 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: I wouldn't have handed him over either. posted by Ears on April 25, 2000 at 00:53:39:
seeing how his current wife's kid is still in cuba, along with his mother, I don't think juan will be asking for asylum regardless. and he's still the kid's father, no matter what country he comes from, no matter what his political beliefs are, no matter how he may or may not be used by castro or reno or hitler or herod, he's still the kid's father.
I wasn't as accurate as I would have wished in my earlier message. I haven't been able to find a reference in Cuban law that says that children are possessions of the State in those words. It was actually a Cuban government spokesman who said that Elian is a possession of the Cuban government. However, the Code of Children and Young Persons makes it clear that Juan Gonzales has no parental rights in Cuba. But we already knew that, didn't we? I ran across a message while reading about the Elian saga which puts forward my views and feelings about the matter far more eloquently than I could myself. I hope the guy that posted it won't mind my copying it over to here:***[Herman Jacobs, University of Chicago] If only life were simple--and not so tragic.
Whether it would be best for a boy to live with his father, but without freedom, or to live in freedom, but without his father, is a horribly tragic question, but not a simple one.By my point of view parental "rights" are really parental "duties," because those "rights" exist not for the parent's benefit but because we wisely recognize that it is almost always better for children in the long run if the persons most closely attached to them by blood, affection, and proximity make the decisions about their upbringing. This is almost always better, but not always better. Governments rightly intervene when an assertion of parental "rights" threatens serious and lasting harm to a child.
I personally think the question of Elian's father's capacity to make this decision freely deserves a more thorough consideration than was given in the INS "investigation," which was completely lacking in any due-process protections for Elian, protections such as the right to confront and cross-examine under oath the witnesses whose testimony presumably formed the basis of the INS decision. The present indications are that Elian's father wants to be a good parent, yet the question still remains whether the conditions in Cuba, along with the conditions peculiar to Elian's situation, will allow Elian's father to be the good parent he seems to want to be. This is not, as some would have it, merely a political contest about "ideology," because in Cuba Castro's "ideology" has grave consequences in the lives of ordinary people. Putting the matter in more extreme terms, I would say that if a man is trapped in a burning house, no parental right requires that his son, who has escaped the blaze, be sent back into the flames "to be with his father," even if that is what the father wishes. Perhaps comparing Castro's Cuba to a buring house is excessive; perhaps it reflects an anti-Castro bias; but perhaps there is some truth in the comparison that must be taken into account.
So those who are to decide whether Elian should be sent to his father must ask, Can Elian's father now protect him from the very real threat of Castro's oppression? This question deserves especially serious thought because, if the child is returned to Cuba--so long as Castro or someone like him is in power--Elian will not be able to enjoy even the shred of security and freedom that ordinary Cubans retain solely by virtue of their obscurity and anonymity. Though regretable, this "politicization" of Elian is an accomplished fact which cannot be undone and which must be considered. Perhaps if this situation has been handled more discreetly and with less fanfare on both sides, it would have been more clearly appropriate to return Elian to whatever constitutes a "normal" life in Cuba. But now that Elian has become such a cause celebre both here and in Cuba, if the boy returns to Cuba, don't you suppose that Castro will take special "care" to make sure that Elian does not become a propaganda embarrassment? What might Castro do if, at ten years of age, he begins to show any sign of "counter-revolutionary" thinking? What might happen if Elian--declared a "hero of the revolution" the day he returns to Cuba--eight years later were to announce that he wished he could live in freedom? Don't you suppose Castro will keep Elian under particularly intense scrutiny to make sure that doesn't happen? If you think such questions are merely hypothetical and reflect an anti-Castro bias, perhaps