Abortion: An Argument for the Sane Citizen

Suppose we could all put aside the religion, the politics, and personal needs, on the subject of abortion. Instead, we looked on it from a logical and sane perspective. What would the argument look like?

If the life of a mother is threatened by the fetus, the mother has the right to self-defense. She therefore has the right to choose whether to defend her own life by ending the pregnancy early, or continuing the pregnancy. No person, institution, or agency can in anyway impeded the mother's choice in the matter of self-defense when the mother's life is threatened.

Ending the pregnancy early does not automatically mean aborting the fetus. It means simply that, ending the pregnancy early. If the pregnancy can be ended early without aborting the fetus then this is required by law, as all life is protected. If the mother chooses in this case to keep the child, then she may do so. If however, she chose not to keep the child, all parental rights and responsibilities would be removed from the mother and the child would be managed by the state until such time as it might be placed with a qualified family.

Further, a pregnancy can threaten the life of the mother by definition by more than physical means. For instance, in the case of rape, assuming rape can be legally determining, pregnancy may threaten the life of a mother by physiological means.

Determination of threat to life would be made by the mother's personal physician, and two additional medical doctors. The decision would be based solely on a set of predetermined criteria. If threat is determined, the choice of self-defense becomes the right solely of the mother.

Other than in those cases in which the fetus presents a determined threat to the life of the mother, abortion would be illegal.

Illegality of abortion under all but cases of self-defense is based on the premise that law should protect all life.

Mothers not having the right to abort a fetus except in cases of threat, would inevitably lead to mothers giving birth to unwanted children. Mothers in such situations would also be afforded clear unalienable rights to permanently free themselves of any obligations and rights to the unwanted child. Under such circumstances the child would be managed by the state until such time as it might be placed with a qualified family. Qualified families, it can easily be shown, are in abundant supply. In such situations, the mother would have given up all rights to even the knowledge of the child and would have no legal recourse to resend that decision. In essence, the mother would have traded the right to abort a fetus at will, with that of aborting parental rights at will. The results to the mother being largely similar, except in the matter of convenience.

To support this argument, again taking away all religious, political and personal needs, view abortion in a strictly logical light. Abortion becomes a simple matter of one person choosing to end the life of another person. This is illegal in all other areas of law. A person may not take the life of another simply because they choose to do so. The only exception being that of clear self-defense.

Abortion is no different. In all cases, except those of self-defense, a mother choosing to abort a fetus comes down to a simple choice...a choice of convenience. No matter how it is framed, or phrased, or stated, abortion is choice. Choosing to end the life of another is illegal. Therefore, choosing to abort is illegal.

The argument that an unborn fetus is not life cannot be accepted logically unless it can be proven. Sane society would accept that a fetus removed from the mother, which is viable, and survives into childhood would have proven itself to have been life as a fetus. Therefore, a fetus, which has been carried to a point where it might be considered viable medically, is to be considered life. Due to ever advancing capabilities in sustaining the life of premature birth situations, the determination in our argument as to the viability of, and therefore the life status of, a fetus would necessarily require regular review.

So given a legal structure where:

• no mother can be denied the right to self-defense against a threatening fetus
• a fetus determined medically viable is also determined to be a life
• life is protected by law
• a mother giving birth to an unwanted child has the unalienable rights to abort their parental rights

How can a sane citizen argue for, or against, abortion outside of the legal structure? Would not a sane person see the logical and clear moral necessity to uphold and support such a legal structure?

---

UPDATE: This was reposted in the JustAThought group over on MySpace and it's been getting many comments. Check them out.

Russia: An Energy Superpower?

If the United States (US) hopes to maintain stability of the world’s energy producers, it must quickly and decisively use its influence as the leading energy consumer to reign in Russia’s imperialistic energy policies. Over the past decade the US has turned a blind eye on Russia’s growing use of energy as a geopolitical tool. As a result, Russia has gone unchecked when using its hold on vital energy supplies to influence the internal politics of the Baltics and former Soviet States; a political use of energy which it is also poised to use against the US and European Union (EU). In an effort to strengthen influence over its neighbors, Russia has raced to position itself as an “Energy Superpower”; a position many believe is unsustainable. With the former Soviet and Baltic States already dependent on it for energy and the EU not far behind, collapse of the Russian energy infrastructure could lead to instability in other energy producing nations and eventual collapse of the world economy.

Russia has been racing to position itself as an “Energy Superpower” since Vladimir Putin took office on December 31, 1999. As early as the summer of 2005, J. Robinson West was warning of Putin’s alarming vision for the Russian energy sector in his National Interest article, “The Future of Russian Energy”:

Vladimir Putin has grand designs for the Russian oil and gas industry. In the post-Cold War era, the design should be based on the huge hydrocarbon reserves that could return Russia to its past glory. Russia’s energy sector could be a source of power and prestige, to replace its once great military, now a shadow of its former glory.

