Prickly City Podcast 4/15/2006 - Antonio??
Dann
Reflex??? Dat you???
Antonio writes to offer the view that while he has heard of undocumented
immigrants being called "illegal aliens", he has never heard drunk
drivers called "illegal drivers"; or jaywalkers called "illegal
pedestrians"; or litterbugs called "illegal dumpers".
I'll toss out the jaywalkers charge as I've never heard of or met anyone
that has ever been charged with jaywalking.
However, we do maintain a substantial law enforcement system that covers
the other two. Drunk drivers are routinely pulled over, tested, taken to
jail, and subjected to the full might of our judicial system for doing
what they consider to be acceptable behavior. In fact they have violated
the law and therefore should not be surprised at any punishment that may
come their way.
And we do maintain an Environmental Protection Agency that does go after
polluters with a near vengeance. The several states also maintain
similar agencies that are charged with the same essential mission.
On a personal note, we once paid someone that we thought was reputable to
haul our trash to an area landfill. We were wrong. Fortunately, he was
an acquaintance of the family and couldn't very easily leave us to pick
up trash we had paid him to haul away. Had he not picked up the trash
from the vacant lot where he had dumped it, the state would have
compelled us to remove it personally. If we had failed to remove it in
what they considered a timely fashion, then they would have tacked on a
fine.
In both circumstances (drunk drivers and "litterbugs"), someone has
violated the law.
The phrase "illegal alien" is used not only because they have violated
American immigration laws, but also because certain elements in this
debate choose to use phrases like "undocumented immigrants" to minimize
the fact that the law has been broken. That phrase makes it sound like
they have just misplaced some papers. Once those papers have been
recovered, then all will be right in the world.
There most certainly ought to be a vigorous debate regarding immigration.
Certain elements of it are skewed to meet certain special interests.
[for example; an Icelandic friend of mine that couldn't get a job because
he couldn't get a green card....and he couldn't get the green card
because he didn't have a job. The system [at the time] has allowances
for domestic servants (i.e. nannies), but not for others.]
However the system may be changed, violate our immigration laws ought
result in being labeled "illegal".
--
Regards,
Dann deto...@hotmail.com
Blogging at: http://www.modempool.com/nucleardann/blogspace/blog.htm
7 Days without pizza makes one weak...
James Nicoll
Dann <deto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>I'll toss out the jaywalkers charge as I've never heard of or met anyone
>that has ever been charged with jaywalking.
>
mistake of asking "Don't they have stop lights where you are
from?" As it happened, the person in question came from a small
town in Northern Ontario and it has no stop lights (or, I think,
intersections). Of course, my friend was compelled by honesty
to answer "No", which derailed the cop. Instead of a ticket, Gerry
got a lecture on the significance of stop lights and cross walks.
--
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, Dann <deto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> The phrase "illegal alien" is used not only because they have
> violated American immigration laws, but also because certain
> elements in this debate choose to use phrases like "undocumented
> immigrants" to minimize the fact that the law has been broken. That
> phrase makes it sound like they have just misplaced some papers.
> Once those papers have been recovered, then all will be right in the
> world.
This is exactly my objection. I have conflicting feelings about
immigration in general, but I despise euphemism, and "undocumented
workers" goes far enough beyond mere euphemism that I do not shrink
from calling it what it is: a lie. In fact, lots of people who are in
the U.S. illegally have *plenty* of "documentation." Driver's
licenses, medical charts, bank statements, utility bills, police
records, (foreign) birth certificates and in many cases -- thanks to
"motor voter" -- voter registration cards.
--
_+_ From the catapult of |If anyone disagrees with any statement I make, I
_|70|___:)=}- J.D. Baldwin |am quite prepared not only to retract it, but also
\ / bal...@panix.com|to deny under oath that I ever made it. -T. Lehrer
***~~~~-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sherwood Harrington
> This week's podcast includes a letter from "Antonio".
> Reflex??? Dat you???
> Antonio writes to offer the view that while he has heard of undocumented
> immigrants being called "illegal aliens", he has never heard drunk
> drivers called "illegal drivers"; or jaywalkers called "illegal
> pedestrians"; or litterbugs called "illegal dumpers".
> I'll toss out the jaywalkers charge as I've never heard of or met anyone
> that has ever been charged with jaywalking.
> However, we do maintain a substantial law enforcement system that covers
> the other two. Drunk drivers are routinely pulled over, tested, taken to
> jail, and subjected to the full might of our judicial system for doing
> what they consider to be acceptable behavior. In fact they have violated
> the law and therefore should not be surprised at any punishment that may
> come their way.
<snip>
> The phrase "illegal alien" is used not only because they have violated
> American immigration laws, but also because certain elements in this
> debate choose to use phrases like "undocumented immigrants" to minimize
> the fact that the law has been broken. That phrase makes it sound like
> they have just misplaced some papers. Once those papers have been
> recovered, then all will be right in the world.
<snip>
> However the system may be changed, violate our immigration laws ought
> result in being labeled "illegal".
By coicidence, shortly after reading this piece by Dann, I read a
significantly more thoughtful one by Geoffrey Nunberg on the power and
shadings of the terminology that has historically attended this issue. It
can be found for a few days at:
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/editorial/14356030.htm
(Truth in advertizing: Nunberg is obviously a major-league pinko lefty.
He's a professor at Berkeley and the working title of his next book is
_Talking Right: How Conservatives Turned Liberalism into a Latte-Drinking,
Sushi-Eating, Volvo-Driving, Left-Wing Freak Show_ . I wouldn't be
surprised if he's a card-carrying member of the A&L Crowd, too.)
A snippet that is germane to Dann's assertion above that a label of
"illegal" is eminently justified:
"... we don't usually describe lawbreakers as being 'illegal' themselves.