you should read what orginizations such as Human Rights Watch have written lately about the pervasiveness of Castro's repressive machinary. Then consider how that machinary might be brought to bear particularly against Elian to keep him under control--even while he is yet a child--not to mention when he becomes an adult.Perhaps you should also make yourself familiar with what Cuban law has to say about the relationships of parents, children, and the state. Under Cuban law, the state--not the parent--has complete authority over children's upbringing. Wouldn't it be ironic if the US government--in deference to parental "rights" which Cuba does not recognize--would not even allow a court to examine what might be in Elian's best interests. It is a curious and faulty logic to say that, in order to uphold the principle of parental rights, the US government must honor Elian's father's parental rights, when Cuban law says Elian's father has no parental rights. The INS is attempting to recognize an exercise of rights which the Cuban government simply does not allow Elian's father to exercise. So though Elian's father may be ENTITLED under US law to exercise parental rights, the ACTUAL exercise of those rights cannot occur so long as Elian's father is subject to Cuban law. Simply put, where Cuban law prevents the actual exercise of parental rights, the US should not feel constrained to honor the form of an exercise of parental rights when the substance of the exercise of those rights is lacking--especially when the putative exercise of parental rights threatens the long term best interests of the child. I, too, believe in upholding the general principle of non-intervention into exercises of parental rights (understood more precisely as exercises of parental duties). But when the actual substance of the exercise of parental rights is only a fiction, we should not sacrifice the goal of parental rights--the goal of serving the child's best interests--in order to uphold the mere form of parental rights.
I do not suggest that the United States government begin to inquire and intervene into the relationships of all parents and children, foreign or citizen, who happen to be within our country's boundaries. Such intrusion would be unwise and unjust. However, the moral rule, if you will, is different because of the fact that Elian arrived on our shores without a parent at his side. When a lost child comes into one's care, one has a moral obligation greater than simply to return the child unquestioningly to the circumstances whence he came. Our government has partly fulfilled that moral duty by inquiring into the whereabouts and circumstances of Elian's father. However, because the political conditions in Cuba will not be neutral factors in Elian's future, but will be peculiarly signifigant in his particular circumstances, we are morally obliged to consider how those political conditions are likely to affect him not only now, but for the rest of his life.
The very sad question really is freedom versus family. That is a tragic question, one that no one should ever have to face, but one that must be dealt with now. Just as we take account of the father-son bond, so also must we try to take account of the value of freedom for a full human life. And since Elian will be a child only twelve more years, but will--God willing--live as an adult another fifty years, we must not carelessly condemn Elian to what might be an entire life without freedom. Even if we could be sure that Elian could live a contented childhood in Cuba, it is wrong to say, "Let the childhood be contented, and let the adulthood take care of itself." All good parents pray that the joys and blessings proper to childhood be fulfilled in their offspring, yet they also know that childhood is not an end in itself, but serves by nature as preparation for a fully developed adulthood. A fit parent considers not only what will make a child content in the brief span of his childhood, much less what the parent wants for himself, but more especially what will be best for the person's entire life. A boy needs his father--but the boy will very soon grow into a man, and a man needs his freedom.***
Herman Jacobs is so obviously wrong I don't know where to start. Let's just pick on one of the more obviously rediculous statements:"What might Castro do if, at ten years of age, he begins to show any sign of "counter-revolutionary" thinking? What might happen if Elian--declared a "hero of the revolution" the day he returns to Cuba--eight years later were to announce that he wished he could live in freedom? Don't you suppose Castro will keep Elian under particularly intense scrutiny to make sure that doesn't happen?"