Under Putin, the Kremlin has already purchased majority stake in many private energy companies, effectively nationalizing the Russian energy industry. The Kremlin has also begun pushing out international corporate concerns via a combination of contract renegotiations and environmental sanctions (Rodriguez, 2007a). According to Vladis Lumans, professor of history and politics at the University of South Carolina Aiken, energy is Russia’s only real strength:

Energy is probably the most important card Russia has in its international and domestic power deck; internally it determines who will run Russia. It is Russia’s main economic asset. ... In foreign policies Russia is using energy resources to establish its importance in Western Europe and in former Soviet republics (Lumans, personal interview, 2007).

In a move reminiscent of the Soviet Era, the Kremlin has promoted the state run energy giant Gazprom to the position of “National Energy Champion,” in an apparent effort to consolidate and centralize national power in the Russian energy sector. Gazprom has the lead in most international energy deals and is the primary developer, refiner, transporter and exporter of Russian energy supplies.

Recently having taken control of a portion of the Arctic the size of Western Europe, the Russians have gone on to lay out plans for establishing a permanent military presence in the Mediterranean; something not seen since the end of the Cold War (Winik, 2007). Both actions appear to be obvious moves designed to wrest control of additional energy resources and protect vital energy shipping lanes. Scientific teams directed by the Kremlin are taking the lead in gaining formal control of the additional 10 billion tons of oil and natural gas found in this new Arctic territory. Addition of these huge reserves would ensure Russia’s place in the world as second only to Saudi Arabia in energy production and first in overall energy reserves. Highlighting a lack of US efforts in Russian containment, this huge addition in Russian energy reserves is largely made possible by the United States’ refusal to ratify the UN’s Law of the Sea Treaty. This treaty, which the US alone has refused to sign for the past 13 years, defines the rights of nation states to previously unclaimed stretches of undersea real estate. By refusing to sign, the US will be unable to sit in on negotiations aimed at internationalizing these newly accessible reserves, allowing the recent Russian annexation of Arctic territory to go unchallenged by the US (Rodriguez, 2007b).

Since the fall of the former Soviet Union, the United States and its Western allies have largely discounted Russian global and regional influence. By doing so, they have allowed Russia to pursue imperialistic geopolitical policies which are both a detriment and danger to its regional neighbors and the world at large. In her 2007 article, “Containing Russia,” former Ukrainian Prime Minister Yuliya Tymoshenko, makes the argument that the West has lost its chance for leverage with an enfeebled Russia desperate for help from abroad. Due to the current rise in oil and energy markets, Russia has found itself newly imbibed with cash and no longer in need of outside assistance. In fact, the opposite is true. Russia has under taken policies to extend its own influence on Western interests by exerting political influence over the Baltics and former Soviet States, and increasingly, Western Europe (Tymoshenko, 2007).

Chief among these policies is Russia’s use of energy supplies to influence its neighbors. What might be called petro-politics have hit the Ukraine particularly hard. In the past two years, it has seen its economy battered, Westernization efforts stifled, and its government toppled; according to many observers, all as a direct result of Russian influence. In fact, repercussions from the gas deal which ended a Russian-Ukrainian energy stand-off, resulting from Gazprom’s temporary cutoff of vital gas supplies during the cold of New Year’s 2006, are still being felt. Mychailo Wynnyckyi, professor of sociology at the University of Kiev-Mohyla, directly relates former Prime Minister Yushchenko’s defeat in the 2006 Ukrainian elections to the gas deal (Myers & Kramer, 2006).

Other Baltic states have also felt the sting of Russian energy politics. Poland has seen energy supply transit fees dry up; this coming suspiciously close on the heels of Poland’s support for Ukraine’s Westernization efforts and its own movements for membership in the EU and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Russian construction of a pipeline under the Baltic Sea to replace that now running to Germany via Poland, has effectively cut Poland out of the Russian-European energy market, severely hampering an already struggling Polish economy.

Aside from Ukraine and Poland, most of the former Soviet republics embracing pro-Western ideals, have seen similar spikes in cost and cuts in supply. Former Soviet states pursuing more pro-Russian policies have seen continuation of their favorable Soviet Era energy pricing and supply deals.

More alarming than reestablishment of its influence over the former Eastern Bloc is Russia’s movement toward similar control in the West European and American markets. Europe already imports as much as 50 percent of its gas supply from Russia. This is set to increase dramatically with the completion of the Baltic Sea pipeline directly into Germany. In addition to gas supplies, Europe also imports 30 percent of its oil from Russia (Cohen, 2007). Even the United States, previously a stalwart of Russia containment, has inked preliminary deals to begin importing liquefied natural gas (LNG) from a Gazprom controlled project in the Barents Sea by 2010 (Weir, 2005).