And it's only your immigration status that can earn you the honor of being
'an illegal' all by itself. That use of 'illegal' as a noun goes back a
long ways. The British coined it in the 1930s to describe Jews who
entered Palestine without official permission, and it has been used ever
since as a way of reducing individuals to their infractions."
--
Sherwood Harrington
Boulder Creek, California
Dann
just let news:e1v0ua$4fq$1...@reader1.panix.com on 16 Apr 2006 go.
> In article <Xns97A7E241EE9A8d...@129.250.170.93>,
> Dann <deto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>I'll toss out the jaywalkers charge as I've never heard of or met
>>anyone that has ever been charged with jaywalking.
>>
> I know someone who very nearly did but the cop made the
> mistake of asking "Don't they have stop lights where you are
> from?" As it happened, the person in question came from a small
> town in Northern Ontario and it has no stop lights (or, I think,
> intersections). Of course, my friend was compelled by honesty
> to answer "No", which derailed the cop. Instead of a ticket, Gerry
> got a lecture on the significance of stop lights and cross walks.
I believe you. But stories such as that are the only ones I've heard
regarding enforcement of jaywalking laws. IMO...or perhaps, IME...they
just aren't enforced with nearly the same frequency as drunk driving
laws, littering laws, etc.
--
Regards,
Dann deto...@hotmail.com
Blogging at: http://www.modempool.com/nucleardann/blogspace/blog.htm
"God is dead" - Nietzche "Nietzche is dead" - God
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, Sherwood Harrington
<sherw...@SPAMrahul.net> wrote:
> By coicidence, shortly after reading this piece by Dann, I read a
> significantly more thoughtful one by Geoffrey Nunberg on the power and
> shadings of the terminology that has historically attended this issue. It
> can be found for a few days at:
> http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/editorial/14356030.htm
>
> (Truth in advertizing: Nunberg is obviously a major-league pinko lefty.
Gee, ya think?
Nunberg implies that "sans-papieres" is a commonly-accepted
descriptive phrase in France, where it originated, but that is simply
not the truth. It's as controversial there as it is here, and for the
same reason: because it's just plain bullshit.
Come up with a really neutral term (the French have «migrants sans
autorisation de séjour»), and I'll cheerfully use it. As I noted
earlier, I'm not *real* high on "illegal immigrants / aliens," but
just don't ask me to frame all discussion of the subject right from
the start with a bald-faced lie.
John Reiher
Dann <deto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I believe you. But stories such as that are the only ones I've heard
> regarding enforcement of jaywalking laws. IMO...or perhaps, IME...they
> just aren't enforced with nearly the same frequency as drunk driving
> laws, littering laws, etc.
For a while there, Seattle under the old sheriff would ticket Jaywalkers
to the point that you can spot old Seattlites from new "immigrant"
Seatlites: When the "Don't Walk" sign is on, it doesn't matter if there
isn't a car for nine blocks, old Seattlites will wait until they get a
"Walk" signal, while everyone else will cross against the lights...
--
The Kedamono Dragon
Pull Pinky's favorite words to email me.
http://www.ahtg.net
Have Mac, will Compute
Check out the PowerPointers Shop at:
http://www.cafeshops.com/PowerPointers
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Antonio E. Gonzalez
>This week's podcast includes a letter from "Antonio".
>
>Reflex??? Dat you???
>
>Antonio writes to offer the view that while he has heard of undocumented
>immigrants being called "illegal aliens", he has never heard drunk
>drivers called "illegal drivers"; or jaywalkers called "illegal
>pedestrians"; or litterbugs called "illegal dumpers".
>
Well, gee . . .
Ummm, that was me indeed! Didn't wanna use a net handle in
something that was othewise "formal" . . .
Looks like I got a podcast to download!
>I'll toss out the jaywalkers charge as I've never heard of or met anyone
>that has ever been charged with jaywalking.
>
You didn't hear abou the scandal of the little old lady (82 years
old) who got ticketed to not being able to cross the street before
the light turned? The motorcycle cop who did that is learning the
hard way there are times it's best to look the other way . . .
To give credit where it's due, I got this from a Candorville
strip; there's no denying what they're doing is illegal, there's just
the question of why *one* group of lawbreakers get the "illegal"
emphasized . . .
--
- ReFlex76
- "Let's beat the terrorists with our most powerful weapon . . . hot
girl-on-girl action!"
- "The difference between young and old is the difference between
looking forward to your next birthday, and dreading it!"
Antonio E. Gonzalez
INVALID...@example.com.invalid (J.D. Baldwin) wrote:
>
>In the previous article, Dann <deto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> The phrase "illegal alien" is used not only because they have
>> violated American immigration laws, but also because certain
>> elements in this debate choose to use phrases like "undocumented
>> immigrants" to minimize the fact that the law has been broken. That
>> phrase makes it sound like they have just misplaced some papers.
>> Once those papers have been recovered, then all will be right in the
>> world.
>
>This is exactly my objection. I have conflicting feelings about
>immigration in general, but I despise euphemism, and "undocumented
>workers" goes far enough beyond mere euphemism that I do not shrink
>from calling it what it is: a lie. In fact, lots of people who are in
>the U.S. illegally have *plenty* of "documentation." Driver's
>licenses, medical charts, bank statements, utility bills, police
>records, (foreign) birth certificates and in many cases -- thanks to
>"motor voter" -- voter registration cards.
Ummm, I think it's pretty damn clear *which* documents are "un" . .
JC Dill
<sherw...@SPAMrahul.net> wrote:
>"... we don't usually describe lawbreakers as being 'illegal' themselves.
>And it's only your immigration status that can earn you the honor of being
>'an illegal' all by itself. That use of 'illegal' as a noun goes back a
>long ways. The British coined it in the 1930s to describe Jews who
>entered Palestine without official permission, and it has been used ever
>since as a way of reducing individuals to their infractions."