What might Castro do, if he's still alive two, four, six, or eight years from now? I suppose he might be pissing his pants at the very least, foaming black puss from his tobacco-stained lips, looking under every bed for his friend Nikita who promised to send him a Cadillac if he let the Russians put nukes aimed at Washington in the corners of every sugarcane and tobacco field. Kennedy is dead Mr. Jacobs, so is "shoeless" Nicky K. Castro is a ghost. The cold war is over. Mr. Jacobs, where do you get your crackpot ideas? Have you listened to Castro's speaches lately? The man is gone, finished, kaput. He's as good as dead. Revolution will be in all the papers any day now. Generals will be fighting over a sinking ship, and Castro denounced as a trator. Things will get bad, and then better. Have some hope and faith in the almighty dollar! In God we trust, all others pay cash! Cuba died the day the Russians stopped shipping oil and the German tourists started flocking in with their Deutschmarks. Cuba has been bleeding citizens for many years now--it's only a prison insomuch as the United States is doing whatever we can to keep them from arriving safely on our shores. We should be sending cruse ships to pick them up. America needs these people more than ever. They are, after all, North Americans like us! Wake up! There are no Communists playing dominoes in your closet! Juan Gonzalez was positioned in exactly the right place to capitalize on the new Cuban economy. Mr. Jacobs want's us to believe in his gross generalizations that everyone in Cuba lives exactly the same life. He's spouting Castro's communist propaganda better than Castro ever did. It just ain't so, and it never has been. Many people suffer wretched deprivations--just as many do in the United States. Which is worse--to be destitute and free, living over a steam vent in Philadelphia with a wicked crack habit or hopeless alcoholism, or the same situation in Havanna? Suffering doesn't care about a political agenda. What can we say about the future Elian might see in Cuba? Well, let's take a look at what he faces in Miami:
The man who owns the house he's staying in is a convicted drunk driver, who told the TV cameras that Elian would have to be taken by force and that he had a pistol to back him up. At least two of the Miami relatives seen with the boy are felons convicted of crimes with weapons. Yesterday the Miami relatives told the press that they had "removed all the weapons from the house" before the INS arrived. Whew! I feel safe, how about you? The boy is seen at 1 AM making a video tape, quite obviously as a propaganda tactic to support the motives of his captors--opps--relatives. These same relatives have created a complete fantasy life around the child--placating him with toys, excursions to Disney World (yea, that's real)and attentions that they can't possibly maintain, and keeping him from all of the people and routines that have had real meaning to him all of his life. I don't know what the motivations of these relatives are, but I have little doubt about the other players:
Who is the Governor of Florida? Hum...who could it be? I wonder if it's the brother of the Cocaine-smoking, party-animal, Governor of Texas, a presidential candidate of a political party long known to do anything, no dirty trick too abhorant, to win an election? Humm--and the Mayor of Miami? I don't suppose he has any political ambitions that might prompt him to cower to the Cuban ex-patriots? Heck no, even though he told his police force to make sure they don't push the crowds too far back--so they can easily be seen by the media and are certain to interfere with any attempt by Janet Reno to collect the boy herself--unarmed, which she would have done had it not been for the intelligence--once again received from the Mayor's police force, the there were guns in the crowds... and Majority leader Trent Lott, Castro's right-hand man, leader of--you know, the party that openly encourages US citizens to ignore the Census, the Census ordered by our Constitution--an illegal act subject to criminal penalties? Well hell, I know Castro must be worse than that! I mean, as bad as these politicians are, we know Castro is worse--isn't he?
Well is he? Hey, has anyone seen him lately? Is he alive today? And if he is, and the Gonzalez family decides to return to Cuba, is it likely that the Castro regeme will begin a campaign to repress the boy and his family and friends and teachers? Is that probable? Is it logical? Is there a chance in Hell that that will happen? That's what Mr. Jacobs proposes--at least that's his propaganda campaign. And who does Mr. Jacobs report to?
Yea, it's the Miami relatives, and the Republican Party that are conducting a "re-education" campaign against the boy--not Castro. They are the mind-washers and truth-spinners we have to fear. "Oh my God! The photographs are being brainwashed and injected with Heroin by Janet Reno!" Give me a break! The boy is back with his father, and the evil Janet Reno and her storm troopers have reunited the boy with his schoolmates and teacher from Cuba--to begin the slow process of re-grounding the kid in reality, and allowing him a chance to recognize and cope with his horrific ordeal, and learn that in quiet times, the people who really love and care about you will be realized.