However, all is not well in Putin’s Kremlin push to become an energy age superpower. Some believe any energy superpower status attained by Russia to be unsustainable. One such critic, Vladimir Milov, of the independent Russian Federation Institute of Energy Policy, exposes glaring faults in the Kremlin’s policies throughout a March 2007 article in the journal Social Sciences. Milov states that recent findings by the Institute directly contradict assertions by Putin and the Kremlin that hydrocarbon exports alone can act as the foundation for large scale infrastructure modernization and social projects. His research clearly finds that, “... in order to achieve this goal, it would be necessary to export no less than 40-50 tons of oil-equivalent per capita annum.” Russia currently exports only 3 tons per capita annum. Even a full doubling of oil and gas production would result in only 10 tons per capita annum, far less than the 40-50 required to sustain current efforts (Milov, 2007).

Further aggravating Kremlin efforts are the stifling inefficiency and management issues plaguing its “National Energy Champion”. Having forcibly ended foreign investment and development in the energy sector, the Kremlin has caused vital international resource exploration and infrastructure assistance to vanish, leaving Gazprom to its own Soviet era vices.

The inefficiencies and environmental unsustainability of the lingering Soviet past have left infrastructure expansion and repair projects running far behind schedule. To make matters even worse, Gazprom has been actively investing throughout the economy, yet ignoring investment in its own core sector, energy. The company has recently invested in entertainment, media and other non-industry areas, while at the same time putting little, if any, new investment in infrastructure or exploration. The ongoing failures by Gazprom have left the Russian energy infrastructure in poor repair.

Despite glaring problems with Kremlin polices, energy accounted for 25 percent of Russian Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as early as 2005 due to the ever increasing prices of the energy trade markets (Beehner, 2005). Oil and gas revenues and taxes accounted for as much as 50 percent of total federal Russian revenue during this same period (West, 2005). All indications are these figures have continually increased since, funding vital increases in state supported programs. These programs are responsible for much of the economic and social growth Russian citizens have come to depend on since the fall of the Soviet state. Sustainability of the modern Russian Federation state, its people, economy, society and military are, for better or worse, inextricably linked to stability in the global energy economy. Any major drop in energy prices would starve Russian society of vital capital sending it into a tailspin from which it may have no means of recovery.

Russia, it seems, may be pushing itself further and further into a corner. Continued modernization efforts require increasing energy export levels, which in turn mandate continued increases in infrastructure capacity and modernization. When one realizes that the modern Russian economy, military, government and society at large, all depend solely on revenue from energy exports, the fragility of the Russian Federation becomes apparent. A major drop, for any reason, in world energy prices would mean nearly immediate failure of modern Russia as a viable state. How would Putin and the Kremlin oligarchy react in such a situation? As funds from energy exports began drying up, would the Kremlin continue pumping ever scarcer resources into maintaining the infrastructure required for supplying its customers with energy? Would it restrict exports in an attempt to stop a deadly hemorrhage of resources and force price concessions? With their own economies at stake and their people freezing in the cold of winter, how would the world’s nations react as the life blood of vital energy supplies were forcibly withheld by an increasingly isolated and belligerent Russia?

Alarmingly, other anti-Western energy producing nations, an informal “Axis of Oil”, have begun patterning themselves after Russia; funding necessary state programs and development with funds derived solely from state sale of energy reserves (Leverett & Noel, 2006). Any failure of the energy markets would affect them just as acutely. Such failures could cause an internal collapse in key regional powers and energy producers around the world; with Venezuela and Iran, swaths of Africa, and others, suddenly experiencing social upheaval and economic collapse. With China, India, the EU and US, all largely dependent on these anti-Western nations for vital energy supplies, disruptions could cause further economic and political instability, leading to general worldwide economic collapse.

Russia’s infiltration of global energy markets and control of vast untapped reserves make it vital to world stability. Any shift in internal politics or collapse of infrastructure would lead to an immediate and acute energy crisis for the world. As long as the US continues to allow Russia to expand its influence ever deeper into Europe, Asia and the US itself, the threat of any problems with Russian energy delivery grows more critical. Washington must use its influence to moderate Moscow’s policies and to demand more transparency and access to Russian markets for international companies. Only through the stability of international cooperative exploration of Russia’s vast energy reserves, can the world hope to safely depend on her into the coming century.

References

Beehner, L. (2005, October 28). Is Russia’s economy running out of energy? Council on Foreign Relations Backgrounder. Retrieved December 7, 2007, from http://www.cfr.org/publication/9119/is_russias_economy_running_out_of_energy.html

Cohen, A. (2007, November 5). Europe’s strategic dependence on Russian energy. Backgrounder, 2083. Retrieved November 27, 2007, from http://www.heritage.org/Research/Europe/upload/bg_2083.pdf

Leverett, F., & Noel, P. (2006). The new axis of oil. National Interest, 84, 62-70. Retrieved November 6, 2007, from http://sks.sirs.com/cgi-bin/hst-article-display?id=SMYDISCUS-0-5779&artno=0000249940&type=ART&shfilter=U&key=&res=Y&ren=N&gov=N&lnk=N&ic=N

Milov, V. (2007). Can Russia Become an Energy Superpower? Social Sciences, 38(1), 23-32. Retrieved November 6, 2007, from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=24532821&site=ehost-live