The primary reason we refer to them as "illegal aliens" is that we
also have legal aliens (people with visas or green cards or visiting
for a short while from Canada, etc. when visas are not required for
short visits), and we don't have a single-word noun that means "person
who is in a foreign country without proper permission or
documentation".
jc
--
"The nice thing about a mare is you get to ride a lot
of different horses without having to own that many."
~ Eileen Morgan of The Mare's Nest, PA
Dann
couldn't just let news:sg9642d6bv20qhsk1...@4ax.com on 17
Apr 2006 go.
> On 17 Apr 2006 02:11:04 GMT, Dann <deto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>This week's podcast includes a letter from "Antonio".
>>
>>Reflex??? Dat you???
>>
>>Antonio writes to offer the view that while he has heard of
>>undocumented immigrants being called "illegal aliens", he has never
>>heard drunk drivers called "illegal drivers"; or jaywalkers called
>>"illegal pedestrians"; or litterbugs called "illegal dumpers".
>>
>
> Well, gee . . .
>
> Ummm, that was me indeed! Didn't wanna use a net handle in
> something that was othewise "formal" . . .
>
> Looks like I got a podcast to download!
I recommend it every week. Better than the letters from FBOFW.
<snip>
--
Regards,
Dann deto...@hotmail.com
Blogging at: http://www.modempool.com/nucleardann/blogspace/blog.htm
4 out of 5 Sysops prefer doughnuts. The 5th demands pizza.
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntE...@aol.com>
wrote:
> >This is exactly my objection. I have conflicting feelings about
> >immigration in general, but I despise euphemism, and "undocumented
> >workers" goes far enough beyond mere euphemism that I do not shrink
> >from calling it what it is: a lie. In fact, lots of people who are in
> >the U.S. illegally have *plenty* of "documentation." Driver's
> >licenses, medical charts, bank statements, utility bills, police
> >records, (foreign) birth certificates and in many cases -- thanks to
> >"motor voter" -- voter registration cards.
>
> Ummm, I think it's pretty damn clear *which* documents are "un" . .
> .
But even *that* is often bullshit, as in the very common case of an
immigrant who comes in on a particular visa and then violates its
terms, either by overstaying it, or while accepting employment
contrary to its terms.
James Nicoll
John Reiher <kedamo...@Narf.mac.com> wrote:
>In article <Xns97A7F0F049E9Cd...@129.250.170.90>,
> Dann <deto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I believe you. But stories such as that are the only ones I've heard
>> regarding enforcement of jaywalking laws. IMO...or perhaps, IME...they
>> just aren't enforced with nearly the same frequency as drunk driving
>> laws, littering laws, etc.
>
>For a while there, Seattle under the old sheriff would ticket Jaywalkers
>to the point that you can spot old Seattlites from new "immigrant"
>Seatlites: When the "Don't Walk" sign is on, it doesn't matter if there
>isn't a car for nine blocks, old Seattlites will wait until they get a
>"Walk" signal, while everyone else will cross against the lights...
>
involves Canadians in winter at a cross walk waiting for the light
to change, despite their being no cars for miles. Sorry, kilometers.
Of course, the future American and would-be genocide* focused on the
part that he thought showed a lack of virile jaywalkitude and not
on the part where there's no need to jaywalk on account of the season
because Canadians know how to dress for the weather.
I think it might even have been in Toronto, which has a
relatively mild climate compared to most of Canada (aside from
the Pacific coast and parts of Florida). Anyone who freezes
there is either a person whose socio-economic status denies them
the resources they need to survive on the streets or a recent
arrival from a warmer nation whose parents unaccountably failed to
replace his short trousers with clothing more suitable to the
region. Well, or someone who fell down behind some obstruction
and quietly froze before anyone found them: I know of three
people that happened to around here.
* http://groups.google.com/group/soc.history.what-if/msg/d90b62d4469a0595
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.history.what-if/msg/b6081acfff1af040
James Nicoll
JC Dill <jcd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 03:39:15 +0000 (UTC), Sherwood Harrington
><sherw...@SPAMrahul.net> wrote:
>
>>"... we don't usually describe lawbreakers as being 'illegal' themselves.
>>And it's only your immigration status that can earn you the honor of being
>>'an illegal' all by itself. That use of 'illegal' as a noun goes back a
>>long ways. The British coined it in the 1930s to describe Jews who
>>entered Palestine without official permission, and it has been used ever
>>since as a way of reducing individuals to their infractions."
>
>The primary reason we refer to them as "illegal aliens" is that we
>also have legal aliens (people with visas or green cards or visiting
>for a short while from Canada, etc. when visas are not required for
>short visits), and we don't have a single-word noun that means "person
>who is in a foreign country without proper permission or
>documentation".
Enthusiastic Potential-Americans. Your basic American
or Canadian was born in the US (or Canada*). Anybody can be born
somewhere. Someone who is willing to swim a river or climb a fence
or travel in a hot truck whose driver may well be planning to kill his
passengers in return for the chance to have a lousy job working for
people who view them as slightly above a domestic animal is showing
a lot more active interest in participating in the US than most
residents ever do. In fact they are showing a faith in America
that most locals probably lack, judging by the campaign rhetoric
one hears.
* Chester A. Arthur being one of those interesting edge cases.
nickelshrink
"James Nicoll" <jdni...@panix.com> wrote in message news:e205id$mgm$1...@reader1.panix.com...
I'm sure that any of us, if we had no way to feed our kids, and lived
under a corrupt regime that cared zip about providing economic
opportunity in our own country;
and we bordered on a more opportunity-rich country that had laws
restricting our entry, but combined that with almost no enforcement,
and major employers who waved us in with a wink and gave us jobs;
then we'd be justified in thinking that that country's entry laws were
the meant-to-be-brushed-off type. Like "rolling stops" at stop signs
being evil, or taking a legal pad from the office for home use.