The Republicans have everything to lose by letting this family alone, and letting the legal process work without the interference of political ambitions. The Miami relatives mean well, but have stupidly let themselves be influenced by forces way beyond their ability to control or even comprehend. Castro may be a bad man, but he's on his way out. The Hate Campaign and devisive politics of the Republicans is just beginning. Who can't see this? Who among us is so politically nieve to think that the Republican Party doesn't have an interest in aiding and abetting the slander and corruption of the Clinton administration, Janet Reno's Justice department, and anyone who stands in their way? Herman Jacobs is an idiot, his motives are transparent.
Let me look into my crystal, and forecast a future for Cuba: by this summer, Castro is gone. There's a brief power struggle, but a consortium of the Mafia, a few far-sighted Fortune 500 companies, and some international Drug Kingpins make a deal with a young, emerging Cuban power group, and soon Resort Casinos, and high value-added production facilities--pharmaceutical companies and chip-makers, begin a building boom that can exploit the cheap, skilled-labor market 90 miles from our shores. Who's going to build our HDTVs? Mexico had better shape-up. It's a brave new world out there. Jesse Helms wants Daimler-Chrysler and Toyota to build SUV's in North Carlolina, not Cuba, so he does whatever he can to screw the pooch. Wake up! We have seen the enemy, and he is us.
Let the past be past. Let's make a vision quest. What kind of world do we want to live in? What kind of people are on the school board in your own community? Leave the poor kid alone. George Bush and Al Gore think you are stupid. If you don't vote in your local elections--your mayors, your township supervisors, your school boards, you've proved them right. The national elections are a done deal--bought and paid for. What's going on in your hometown? Who cares about Cuba? We are the ones suffering ignorance and oppression. Physician, heal thyself.
Seize the day! Put no trust in the morrow. --Horace
***What might Castro do, if he's still alive two, four, six, or eight years from now? ***What might he do? Let's look at what he does do. And let's not forget that Elian is not the only child enmeshed in the sorry situation. The daughter of one of the survivors of that fateful ocean voyage remains in Cuba, but no longer attends school. Why? Because she was beaten daily by her indocrinated little "playmates" acting under the encouragement of her indoctrinated "teachers". Her crime? Refusing to condemn her mother for leaving Castro's island utopia.
***Have you listened to Castro's speaches lately? ***
I saw part of the speech he gave several days ago. Looks like a tough old codger with several years still left in him to me.
***Is he alive today? And if he is, and the Gonzalez family decides to return to Cuba, is it likely that the Castro regeme will begin a campaign to repress the boy and his family and friends and teachers?***
See above.
***Which is worse--to be destitute and free...or the same situation in Havanna?***
Gee, let me ponder that a nanosecond. Um...er...the first one?
***Yesterday the Miami relatives told the press that they had "removed all the weapons from the house" before the INS arrived. Whew! I feel safe, how about you? The boy is seen at 1 AM making a video tape, quite obviously as a propaganda tactic to support the motives of his captors--opps--relatives. These same relatives have created a complete fantasy life around the child***
You want to talk about fantasy? The "good" Congressman Jose Serrano D-NY when asked by Chris Matthews during a television interview if there is freedom of speech in Cuba replied "Sure". Whew! I feel safe, how about you?
***Let me look into my crystal, and forecast a future for Cuba: by this summer, Castro is gone.***
Your crystal ball must be better than mine. All I can get on mine are reruns of Gilligan's Island not Castro's.
***Herman Jacobs is an idiot, his motives are transparent.***
I'm half in agreement with you. The second half of your statement is true. And on that note of agreement, I'll shut up and let the board get back to discussing on-topic things of greater importance--like how much Jar Jar Binks sucks.