Myers, L., & Kramer, A. (2006, March 30). Gas deal roils Ukraine and may have cut leader's vote. New York Times, A.3. Retrieved October 21, 2007, from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=1012042331&Fmt=7&clientId=67495&RQT=309&VName=PQD

Rodriguez, A. (2007, January 13). Russia pursues policy to control its own energy resources. Chicago Tribune, n.p. Retrieved October 21, 2007, from http://sks.sirs.com/cgi-bin/hst-article-display?id=SMYDISCUS-0-5779&artno=0000258124&type=ART&shfilter=U&key=&res=Y&ren=N&gov=N&lnk=N&ic=N

Rodriguez, A. (2007, June 9). Russia aggressively pursues claim to vast, unowned Arctic deposits. Chicago Tribune, n.p. Retrieved October 21, 2007, from http://sks.sirs.com/cgi-bin/hst-article-display?id=SMYDISCUS-0-5779&artno=0000262373&type=ART&shfilter=U&key=&res=Y&ren=N&gov=N&lnk=N&ic=N

Tymoshenko, Y. (2007). Containing Russia. Foreign Affairs, 86(3), 69-82. Retrieved November 6, 2007, from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=24764722&site=ehost-live

Weir, F. (2005, Dec 28). Kremlin reasserts control of oil, gas; Russia, the world's second-largest oil producer, sees energy as a key foreign policy tool. The Christian Science Monitor, 01. Retrieved October 21, 2007, from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=948566931&Fmt=7&clientId=67495&RQT=309&VName=PQD

West, J. (2005). The future of Russian energy. National Interest, Summer 2005(80), 125-127. Retrieved October 21, 2007, from http://sks.sirs.com/cgi-bin/hst-article-display?id=SMYDISCUS-0-5779&artno=0000217845&type=ART&shfilter=U&key=&res=Y&ren=N&gov=N&lnk=N&ic=N

Move-On.org…can just move on…I’m done with them!

I've been a member of Move-On.org for a year or so now. I generally support groups who are working to increase dialog on important issues. While I don't always support the entire platform of such groups, I can overlook a few items if the general trust is positive. With that said…

I cancelled my Move-On.org membership yesterday.

The full-page ad taken out by Move-On in the Monday morning papers accusing General Petraeus of being disloyal and actually questioning his patriotism and commitment to America was completely unacceptable.

While I support the right of Free Speech, that right…just like all rights…comes with a bit of responsibility for the wielder. For Move-On to accuse a man who has spent his entire adult life protecting this country of being unpatriotic and disloyal?

Well…what else needs to be said…the liberal-nazi's live!

…and I can say that if I feel like it, because it's my right…General Petraeus has seen to that.

Other views on the General's tesimony and treatment:
http://toastie.st/2007/09/11/iraq-its-just-too-damn-late/
http://www.kowabunga.org/2007/09/kerry_tries_ti_get_it_right_on.html

Comment from MySpace

Toastie

Thanks for the link! I think the Q&A between Sen. Warner (who should command respect from both sides of the aisle) and Gen. Petraeus really summed up the situation in Iraq quite succinctly (and I hadn't seen the transcript at the time I wrote last night). Warner asked if America would be any safer as a result of our Iraq policy, and Petraeus said quite humbly that he was in no position to assert that, as his job was to focus on stability in Iraq, not to analyze how our actions to try to stabilize Iraq impact our overall security. So I agree that Move-on has picked the wrong target in Gen. Petraeus. Unfortunately, Petraeus, like the soliders he commands, is just trying the do the best he can with a disastrous situation. Posted by Toastie on September 12, 2007 - Wednesday at 3:16 PM

Citizenship: Right or Privilege?

Why bestow a valuable and precious commodity like Citizenship upon someone simply for passing a test, or worse, simply because they were born in the right place at the right time?

Who deserves Citizenship more? The person born into a family that can trace its American entrepreneurial roots back 10 generations, or the immigrant who puts his life on the line serving in the military of his newly adopted country?

Who deserves the right of Citizenship more? The woman who scrambles across the border just in time to give birth to her fifth child? Or the lady who follows the law, patiently obtaining a visa before entering the country legally?

Who deserves the benefits of Citizenship more? The 30-year-old man who dropped out of high school for an illustrious career in pizza delivery and now depends on welfare to support himself, his equally successful wife and their four children? Or the immigrant who saved every penny earned for a decade to make the trip to the U.S. and who now owns a business which supports his extended family and puts all three of his children through college?

Who deserves the honor of Citizenship more? The erudite content to espouse the wisdom of their thoughts on the ills of national policy from the comfort of a tenured position within a prestigious university? Or the high school graduate tirelessly volunteering at the local soup kitchen content in the knowledge that they helped a neighbor enjoy a hot meal today?

Why should someone with no interest in supporting a nation be supported by that nation?

How is it wrong to ask that someone earn the privilege to be a Citizen? How is it ill conceived to believe that some form of service to one's nation and community be required before bestowing this highest honor and privilege?

Why shouldn't Citizenship be earned?