So i have sympathy for those who do it, and i think they can indeed
be a great asset to the US. My quarrel isn't with them. It's with the
"Americans won't do these jobs" mindset. If every member of my
family hadn't had melanoma, and my own history didn't make me a
shoo-in for it, i'd be taking McCain's lettuce-picking offer so fucking
fast it would make your head spin. Perhaps my unwillingness to
accelerate my development of melanoma in order to pay off our
30 thou of medical bills means i'm a complacent lazy American.
I dunno though, it seems to me to be simply a bad medical trade-off.
The idea that Americans' doggone insistence on a decent wage is a
lack of "enthusiasm" for the privilege of being an American makes
me boil. Americans, many immigrants, have in the past, sweated like
"domestic animals" for the cause of humane conditions, wages and
benefits that, for awhile, made sweatshop society something we'd grown
beyond. Now the USCofC sees a new source of sweatshop, abuseable
labor. So the New Speak is to try and put down Americans for being
so derned "selfish" as to say, "Um, why, exactly, are we not entitled
to a fair share of the profit of our labor??"
Really really hoping you were joking.
--
pax
ruth
--
Save trees AND money! Buy used books!
http://stores.ebay.com/Noir-and-More-Books-and-Trains
(remove fspam to reply)
Sherwood Harrington
> On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 03:39:15 +0000 (UTC), Sherwood Harrington
> <sherw...@SPAMrahul.net> wrote:
Point of order, jc. I did not write this.
> jc
> --
--
Invid Fan
> The phrase "illegal alien" is used not only because they have violated
> American immigration laws, but also because certain elements in this
> debate choose to use phrases like "undocumented immigrants" to minimize
> the fact that the law has been broken. That phrase makes it sound like
> they have just misplaced some papers. Once those papers have been
> recovered, then all will be right in the world.
>
It's the "alien" part that I think most have a problem with.
--
Chris Mack "Refugee, total shit. That's how I've always seen us.
'Invid Fan' Not a help, you'll admit, to agreement between us."
-'Deal/No Deal', CHESS
James Nicoll
nickelshrink <nickelsh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>I'm sure that any of us, if we had no way to feed our kids, and lived
>under a corrupt regime that cared zip about providing economic
>opportunity in our own country;
Well, I think Mexico is at the point where the choices are
"a lousy lifestyle in Chiapas" vs "A better one in the US", not
starvation vs eating. As I recall, their economy is about the
same size as Canada's.
snip
>So i have sympathy for those who do it, and i think they can indeed
>be a great asset to the US. My quarrel isn't with them. It's with the
>"Americans won't do these jobs" mindset. If every member of my
>family hadn't had melanoma, and my own history didn't make me a
>shoo-in for it, i'd be taking McCain's lettuce-picking offer so fucking
>fast it would make your head spin. Perhaps my unwillingness to
>accelerate my development of melanoma in order to pay off our
>30 thou of medical bills means i'm a complacent lazy American.
>I dunno though, it seems to me to be simply a bad medical trade-off.
>
>The idea that Americans' doggone insistence on a decent wage is a
>lack of "enthusiasm" for the privilege of being an American makes
>me boil. Americans, many immigrants, have in the past, sweated like
>"domestic animals" for the cause of humane conditions, wages and
>benefits that, for awhile, made sweatshop society something we'd grown
>beyond.
I don't see sweatshops as good. In fact, I'm with Oscar here
and not Norbert [1]. I do see the fact that the unsanctioned immigrants
are willing to put up with them as a measure of how badly they want to
be in the US (Or Canada). It's not that the conditions are good but
that they give us some idea of the regard the people involved have for
the economy of the United States. If you were to impose some roughly
equal requirement on native-born Americans (Or Canadians), how many
would put up with it?
Of course, there are at least two obvious ways to make the US less
desirable as a destination for Mexicans [2]: scale the US economy down or
scale the Mexican economy up. I recommend the second, as rich Mexicans
buy more goods and services.
1: "Unless there are slaves to do the ugly, horrible, uninteresting work,
culture and contemplation become almost impossible. Human slavery is wrong,
insecure, and demoralizing. On mechanical slavery, on the slavery of the
machine, the future of the world depends." -Oscar Wilde, "The Soul of Man
Under Socialism"
Norbert Weiner, on the other hand, took this view:
"Let us remember that the automatic machine, whatever we think of any
feelings it may have or may not have, is the precise economic equivalent
of slave labor. Any labor which competes with slave labor must accept the
economic conditions of slave labor." -- Norbert Wiener, "The Human Use of
Human Beings"
2: I mean, there doesn't seem to be the same outrage over illegals coming
from the Great White North.
ronniecat
tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth but instead
wrote:
>This week's podcast includes a letter from "Antonio".
>
>Reflex??? Dat you???
>
>Antonio writes to offer the view that while he has heard of undocumented
>immigrants being called "illegal aliens", he has never heard drunk
>drivers called "illegal drivers"; or jaywalkers called "illegal
>pedestrians"; or litterbugs called "illegal dumpers".
I personally don't have any problem with the term "illegal immigrants"
or "illegal aliens" (we don't call foreign-born residents "aliens" in
Canada so that term does sound weird to my ear, and we don't use it
professionally, but we do use "illegal immigrants" professionally).
I do _strongly_ dislike people using the shorthand "illegals", as in
"There are a lot of illegals working down there."
A human being can't be "illegal" (unless you accept the premise that
some people don't have the inherent right to exist). Nor can one be
"an illegal" since "illegal" is an adjective, and adjectiving weirds
nouns.