###***Which is worse--to be destitute and free...or the same situation in Havanna?***Gee, let me ponder that a nanosecond. Um...er...the first one?###
I meant the second one. The sarcasm drifted a little off course, but you get my drift.
the illegitimate child of Janet Reno and Slick Willie Clinton!
hi,
it means 'against the man' and refers to an improper use of argumentation. Which is what you did there. Perhaps you could find something worth saying?
Who's arguing? I was merely making an observation relating to petew's rantings which were totally off the wall and uncalled for. If you wish to defend the spewing of that kind of trash, you most certainly have that right. On the other hand, I have the right to express my opinion on the matter. IMO, what I said was well worth saying.
Pete made a long post, that had many points to it. You responded with a crude insult. The post was definitely not trash. Trash is stuff that serves no purpose; like insults.
My point is this: if you have a point, then make it. I disagree with Pete most of the time. When i respond, i make my case;
and leave it at that.
The "insult" was not crude, but very succint and cleverly stated I might add. And, for your benefit, many times insults DO serve a very real purpose (as in this case). I have made my point, I don't see how it could be clearer?
Just wanted to add one minor point. Reading the "Constitutions" from countries like Cuba, USSR, China is one strange excercise. I have not read Mein Kampf, but I presume the Cuban constitution is far more hypocrytical. I regret not saving a copy of the Stalin's one. One would read it with watery eyes and it feels like a fairy tale.One would be completely foolish to believe ANY word from ANY official source in Cuba. When it comes to lying, they wrote the book. Yes, it is called "constitution".
... the separation of Church & state in the former soviet constitution?I still don't know when exactly we adopted their constitution which still wells up my eyes but no one can deny we have. Nor, can they deny we adopted Hitler's policy of no smoking in public buildings. Or, the forewarned Orwellian nightmare if one started using the SS# for general identification purposes. The system's been so distorted, I'm sure they'll FDA will start taxing twinkies next.
Remember when seatbelts were inflicted on the auto industry & they said they'd NEVER require us to use them? People like us didn't believe them then & were called conspiracy theorists for their trouble & we don't believe them now!
How long do you think it'll be before the state starts arresting parents on child abuse charges because they choose to smoke cigarettes in their homes? Even though no existing proof on second hand smoke exists yet. I still like the one about the statistical increase in stewardesses coming down with more lung cancer since they banned smoking!!!! Or, nicotine has been sited as a statistically major deterrent to Alzheimer's disease!!! That must appall C. Evert Cooper to no end.
OTOH, the same bunch of hypocrites want to legalize marijuana which enormously more carcinogenic & much more dangerous drug than alcohol for driving purposes (I've witnessed one joint completely screwing up the judgement of those driving where as one beer can only mildly slow down one's reactions slightly).
hi Mart,
1) the evidence on damage by second hand smoke grows. For most,
when the link between damage to fetal development and smoking (even secondhand) became well established, the argument was over. Unless you are asserting you have a right to cause harm to other people?
2) Maine taxes Twinkies. It started a mini tax revolt, and it is going away.
3) The publicly stated purpose of the Traffic Safety people is... safety! There has been a steady decrease in fatalities largely thanks to their efforts. On their behalf, let me say you're welcome.
4) The use of the word 'proof' is improper. There is a growing body of evidence linking second hand smoke to health risks. Among scientists this is almost to the stage i like to refer to as: 'controversial as mud'.
5) Thank you for the insult, it's nice to know where you stand.
6) Drug policy in this country is a disaster. Another legacy of RMN. There is an impressive body of work on the subject, from economic analyses, to polemics. Let me refer you to "Ain't nobody's business if you do: The absurdity of consensual crimes in a free society" by Peter McWilliams. I have no intention of even synopsing
the dozens of papers, and books, i have read on the subject; but that
is a remarkable book.
7) You have probably never listened to Dr Koop speak of what he did, why, and how he did it as Surgeon General. Not only does it make a good story; but my respect for the man became enormous. He did
this country a great service. You know how a penny doubled every day
becames a million? Substitute dead bodies for pennies, and you have a good start on what epidemiology is about, and why hundreds of thousands of Americans owe their lives to him.
