence is a net loss to our economy in the tens of billions of dollars. That is a vast economic scale for anyone to contemplate.

One of the biggest myths is that these illegals perform low-paying work that Americans wouldn't do. This is an asinine argument. If the goods or services provided by illegals are truly in demand, then the economic law of supply and demand will function. The economy abhors a vacuum. Instead of having artificially low prices for these goods and services, the market will determine exactly the actual value of these goods and services to the American consumer.

So the only solution to the problem of illegal immigration is to either enforce existing laws by whatever legal, moral and ethical means at our disposal or to change the laws to reflect our current apathetic level of vigilance. We are, after all, a nation of laws.



*Source: Office of the Governor of California

Posted 12:43 AM by Steve
SOMETIMES IT SNOWS IN APRIL...



Global warming?

Posted 2:15 PM by Steve
Here is the response from University of Texas president, William Powers, Jr. to an e-mail I sent him regarding the outrageous and hateful comments by University of Texas professor Eric Pianka:


Thank you for your message regarding Professor Eric Pianka's remarks reported in the media. Professor Pianka holds a faculty appointment in the Department of Biological Sciences at The university's Texas at Austin, but his remarks were made in his capacity as a free citizen of the United States under protection of the First Amendment ofthe U.S. Constitution. His statements reflect his personal opinion and are not endorsed by the University. I recognize that his views are controversial. Nevertheless, I hope you will understand that, while one may disagree with Professor Pianka, he is entitled by the Constitution to express his opinions. His is but a single voice in a university community that represents many points of view. Thank you for your interest in The University of Texas at Austin.Sincerely,William Powers, Jr.President


This type of response is absolute rubbish. Here is why: If Pianka had made constitutionally protected remarks "as a free citizen" at a KKK or Nazi rally, or suggested the murder of homosexuals or people of other racial or ethnic groups he would be dismissed by the University. Period.

Of course, Pianka is entitled by the constitution to express his opinions (however ridiculous they may be), but that ISN'T the issue, Mr. Powers. The issue is whether the University of Texas chooses to continue the employment of a dangerous crackpot professor instead of hold to high educational standards of integrity.

By bringing up the constitution, Powers creates a "straw man" argument, as if I am somehow suggesting Pianka's remarks were unconstitutional. I never did. He is avoiding the issue and trying to pretend as if the University has no choice in the issue. They most certainly do.

The simple fact is that it is the choice of the University to continue employment of Pianka. Let's be quite clear Pianka's comments were abhorrent and reprehensible. His hatred of the human race borders on psychopathic. To suggest that 90% of the human race should be exterminated by the Ebola virus is deplorable, repugnant, ignorant and indefensible. It is "hate speech" by any interpretation of the words.

The University and it's reputation are determined by the public's perception of the staff, faculty and students. The school should do the right thing and strongly condemn professor Pianka's comments while expunging their university of those who weaken the quality of education and embarrass the reputation of their university.

Posted 7:32 PM by Steve
Finally a freshing splash of honesty in the world of Climate science:


Some scientists also believe global warming plays a crucial role by further increasing the temperature of warm ocean waters that provide fuel to the hurricanes.

But the Colorado State University study played down the theory.
"No credible observational evidence is available or likely will be available in the next few decades which will directly associate global surface temperature change to changes in global frequency and intensity," it said.