He can be an illegal immigrant because of his circumstances (in a
given country illegally), but he can't be "an illegal". It's
gramatically and technically wrong. And it's a term that has the
effect of dehumanizing those so described, and we all know where that
can lead.
ronnie
--
"The very deaf, as I am, hear the most astounding things all
'round them, which have not, in fact, been said." - Henry Green
<<remove mycollar to respond by email>>
www.hearingloss.blogspot.com - a blog about deafness
Heather Fieldhouse
Dann <deto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I believe you. But stories such as that are the only ones I've heard
> regarding enforcement of jaywalking laws.
When I was a grad student at Miami University, the town of Oxford began
aggressively ticketing jaywalkers. This is because (as in all college
towns) students would just walk into the street whenever they felt like
it, and it was a genuine hazard. After a couple of people got hit by
cars, they started the anti-jaywalking campaign.
I know you're probably thinking that maybe they should have been more
aggressively ticketing drivers instead of pedestrians, but I can tell
you that pedestrians really would just recklessly walk in front of cars
and discouraging this was probably a good idea.
Heather
Mark Jackson
> A human being can't be "illegal" (unless you accept the premise that
> some people don't have the inherent right to exist). Nor can one be
> "an illegal" since "illegal" is an adjective, and adjectiving weirds
> nouns.
ITYM "adjectiving is a weird."
--
Mark Jackson - http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~mjackson
An information system based on theory isolated from reality
is bound to fail. - Mitch Kabay
nickelshrink
"James Nicoll" <jdni...@panix.com> wrote in message news:e20adq$a6i$1...@reader1.panix.com...
>>Americans, many immigrants, have in the past, sweated like
>>"domestic animals" for the cause of humane conditions, wages and
>>benefits that, for awhile, made sweatshop society something we'd grown
>>beyond.
>
> I don't see sweatshops as good. In fact, I'm with Oscar here
> and not Norbert [1]. I do see the fact that the unsanctioned immigrants
> are willing to put up with them as a measure of how badly they want to
> be in the US (Or Canada). It's not that the conditions are good but
> that they give us some idea of the regard the people involved have for
> the economy of the United States.
Oh, i agree.
> If you were to impose some roughly
> equal requirement on native-born Americans (Or Canadians), how many
> would put up with it?
Probably few, but only because few feel they need to. I only think it's
based on need not willingness to do the hard labor. I don't think American
culture is a culture one of less-willingness to labor, or a weaker work ethic.
It's perhaps a culture of feeling more entitled to a better standard of living
*for* that labor, but i don't see this as negative. Not saying that this was
your POV, just being specific about mine!
> Of course, there are at least two obvious ways to make the US less
> desirable as a destination for Mexicans [2]: scale the US economy down or
> scale the Mexican economy up. I recommend the second, as rich Mexicans
> buy more goods and services.
>
Since we can't do a lot to change Mexico's economy except outsource
to it, which makes for the exact same US wage-competition problem - that
makes the US the place we need to manage.
So, maybe some other options besides scaling back the US economy?
This must seem really pinko, but I'm not suggesting restrictions
on how many times the lowest wage in a company, the CEO
(or other management) are entitled to. But i think it's obscene NOT
to hold companies to employing citizens first, and to a decent wage
standard, whether for citizen or alien labor. THEN if the free market
means that CEO gets 10000x the lowest wage in his company.... or
gets a massive platimum parachute, i may not think that he/she's done
anything to earn it, but i wouldn't restrict the board's freedom to give it.
The shareholders can start a movement and vote in a different board.
I do however think his right to it ends where slave-labor to make it
possible begins.
--
pax
ruth
--
Save trees AND money! Buy used books!
http://stores.ebay.com/Noir-and-More-Books-and-Trains
(remove fspam to reply)
>
sig...@binet.is
James Nicoll wrote:
> In article <kedamono.Poit-CB4...@text-west.newsfeeds.com>,
> John Reiher <kedamo...@Narf.mac.com> wrote:
> >In article <Xns97A7F0F049E9Cd...@129.250.170.90>,
> > Dann <deto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I believe you. But stories such as that are the only ones I've heard
> >> regarding enforcement of jaywalking laws. IMO...or perhaps, IME...they
> >> just aren't enforced with nearly the same frequency as drunk driving
> >> laws, littering laws, etc.
> >
> >For a while there, Seattle under the old sheriff would ticket Jaywalkers
> >to the point that you can spot old Seattlites from new "immigrant"
> >Seatlites: When the "Don't Walk" sign is on, it doesn't matter if there
> >isn't a car for nine blocks, old Seattlites will wait until they get a
> >"Walk" signal, while everyone else will cross against the lights...
> >
> One of SM Stirling's standard national character stories
> involves Canadians in winter at a cross walk waiting for the light
> to change, despite their being no cars for miles. Sorry, kilometers.
> Of course, the future American and would-be genocide* focused on the
> part that he thought showed a lack of virile jaywalkitude and not
> on the part where there's no need to jaywalk on account of the season
> because Canadians know how to dress for the weather.
>
> I think it might even have been in Toronto, which has a
> relatively mild climate compared to most of Canada (aside from
> the Pacific coast and parts of Florida).
I live in Iceland, Toronto in february is the coldest I´ve ever
experienced, -26°C .
Iceland has not been that cold since the last ice age!
James Nicoll
nickelshrink <nickelsh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"James Nicoll" <jdni...@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:e20adq$a6i$1...@reader1.panix.com...
>
>> desirable as a destination for Mexicans [2]: scale the US economy down or
>> scale the Mexican economy up. I recommend the second, as rich Mexicans
>> buy more goods and services.
>
>Since we can't do a lot to change Mexico's economy except outsource
>to it, which makes for the exact same US wage-competition problem - that
>makes the US the place we need to manage.
You can and you have.