8) you are better than this, Mart.
I don't smoke. I just don't want people telling me I have to stand outside to talk to my friends. It's ludicrous!
1) the evidence on damage by second hand smoke grows. For most,
when the link between damage to fetal development and smoking (even secondhand) became well established, the argument was over. Unless you are asserting you have a right to cause harm to other people?So, are you saying you WOULD arrest parents for smoking?
2) Maine taxes Twinkies. It started a mini tax revolt, and it is going away.
Please tell me you're kidding. I wasn't expecting this level of tyranny for another decade. The left is ahead of schedule!
3) The publicly stated purpose of the Traffic Safety people is... safety! There has been a steady decrease in fatalities largely thanks to their efforts. On their behalf, let me say you're welcome.
There has been many an unconstitutional law imposed on the masses under the guise of safety. If that's the punishment for living, let me die free instead.
4) The use of the word 'proof' is improper. There is a growing body of evidence linking second hand smoke to health risks. Among scientists this is almost to the stage i like to refer to as: 'controversial as mud'.
Proof is completely valid where their is an overwhelming statistical evidence from laboratory experiments. Don't forget the great unwashed also believes "global warming" is just as controversial as mud, but its hasn't been substantiated either. Much like cholesterol, it has only been successfully linked to strokes if the count is too low, but the complete lack of facts didn't stop its adoption.
5) Thank you for the insult, it's nice to know where you stand.
I'm sorry if the "term" wasn't appropriate for you. I was addressing the people who want to ban tobacco, but legalize marijuana which has been proven to be worse in every category. It's insane!
6) Drug policy in this country is a disaster. Another legacy of RMN. There is an impressive body of work on the subject, from economic analyses, to polemics. Let me refer you to "Ain't nobody's business if you do: The absurdity of consensual crimes in a free society" by Peter McWilliams. I have no intention of even synopsing
the dozens of papers, and books, i have read on the subject; but that
is a remarkable book.
I agree the lack of any drug policy lately has been an unmitigated disaster. Let's make one before we turn into another Holland where they lost their next generation to drugs.
7) You have probably never listened to Dr Koop speak of what he did, why, and how he did it as Surgeon General. Not only does it make a good story; but my respect for the man became enormous. He did
this country a great service. You know how a penny doubled every day
becames a million? Substitute dead bodies for pennies, and you have a good start on what epidemiology is about, and why hundreds of thousands of Americans owe their lives to him.
I've only listened to Dr. Koop which partially explains why I mispelled it. However, I haven't heard C.E.Koop espouse these facts. I did hear him say it warranted looking into it as well as other theories, which means precisely nada.
However, to hear him speak about possible fetal damage while proposing the child's cruel & unusual execution as proper prenatal care, denies his credibility.
8) you are better than this, Mart.
Thanks, I believe you are too
just my 2¢
» Mart £ «
1) the question related to the right, and not the deed; ie, you dodged
the question.
2) the Parental issue: govt involvement in parent's conduct vis a vis the care of children has been another disaster. We can agree there. But it another dodge. If your rights have limits, then some accomadation must be reached. Perhaps pregnant women should wait in the snow?
3)Snack Tax was passed by a REPUBLICAN
4)You use statistics to get correlations, not proof. You can prove precisely squat with statistics
5)Global Warming- scientists (that is guys in their area of expertise)
determine what their discipline will consider. Global Warming has been gaining ground for decades. Try reading Sci. Am. once in a while.
6) If you make allowance for the natural exaggeration of your discourse, i am one of those people. Criminalisation of drug use is
the root cause of the diaster. We lack the common sense of Americans during Prohibition. They saw crooks, booze, and machine guns and came up with a sensible response to the situation. They were soooo radical.