On Prejudice...

Prejudice, in its purist form, should be seen as the amazing Human ability that it is.

The capability to form a reasonably accurate opinion of an individual, situation, or what have you, within the split second it takes the Human mind to do so, is an amazing feat.

From just the briefest glimpse of an individual, the mind scans through all of its accumulated knowledge to form an accurate picture…based on past experience and learned knowledge…instantly identifying the individual as belonging to a certain group with all its assigned characteristics.

While Human prejudice isn't always a pretty thing, it is definitely one of the survival traits which helped us climb to the top of the food chain. It has developed over millions of years and should not be off-handily disposed off simply to fill in a P.C. checkbox.

Comments from MySpace

Awesome	Ha that's pretty cool. I bet the early humans were like "Oh God there goes a fuckin lion again...I know what his kind is like, and I don't take kindly to lions around here" Posted by Awesome on February 20, 2007 - Tuesday at 10:01 AM

	Ashley	Here is an article from apa.org that I thought you might find interesting. Racial stereotypes can speed visual processing http://www.apa.org/monitor/jan05/visual.html Posted by Ashley on March 3, 2007 - Saturday at 7:48 PM

ikeik

That is a VERY interesting article. Sad though it is...it looks like the ol' human survival instinct is fully intact. It may be wrong to realize a gun is present faster when primed with the image of a black male, but can anyone really dispute that the very process which makes that possible is a survival instinct? Whether it's right or wrong now...the ability obviously has had its place in Human evolution. I still say we shouldn't toss out millions or years worth of ability. Posted by ikeik on March 3, 2007 - Saturday at 8:01 PM

Diversity vs. Lawlessness

Let me preface my comments by saying that I am inspired by those who immigrate to our country legally. I welcome them. I call out to them to come in mass, for they are the only hope for the stagnant, apathetic attitude that grips most of our citizenship today.

Without the continued infusion of hard working, creative, hopeful and inspired, freedom seeking peoples, our nation will wither and die.

However, there is a process in place, flawed as it may be, which our laws govern. Therefore, to the question of diversity I say this:

Diversity yes. Lawlessness no.

Diversity is the very backbone of American society. Like an alloy, the synergy of our diverse societal components make us stronger than our individual parts; just as steel far exceeds the strength of iron. However, a society, just as with any complex system, can only be as strong as the bonds that hold it together. While some would suggest Freedom is the singular bond that holds our country in form, this simply isn't so.

Freedom holds our nation above others as a beacon, but it does not bind our society together or keep it from tearing itself apart; that force is law. The rule of law.

Without the rule of law, and in the face of Freedom, you have only anarchy. With anarchy, there is no nation…no country...no society.

To have a significant portion of our nation come about their citizenship by breaking the very rule of law that holds us together, threatens to destroy the very thing that our society is built on.

So to the would-be American, I say immigrate, but do so within the confines of the nation and society which you so long to be a part of.

The Great American Loser

I'd like to know something. I'd like to know why it is that certain people get upset when someone says, "You should have to earn the assistance the government gives you."

I mean seriously, how is that asking too much? How is earning something a bad thing? Since when did it become a god given right to sit on your ass while others work theirs off in large part to support yours accumulating lard?

Why is a person villanized the moment they make the suggestion that an able bodied person should have to work? Why do we continue, as a nation, to support The Great American Loser? You know the people I'm talking about.

The Great American Loser can be over educated, or illiterate. They can be any color, race, sex, etc. They can be from any part of the country and originate from any strata of society. What ties them together into a social group is a single mind numbing belief. A belief that if they choose not to get up in the morning, the rest of us should give a damn and then work extra hard so that they can continue to eat, sleep, play video games, and procreate (which of course is also their "god given right").

They believe that just because they choose not to work or perform any productive activity whatsoever, is no reason they should be denied that steak for dinner, that Lexus for cruising, or that $3000 gaming PC for wasting away the afternoon.

The Great American Loser is also the first person to cry foul when asked by their government to perform a duty in support of the society which supports them. If called to jury, they call on their latest Medicaid check-up as the perfect excuse for being excused. If within earshot of the mention of higher taxes which might affect them, they think the speaker should be shot in the ear. If told, "No you can't buy beer or cigarettes on your EBT card.", they think you should be told, "You're fired!"

They are the losers who call into work every time they hear about a coworker who came down with the sniffles and quickly realize that they themselves must surely have contracted a brain tumor.

They are the losers who like to stand around at work shouting the wrongs of the government and the citizens who support it, while at the same time, asking to leave work early for their latest Social Security benefits review.

Yes you know them. You probably even work with one or two of them.

Why do we continue to put up with them? They have no buying power. They have no muscle power. They have little brain power.

In fact, the only power they have is the power of the vote. ...and in the vote lies the problem.

So I ask you, should the leech be given a vote as to which way the fish swims? Or should it just be happy that the fish continues to allow it to hang around, attached to it for the ride, while it sucks the fish dry of blood?