There's this thing in trade called comparative advantage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage
Oddly, even though the idea of comparative advantage is
almost two centuries old, it is only very slowly leaking into the
public consciousness. I can point to works from the _1960s_ that
assume external trade is bad for nations and others that assume
that as a nation improves the width and depth of its economy,
external trade dwindles, even though this does not match what is
seen: For example, Canada's economy was a lot smaller a hundred
years ago and so was the US's but we sell a lot more stuff back
and forth now than we did in 1906.
The best way for Americans to help Mexicans (and themselves)
is to become more open to trade: the US actually has an unusually
low amount of external trade for a nation that isn't a pathological
hellhole. America's imports are proportionally about half of Canada's
and it's exports are proportionately about a fifth (if I didn't screw
up simple division).
JC Dill
<ronn...@mycollar.ronniecat.com> wrote:
>A human being can't be "illegal" (unless you accept the premise that
>some people don't have the inherent right to exist). Nor can one be
>"an illegal" since "illegal" is an adjective, and adjectiving weirds
>nouns.
Have you ever had a pint of stout?
<http://www.northamericanbrewers.org/ShoutforStout.htm>
ObRACS, "Verbing weirds language".
<http://www.strangehorizons.com/galleys/20060313/verbing_weirds_language.gif>
<http://www.strangehorizons.com/reviews/2006/03/two_views_cit.shtml>
nickelshrink
"James Nicoll" <jdni...@panix.com> wrote in message news:e20ehg$d20$1...@reader1.panix.com...
> In article <4ahrebF...@individual.net>,
>
> There's this thing in trade called comparative advantage.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage
>
> Oddly, even though the idea of comparative advantage is
> almost two centuries old, it is only very slowly leaking into the
> public consciousness. I can point to works from the _1960s_ that
> assume external trade is bad for nations and others that assume
> that as a nation improves the width and depth of its economy,
> external trade dwindles, even though this does not match what is
> seen: For example, Canada's economy was a lot smaller a hundred
> years ago and so was the US's but we sell a lot more stuff back
> and forth now than we did in 1906.
>
> The best way for Americans to help Mexicans (and themselves)
> is to become more open to trade: the US actually has an unusually
> low amount of external trade for a nation that isn't a pathological
> hellhole. America's imports are proportionally about half of Canada's
> and it's exports are proportionately about a fifth (if I didn't screw
> up simple division).
This is very interesting. Thanks for the link. It seems to take
a rather complex bunch of data to determine at what point
production of a commodity becomes an advantage, but to
someone less math-impaired than i, i bet it's quite do-able.
An economist on Lou Dobbs one evening likened our economy to
that of others in history that become more of a service economy
than a producer economy. I think he mentioned the Netherlands
and its shift from making real goods, into world banking/finance, and
that most nations who make this shift go economically downhill.
However that too is undoubtedly an interplay of multiple factors. It
just seems like we aren't making much in this country anymore,
though we still make the perishables - some foods, soaps and
detergents, hygiene/cosmetics, paper goods. But around here,
dollar stores are importing soaps, deodorants, etc. for hispanic
shoppers.
--
pax
ruth
--
Save trees AND money! Buy used books!
http://stores.ebay.com/Noir-and-More-Books-and-Trains
(remove fspam to reply)
>
ronniecat
truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth but instead wrote:
>
>James Nicoll wrote:
>> I think it might even have been in Toronto, which has a
>> relatively mild climate compared to most of Canada (aside from
>> the Pacific coast and parts of Florida).
>
>I live in Iceland, Toronto in february is the coldest I´ve ever
>experienced, -26°C .
>Iceland has not been that cold since the last ice age!
Don't forget James said "compared to most of Canada". It gets much
much colder than -26 in the Canadian north, and in fact in much of the
rest of Canada. I live in the maritimes; I'd consider -10 "average"
for a Canadian winter, -26 "cold", and -40 "really cold".
Is it true as I've been told that Iceland is greener than Greenland,
and Greenland is icier than Iceland? :)
ronniecat
promised to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth
but instead wrote:
>On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 15:01:56 GMT, ronniecat
><ronn...@mycollar.ronniecat.com> wrote:
>
>>A human being can't be "illegal" (unless you accept the premise that
>>some people don't have the inherent right to exist). Nor can one be
>>"an illegal" since "illegal" is an adjective, and adjectiving weirds
>>nouns.
>
>Have you ever had a pint of stout?
>
><http://www.northamericanbrewers.org/ShoutforStout.htm>
A legitimate rejoinder and one I'm happy to acknowledge. It goes
without saying, and pun fully intended, that the adjective "stout"
evolving to be used as a noun leaves a much better taste in my mouth
than "illegal".
sig...@binet.is
ronniecat wrote:
> On 17 Apr 2006 08:51:26 -0700, sig...@binet.is promised to tell the
> truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth but instead wrote:
>
> >
> >James Nicoll wrote:
>
> >> I think it might even have been in Toronto, which has a
> >> relatively mild climate compared to most of Canada (aside from
> >> the Pacific coast and parts of Florida).
> >
> >I live in Iceland, Toronto in february is the coldest I´ve ever
> >experienced, -26°C .
> >Iceland has not been that cold since the last ice age!
>
> Don't forget James said "compared to most of Canada". It gets much
> much colder than -26 in the Canadian north, and in fact in much of the
> rest of Canada. I live in the maritimes; I'd consider -10 "average"
> for a Canadian winter, -26 "cold", and -40 "really cold".
Well, it actually gets to below -26°C in the interior of Iceland,
where we have glaciers, but the coastline rarely gets below -20°C in
winter, even in the northern part.
Here in the south the average is 0°C in the coldest month (january)
and even a little higher in the southernmost parts, -5°C is cold and
-10°C is really cold.