Tobacco has already been covered. There was a particularly good
English study published last year on effects of 2nd hand smoke on fetal dev. (Sci AM)
7) Mart, it is kinda obvious the history, and implications, of the whole aids thing was something you missed. He got an effective policy out of drooling idiots. Had he not done so, well, take a look at the progress of the disease in Africa. Without an effective response, the suffering, and death, is in the millions. Millions.
8)Conservatism, meaning to conserve. Roman law is often described as
having been intended to conserve property. Which leaves a simple questions unasked: whose? The Treaty of Agincourt, which expanded
on the idea of a freedom from govt action without just cause, is the same. The answer, of course, is dear old Dad. This idea is the historical root of conservatism. Without that protection, no other
right or freedom can exist; you always exist at the whim of the govt.
Any abridgement, prior to the establishment of just cause, represents
a violation. The goal of giving Elian a better life is laudable.
But the cost is too high. And that is before you add the emotional cost of denying the child the remaining shreds of his family.
1) Do I have the right to inflicit anyone? NO! Do they? NO! Will they accomodate smokers? Only by placing them in front of a firing squad for that IS the general concensus of the non-smoking populus. Don't forget that they're the only ones with rights here. If you don't believe me, talk to some. We used to have a designated area inside but that was revoked. It is now in the middle of a parking lot 2 lots away as dictated by the Feds. They make survivalists sound rational. What's worse is the main agitant at the job chose to work at an old leaky X-ray diffraction machine. And, she does prefer the pregnant smokers in the snow, but then she's from mainland China who believes China freed Tibetans by siezing their self determination.2) 'Twas not I who dodged. That was precisely the point I initiated. I just chose to redirect you back to the question you dodged for that WILL be the question.
3) Don't tell me Vermont style conservatism infected the whole New England. What's New Hampshire's motto now? Live enslaved or die?
4) Good thing we don't use that theory with our equipment at work, we wouldn't be able to predict any laws.
5) I tried reading Sci.Am. but it was too funny to read in a single sitting. My eyes kept watering which prevented further reading. The flagrant use of circular logic was hysterical. I prefer IEEE & ASME, for serious thought provoking articles. Can you recommend a serious unbiased magazine for the natural sciences? Thanks!
6) The problem with prohibition wasn't the law, nor the way they went about it. It was the indecisive implementation. It's like changing your children's bedtime every night. Would they take you seriously even if you occassionally enforced it? That's precisely the disaster we see today. When enforced constantly & consistantly it works wonders. Then, there's today.
7) I know about the AIDS/GRID situation. But, that's yet another dodge.
8) Let us not forget liberal used to mean to free. Now it means to enslave. "The power to tax, is the power to destroy" This I'm sure with which you'd agree. Now, that we suffered all the slings & arrows to create a felxible budget, the liberals want to raise taxes for even more spending despite the contrary advice of Alan Greenspan. Whereas the GOP took full note of his advice & chose to pay down the debt as much as the DNC would allow & send the rest back to re-empower the public with their own money before either side decided to bribe us with our own money. As one who only sees 55% of my $60K gross, I'd appreciate even a couple more percentage points.
just my 2¢
» Mart £ «
1) I tried to parse that, and make a response. What is it, as policy, that you would do differently?
4) Statistics is not logic
5a) My experience has been that when you research a field with a political purpose; you come away unsatisfied. In the case of global warming, the theory has stood up to a relentless attack. The question
at this point is as much political as scientific. At what point do you say the body of work is persuasive; and that we need to respond. I do not have the expertise to answer that. Having said that, i can suggest
a threshold. When the midwest turns from farmland to desert, you can safely say the shit has hit the fan.
6) I am sorry that their level of enforcement did not meet your standards. We have placed a few million people in jail, and it simply has not worked. Low levels, high levels, as i said in an earlier post to you there is only one effective strategy. The Chinese shot drug users, and dealers, on sight. That worked.