Isn't it time we forced the blood sucking parasites of American society to put-up or shut-up? Isn't it time we required able bodied citizens to contribute, or otherwise, loose that citizenship? Isn't it time we put an end to The Great American Loser?

The Ultra Right of Center Leftist Capitalistic Fascism view of Illegal Immigration

Illegal immigrants come to our country for the money they can make here. They make most of that money working at jobs which Americans...for the most part...don't want to do.

So how do we stop illegal immigration? How do we send those already here home? Simple...we take away their jobs. We take away their ability to make money. We take away their reason for being here.

To do that we only need to enforce laws which already exist. It is illegal to employ an illegal immigrant. Begin to enforce these laws, fine and imprison those who break these laws; at the same time provide an alternative workforce for these unwanted jobs.

How?

1. Put a system in place to identify legal workers.
2. Create a legal temporary worker program.
3. Require those able bodied and receiving government assistance, or welfare, to fill these positions where possible.

You've now forced employers to stop hiring illegal immigrants. You've taken away the illegal immigrants reason for being here, or for coming here in the first place. They go home on their on...they have little choice. No need for mass round-ups. No need for huge expenditure to locate illegals. For the most part, they will just leave. You've replaced them with those willing to follow the rules, and those Americans not capable of finding other work.

How do you identify legal workers?

1. Create a National ID card to replace the easily counterfeited Social Security Card for Citizens, along with an equivalent card for legal temporary workers.
2. Establish a network, similar to the credit card network, where an employer upon hiring or interviewing a new employee, swipes the card to authenticate the legal worker status.
3. Include holographic photo, finger print (or other biometrics) and encrypted smart chip technology in the ID cards.

Problem Solved.

Other benefits:

1. ID card could also be required for delivery of any social programs such as welfare, free health care, etc. If, for example, an illegal did present themselves at a hospital emergency room. The staff would of course be required by law to treat them, but they would also be required to alert the proper government authorities who would then collect and deport the illegal.
2. By requiring able bodied citizens to fill positions otherwise left vacant in return for extended government welfare, you reduce overall welfare costs, while providing low cost workers where needed, and a path to earn cash equity for those on welfare.
3. Overall cost savings from reduced social benefit cost from illegal aliens, as well as a reduction in crime etc, related to illegal's activities provide additional cost savings.
4. Increased income tax revenues when you have effectively eliminated the underground economy now funded by the illegals.
5. Decreased flow of illegals across the border, help reduce threat of terrorist infiltration across border.

presidential hand puppets saluting abomination

in the end...
presidential hand puppets saluting abomination
storm troopers devouring religious doughnuts
adolescent veil revealing elemental abyss
obsidian sands extinguishing emerald time
...before the beginning


translucent eyes devour truth,
while obsidian tears rip reality's veil.
death reborn an abomination of light,
leads the thinker beyond the known.
sparks of tomorrow erase today,
fading color from the knower's eyes...a tear.

Mid-Term to the Abyss

I voted for the first time last week since coming back to South Carolina. As we all know, there was a thump'in. I can't say I'm too upset about that. At the same time, I'm deeply concerned.

We needed a change. This country is definitely not headed in the right direction. Economy aside, which may or may not be doing better than portrayed in the media, things just aren't going well. That's not entirely our fault. The entire world is circling the drain to the abyss, but since we are THE power in the world today, we are far from without blame.

How did we get here? Years of PC appeasement and a complete lack of vision beyond the next election.

Politics, and society as a whole, have been on a search for the quick-fix for as long as I remember. We may now finally be paying the price for our short-sightedness. Not only are we hamstrung by the "political correctness nazis", we're completely powerless to do any meaningful course corrections in the near term due to years of ill-conceived policy. From the growing world-wide threat of radical-Islam, to the increasing devaluation of the middle-class, and on to the darkening clarity of the coming storm of environmental collapse, we are a civilization in danger. It didn't have to be like this.

The Republicans needed a reality check (and they've been given one). But being given that reality check by the Democrats? ...to that I can only say, "I think I just threw-up a little in my mouth."

If We All Vanished Tomorrow (from Mark Morford)

I don't usually just copy/paste entire articles...but I really liked this one. Since most people are too busy to trouble themeslves with clicking a link to access an article elsewhere...no matter how good it might be...I decided to save them the trouble.

If We All Vanished Tomorrow
What would *really* happen if all humans disappeared? The Earth grins at the thought
- By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist
Friday, October 20, 2006

Of course you already know. Of course you can merely look out the window and see the traffic and the plastic and the smog and the bad haircuts and the war and the Paris Hilton and the Bush and say, well duh.

But imagine the result anyway. Imagine for a moment that every human on the face of the planet was suddenly whisked away to the divine gurgling ether in one big blast of cheery Armageddon nothingness, all the Bible-waving True Believers carted off to a giant sex-free harp-filled cosmic Wal-Mart while the rest of us leap to the next luminous transformational echelon of timespacelove.

What would happen, really? How would the planet respond if all bipeds disappeared tomorrow?