The coldest I´ve experienced here in Reykjavík was -15°C.
> Is it true as I've been told that Iceland is greener than Greenland,
> and Greenland is icier than Iceland? :)
Greenland is a huge landmass, 2 175 600 sq kms in size and ca 95% is
icecovered.
That still leaves an area, almost as large as Iceland, in the south,
that is quite green in the summer.
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, ronniecat <ronn...@mycollar.ronniecat.com>
wrote:
> I do _strongly_ dislike people using the shorthand "illegals", as in
> "There are a lot of illegals working down there."
Besides all that, we're going to need that word for all the illicit
clones that will be coming along in the next few decades.
More seriously, while I am inclined to agree with you, the nouning
seems to have taken deep enough hold that the American Heritage
Dictionary has recognized it.
Jim Ellwanger
<deto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I'll toss out the jaywalkers charge as I've never heard of or met anyone
> that has ever been charged with jaywalking.
Local story from Los Angeles that seems to have been gone
international...
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1842580
--
Jim Ellwanger <use...@ellwanger.tv>
<http://www.ellwanger.tv> welcomes you daily.
Antonio E. Gonzalez
>Rather than follow the advice of Henry Jones Sr., Antonio E. Gonzalez
>couldn't just let news:sg9642d6bv20qhsk1...@4ax.com on 17
>Apr 2006 go.
>
>> On 17 Apr 2006 02:11:04 GMT, Dann <deto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>This week's podcast includes a letter from "Antonio".
>>>
>>>Reflex??? Dat you???
>>>
>>>Antonio writes to offer the view that while he has heard of
>>>undocumented immigrants being called "illegal aliens", he has never
>>>heard drunk drivers called "illegal drivers"; or jaywalkers called
>>>"illegal pedestrians"; or litterbugs called "illegal dumpers".
>>>
>>
>> Well, gee . . .
>>
>> Ummm, that was me indeed! Didn't wanna use a net handle in
>> something that was othewise "formal" . . .
>>
>> Looks like I got a podcast to download!
>
>I recommend it every week. Better than the letters from FBOFW.
>
*listens*
Holy crap, he's totally ripping off Tucker Carlson!
--
- ReFlex 76
Dann
couldn't just let news:bunnyhugger-5D4244.11164117042006
@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com on 17 Apr 2006 go.
Let's see how many heads I can twist today??
I think that they should have been ticketing the drivers. One of the odd
quirks of American motor laws is the preference given to machines instead
of humans.
I'm not sure if it is the law only in Ontario, or if all of Canada is so
blessed, but (IIRC) the law there was (at one time) that a pedestrian
standing in the street was presumed to have the right of way and drivers
were required to stop for him/her. A much more civilized system, IMO.
On a related subject, one of my favorite authors has the following about
hiking a trail in Mexico. There are some other thoughts about the
insufficiency of the modern, civilized lifestyle. He's had enough of the
United States and decided that Mexico was more to his liking. He is a
former US Marine that can adequately be described as "crusty". Many of
his other opinions aren't as palatable in a modern, politically correct
society. So be forewarned if you should go elsewhere on his site.
http://www.fredoneverything.net/AjijicTrail.shtml
I'd trade professions and locales with him, but I don't believe I'd
survive the butt-kicking he would provide in response.
--
Regards,
Dann deto...@hotmail.com
Blogging at: http://www.modempool.com/nucleardann/blogspace/blog.htm
Gun Fighting Rule: If you are not shooting, you should be communicating,
reloading, and running.
Invid Fan
<deto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not sure if it is the law only in Ontario, or if all of Canada is so
> blessed, but (IIRC) the law there was (at one time) that a pedestrian
> standing in the street was presumed to have the right of way and drivers
> were required to stop for him/her. A much more civilized system, IMO.
>
On a busy city street traffic could never move, as the stream of people
crossing would never end if the "Don't Walk" sign could be ignored :)
Heather Fieldhouse
Dann <deto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I think that they should have been ticketing the drivers. One of the odd
> quirks of American motor laws is the preference given to machines instead
> of humans.
I don't have a problem with discouraging people from making a hazard out
of (and to) themselves by walking out into traffic. I'm not a big fan
of cars in general and I know a lot of people drive like jerks (or
worse), but there have been times when I have had people literally run
into the street in front of me and nearly give me a heart attack.
People should be encouraged to cross where they will be expected, i.e.,
crosswalks.
Heather
James Nicoll
I believe the current law is that actually coming up onto
the sidewalk to nail pedestrians is a right reserved for bicyclists.
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, Dann <deto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I think that they should have been ticketing the drivers. One of
> the odd quirks of American motor laws is the preference given to
> machines instead of humans.
I don't know about Europe in general, but I remember my Norwegian
hosts explaining to me that no traffic accident investigation in that
country is as cut-and-dried as "the pedestrian is always right," or
even "the guy who rear ends the other guy is automatically at fault."
Pedestrians are expected to behave themselves. Those too young to
behave themselves are expected to be under control of their guardians.
> I'm not sure if it is the law only in Ontario, or if all of Canada
> is so blessed, but (IIRC) the law there was (at one time) that a
> pedestrian standing in the street was presumed to have the right of
> way and drivers were required to stop for him/her. A much more
> civilized system, IMO.
A *rational* system would assign blame according to actual fault, and
in my opinion, one of the main benefits of civilized life is more or
less rational laws. Someone standing in the street is not behaving
rationally or reasonably. Of course a driver is expected to avoid a
pedestrian, even one who is being a jackass, but if you step straight
into traffic in a way that doesn't give the driver who flattens you a
chance to react, well, too goddam bad. If I'm on the jury, I'm
agitating to award the *driver* damages for pain, suffering and a new
grille.