All i am i interested in is what works. Creating a more effective approach requires a significant change. So, what would you do differently?
7) Dodge? You insulted the Doctor, i defended. I went out of my way
to do so. In my book a man that can save thousands is a hero.
8) In my lifetime, 3 presidents have cut the budget more than a token amount. Ike, Carter, and Clinton. After the 80's, the idea that Republicans are fiscally prudent is ahistorical in the extreme.
***As one who only sees 55% of my $60K gross, I'd appreciate even a couple more percentage points.I presume you are refering to the withholding tax. That, however, is not the end of your tax story. You and I pay much higher percentage of our income as tax (some say close to 80% or so). You keep paying tax upon tax for every product, every service that you buy. In some products the proportion of tax in the price is astronomical - I believe a gas station gets only few cents for every gallon of gas, a cigarette company only gets about 26 cents per pack. Who gets the rest of that $3 price tag? Yep, it is those who are trying to kill that industry. Actually, they are not doing this, they want it to keep going, so it would keep poroducing huge amounts of money for their benefit.
Funny thing, economics...
***The goal of giving Elian a better life is laudable.
But the cost is too high.What exactly IS that cost? Besides getting our newly found friend Fidel upset?
hi Victor,
you read the posts, Pete made the case quite well.
I can understand your sentiment, but most of the country is glad
the kid is back with the dad. Where he belongs.
I have not posted on this today for a simple reason; i have nothing to say. Still looking for a good analysis. Another reason is the very real possibility that this will go to the Supreme Court.
This looks like it just might be an interesting scrap
between the Executive, and Judicial branch. There has always been a certain fuzziness about who gets what between the two.
... that is moot point at best, albeit mindlessly populistic & completely irrelevant in a Republic, lest we succumb to the Democratic tyranny of mob rule.You're better than that. I was looking for an honest rebuttal, not spin.
just my 2¢
» Mart £ «
***hi Victor,
you read the posts, Pete made the case quite well.Sorry, can't agree with you. I thought it was intellectually offensive. I didn't read most of it.
***I can understand your sentiment, but most of the country is glad
the kid is back with the dad.I have been in minority before and that doesn't concern me. I know that most people want this. I am sorry polls play that important role nowdays. We were NOT supposed to have a democracy, but it is moving in that direction.
***Where he belongs.
I have not posted on this today for a simple reason; i have nothing to say. Still looking for a good analysis. Another reason is the very real possibility that this will go to the Supreme Court.No, I doubt it. I think it is over and done with. They effectively blocked any chance of justice in this case.
***This looks like it just might be an interesting scrap
between the Executive, and Judicial branch. There has always been a certain fuzziness about who gets what between the two.Perhaps, but not in this case any longer.
Maybe when Clinton gets his days in court after leaving office... I doubt that too. Too slick.
Here in California they have lowered the blood alcohol level to .08 for purposes of issuing citations for Driving Under the Influence (DUI). Yet it has been proven that a single dose of most over-the-counter cold medicines impair driving to a greater degree than the aforementioned .08 blood alcohol level! Hypocrisy? Hell no, just another way to raise money to pay the outlandish salaries of our state administrators and employees since we have voted down any tax increases. Moral: The government can do anything they want to satisfy their enormous appetites.
***seeing how his current wife's kid is still in cuba, along with his mother, I don't think juan will be asking for asylum regardless. and he's still the kid's father, no matter what country he comes from, no matter what his political beliefs are, no matter how he may or may not be used by castro or reno or hitler or herod, he's still the kid's father.He is, however, the US court has decided that the boy can legally request the asylum. It is supposed to be that it takes court decision to overrule the court decision, not an early morning storm trooper intrusion.
No one would have a problem with the case handles within the law. It was not.
You can't tell me the spin-mister can't out manuever Castro. He learned from the best 3 decades ago on his visit to USSR & he's only gotten better at lying since.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