You can probably guess. Almost immediately, the planet would shudder, shift, align itself anew. Immediately, all endangered species would begin to recover. Light pollution (that is, pollution caused by industrial light) would soon vanish, followed by a great reduction in air pollution, methane gasses, chemicals in fresh water. Soon, all bridges and dams would collapse, roads would become overgrown, buildings would decay, corals would regenerate, most organic landfill would decay and vanish. And that's just the beginning.

In other words, as the fascinating/depressing cover story in the recent issue of New Scientist points out (along with this nifty graphic from the Times U.K.), the Earth would quickly begin to recover mightily from the deep disease that is human existence. What's more, the planet would, by every estimate, quickly become a whole lot healthier, more balanced, back in harmony with itself.

Translation: We have wreaked just a horrific amount of damage and done just about exactly zero good for the place while we've been here. It is, obviously, not the most heartwarming thing to accept.

Perhaps the good news is, with the exception of some nuclear remains, were our species to vanish entirely, most traces of man's existence would wink out within about 50,000 years, and almost all traces within 200,000. Not bad at all, considering the extent of our damage. Pretty much a blip on the geologic timescale, really. Don't you feel better?

Humans are the single most dominant and destructive species in planetary history. But sentient man has been around for what, a million years? The Earth has been here for roughly 4.5 billion. No matter how you slice it, the Earth still sees us as just another fly in its bedroom. A particularly obnoxious one, no doubt, but still a fly. Isn't that reassuring?

There are two ways to react to such a viewpoint: One is to say oh my God what the hell is wrong with us and just look at how much damage we've wrought and the pain we've inflicted, look how much better off the place is when we're out of the picture and what can we do to make less of a violent impact and improve our karmic outlook while we're here because oh my God this can not be good.

Option 2 is to ask: Who the hell cares? If all our remains vanish in a couple of hundred thousand years, does it really matter how much damage we inflict? After all, there's no way to say whether or not the planet really gives a damn one way or the other about our species, given how our entire existence has taken up but a flutter of an eyeblink of time anyway. Hell, we could nuke the whole place tomorrow and the planet would merely shudder and shrug and pause for a few million years and start all over. Right?

How do we really measure our impact? Soulless GOP warmongering oil execs see this planet as merely one giant oil well to be sucked dry. Millions of humans, if they think of it at all, merely view the Earth as a giant sandbox, a mute playground to be trammeled and paved over and drilled into and burned through and sliced up like so much ecological pie until it's all gone and we're forced back into the caves to beat each other with clubs over the last scraps of beef jerky and nuclear Twinkies. I mean, who cares?

I have friends who don't exercise. I know plenty of people who still smoke and drink a ton of beer and get stoned frequently and eat gallons of processed foods and watch TV like it was pixilated cake and the last time they truly got their hearts pumping was when they had to walk five blocks from their house to the sushi joint because their car broke down.

They just laugh. What's the point of eating right and exercising? they say. Why the hell spend all that money on yoga and gyms and vitamins and try to take excessive care of the body when we're all just gonna break down and die anyway? What's the point? Just to live a little longer? Who wants to live to 90 anyway? Why not enjoy life's vices now and let the body wallow and slump? This is what they say.

It is the cutest viewpoint, like, ever. The initial reply is almost too obvious to explain: The point of a healthy lifestyle is not to live longer. It is to live better, right now, in the moment, to breathe deeper and dream more lucidly and step lighter and orgasm stronger and be able to touch your toes and touch your lover's toes and try, just try, to evolve, just a little, while we're here, in fits and spurts and groans and via healthy snifters of Oban 14 and lots of tongue kissing in the street.

It's about paying attention. It's about tuning in. It's about respecting the physical so as to connect more profoundly with the spiritual so as to try and hone the interdimensional so as to prepare, somehow, maybe, if this is at all possible and many, many gurus and healers and mystics and wise ones truly believe it is, for some sort of massive cosmological transformative goobleslamdinglewhap. Hey, it's your choice.

Maybe the planet is no different. Maybe we should take care of it because it makes our lives better and our orgasms stronger and the trees look at us without cringing and begging for a divorce. You think?

We take care of it because it's the vessel. It's the womb. It's our collective body and it's the place that holds us and feeds us and plays with us in the park while at least some of us try to prepare to get sucked back up into the grand Mystery to see what the hell happens next.

But truly, the Earth may not really care. If we abuse her to death, she might merely shake us off like a bad rash, a nasty head cold, a giant whining bipedal kidney stone. After all, despite all our bitching and stomping, we really ain't all that.

But your soul. Your soul cares. But you knew that already. Right?

---

Thoughts for the author? E-mail him.

Mark Morford's Notes & Errata column appears every Wednesday and Friday on SF Gate and in the Datebook section of the SF Chronicle. To get on the e-mail list for this column, please click here and remove one article of clothing. Mark's column also has an RSS feed and an archive of past columns, which includes another tiny photo of Mark probably insufficient for you to recognize him in the street and give him gifts.