RPN
Yes, and several times when I've been crossing in crosswalks I've come
within inches of being converted into roadkill by drivers blowing
through stop signs while jabbering on cell phones, backing up the wrong
way on one-way streets, etc.
RPN (not an automobile owner--could you guess?--and also all too aware
of the dangers of bicyclists, who pay even less attention to the law
than do motorists)
Heather Fieldhouse
"RPN" <rp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > I don't have a problem with discouraging people from making a hazard out
> > of (and to) themselves by walking out into traffic. I'm not a big fan
> > of cars in general and I know a lot of people drive like jerks (or
> > worse), but there have been times when I have had people literally run
> > into the street in front of me and nearly give me a heart attack.
> > People should be encouraged to cross where they will be expected, i.e.,
> > crosswalks.
>
> Yes, and several times when I've been crossing in crosswalks I've come
> within inches of being converted into roadkill by drivers blowing
> through stop signs while jabbering on cell phones, backing up the wrong
> way on one-way streets, etc.
See above under "a lot of people drive like jerks." Also, a lot of
people ride bikes like jerks, and a lot of pedestrians walk into the
road like jerks too.
Heather
Dann
couldn't just let news:e1v2l3$7kj$1...@blue.rahul.net on 16 Apr 2006 go.
<snip>
> By coicidence, shortly after reading this piece by Dann, I read a
> significantly more thoughtful one by Geoffrey Nunberg on the power and
> shadings of the terminology that has historically attended this issue.
Sherwood....did I do something new to get under your skin??
<snip>
>
> (Truth in advertizing: Nunberg is obviously a major-league pinko
> lefty. He's a professor at Berkeley and the working title of his next
> book is _Talking Right: How Conservatives Turned Liberalism into a
> Latte-Drinking, Sushi-Eating, Volvo-Driving, Left-Wing Freak Show_ .
> I wouldn't be surprised if he's a card-carrying member of the A&L
> Crowd, too.)
They had help. Lots of it, mi companero, lots of it.
--
Regards,
Dann deto...@hotmail.com
Blogging at: http://www.modempool.com/nucleardann/blogspace/blog.htm
9 out of 10 men who tried Camels prefer women.
Dann
just let news:e205id$mgm$1...@reader1.panix.com on 17 Apr 2006 go.
<snip>
> Enthusiastic Potential-Americans. Your basic American
> or Canadian was born in the US (or Canada*). Anybody can be born
> somewhere. Someone who is willing to swim a river or climb a fence
> or travel in a hot truck whose driver may well be planning to kill his
> passengers in return for the chance to have a lousy job working for
> people who view them as slightly above a domestic animal is showing
> a lot more active interest in participating in the US than most
> residents ever do. In fact they are showing a faith in America
> that most locals probably lack, judging by the campaign rhetoric
> one hears.
And that right there is the thing that gives me fit. It's hard to be a
nation of hardworking immigrants [and their offspring] without expecting
the next wave of immigrants to come crawling ashore [or through the
barbed wire] next week.
IME, most people from south of the border ARE hardworking and DO want to
earn a better life. And that's just fine by me.
The only thing that gives me the willys are the activities of groups like
MEChA and the trend that some immigrants have of not bothering to learn
to speak and read English. The latter isn't necessarily because I am
afraid of the Spanish language, but is because the ability to speak and
read English allows those immigrants and easier time of learning the
history of their new nation as well as the ability to understand the
issues we face.
A close friend working in Las Vegas likes to tell the story about waiting
on some of these folks. She worked for a company that managed retirement
benefits for restaurant workers. The one bilingual person in the office
had a management position and wasn't supposed to be working the counter.
When faced with a supposed non-English speaking individual, this manager
was inevitably called to the counter. It took her less than a minute to
determine that the problem wasn't a lack of ability to speak English, but
rather a lack of desire. This manager was a legal immigrant from Mexico
and such behavior irritated her to no end.
I fully expect to have to learn a bit of Spanish for my business trips to
Mexico. Immigrants to this country had better expect to learn and use
English.
That and obeying our laws by obtaining the requisite immigration
documents before they immigrate instead of hoping for an amnesty program
somewhere down the road.
--
Regards,
Dann deto...@hotmail.com
Blogging at: http://www.modempool.com/nucleardann/blogspace/blog.htm
It is amazing how many people think that the government's role is to give
them what they want by overriding what other people want. - Thomas Sowell
James Nicoll
James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <4ahmu2F...@individual.net>,
>nickelshrink <nickelsh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>I'm sure that any of us, if we had no way to feed our kids, and lived
>>under a corrupt regime that cared zip about providing economic
>>opportunity in our own country;
>
> Well, I think Mexico is at the point where the choices are
>"a lousy lifestyle in Chiapas" vs "A better one in the US", not
>starvation vs eating. As I recall, their economy is about the
>same size as Canada's.
>
economies (per capita), one would logically expect Mexico to
be experiencing an influx of unrequested foreign workers.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=1859481
Invid Fan
<jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
> In article <e20adq$a6i$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
> James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
> >In article <4ahmu2F...@individual.net>,
> >nickelshrink <nickelsh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>I'm sure that any of us, if we had no way to feed our kids, and lived
> >>under a corrupt regime that cared zip about providing economic
> >>opportunity in our own country;
> >
> > Well, I think Mexico is at the point where the choices are
> >"a lousy lifestyle in Chiapas" vs "A better one in the US", not
> >starvation vs eating. As I recall, their economy is about the
> >same size as Canada's.
> >
> And since a lot of nations near them have even smaller
> economies (per capita), one would logically expect Mexico to
> be experiencing an influx of unrequested foreign workers.
>
There may not be jobs, or at least not in the south. Also it may not be
easy for the poor to actually get to Mexico, between the mountains and
jungle. You're only dealing with Guatemala and Belize with land
borders, and I don't think they're overcrowded.