As if that weren't enough, Mark also contributes to the hot, spankin' SF Gate Culture Blog.

URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2006/10/20/notes102006.DTL

---

©2006 SF Gate

Currently reading : Tales of the Dying Earth By Jack Vance Release date: By 01 December, 2000

What I believe... (World Politics)

I believe that we're just over the threshold into a new era. That new era goes by many names today: Postmodern, Information Age, Digital Age, etc. It is defined by a seemingly conflicting polar-duality of loss of faith and an increase in spirituality; a crumbling of moral judgment and a rise in moral fortitude. It's an era of seamless interconnectedness throughout all strata of society, and yet a deepening of social divides and personal isolation. This place in history finds all aspects of civilization, globally like never before, discovering and redefining itself with reckless abandon. Man may have never in its short existence been so far removed from its primitive beginnings, and yet wholly engulfed by its primal self.

We are truly at a crossroads. Many choices lie before us, and unlike the crossroads of eras past, we are set not to choose one, but all of the possible roads ahead on our continuing journey.

I believe that we are on the brink of a highly stratified, decentralized, chaotic global democratization.

That's not to say that all peoples of the world will be living in free liberal societies by the end of century. It is however, to say that at a regional level, the peoples of the world will be living in societies of their own choosing made possible by popular consensus. Such is the case in the middle east today where free elections have led not to free democratic societies, but to somewhat oppressive old world cultures. When faced with terminal uncertainty, uneducated man has a tendency to collect toward the known and structured.

The uneducated are never more dangerous than as members of a society where every individual has the power to change the world.

In the world of today, there is only one truly effective weapon…the weapon of knowledge. The only way to truly defeat the ills which face us, is through the unimpeded education and intellectual empowerment of the world at large. No amount of hand-outs or hand-holding can hope to equal even a single bit of free knowledge bestowed on those thirsty for the taste.

To put a Christian perspective on this argument: We were born to the world in a state of bliss and ignorance. Then we took for ourselves the fruit of knowledge and with it came hardship. Overtime, we learned that to be more like the maker we so longed to become, and to ease our personal hardship, we must horde this fruit and protect it from others. With this ability to increase and horde knowledge, we truly became something of gods in our own rights, while leaving the masses of less-thans hungrily behind in the hardship. However, I believe that we have now reached the plateau of that form of godly existence. If we hope to continue increasing our knowledge and easing our hardship, we must not emulate, but ascend beyond, the god-like state we have so long strived to achieve. We must not be as the God, fatherly hording away knowledge. Instead, we must harvest that fruit and feed the masses. Only then will we have the strength as a people to push forward in the days ahead…into this new era.

Comments from MySpace

FitterHappier

Sylvia Browne says that humans have only got about 95 more years on this planet. So I guess it doesn't really matter, huh? Posted by FitterHappier on Tuesday, October 03, 2006 at 12:18 AM

Coalition of the Disaffected

Though I’ve noticed limited coverage and a spattering of mentions across the various media, I wonder if a very dramatic development in the balance of world power isn’t being overlooked by the major media outlets…or perhaps it’s just being ignored.

Over the past few years, and especially during the last year, socialism has had something of a quiet revival of revolution in key regions around the world. This is no more apparent than in the Americas.

In the Americas, the rolls of socialist leaning countries, who have begun positioning themselves as important world players, grows every month. Venezuela, Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Peru and Mexico now have all either moved strongly to the left or come under increasing leftist control with each passing day. Along with Cuba, these countries have formed strategic alliances with China, Russia, Syria, Iran and even North Korea, among others.

There can be no doubt that the alliances: economic, political, military, etc of the countries listed above, should be of major concern to the U.S. and its allies.

Consider this…Iran is already flexing the new found muscle it has been handed by the U.S. bungling of Iraq. Should it become the regional power we have now positioned it to become, our efforts toward democracy in Iraq should fail, and the resulting government align itself with Iran, what percentage of world oil reserves would be under Iran’s control? What percentage of total world oil, gas, and other energy reserves would a strategic alliance of China, Russia, a Middle East controlled by Iran, and a South/Central America dominated by a socialist alliance, control? Faced with this obvious threat, what would be the response of “The West”? Considering we are hamstringed by the UN’s apathy and indecisiveness at every turn, could we even respond in time to head-off such a chain of events? Could those we have disaffected in an effort to reign supreme soon form a coalition leading to our ultimate demise?

While I plan to present a more detailed argument for concern during the next few weeks, I wanted to point out the obvious here and solicit comments on the subject.

UPDATE 02/01/2007:
Well it looks like things are falling into place for the Coalition of the Disaffected. Recent news articles point to the continued strengthening of ties and deeper cooperation of our lesser and "former" enemies. Not to mention huge steps toward out-right socialist states in South America.

Here are just a few news articles from the past week:

JTW News - Chavez, Morales, Correa bypass U.S. in deals with Iran, China

North Korea, Iran cooperating on long-range missiles

Socialist Ideology Takes New Roots in South America

Chavez to Rule by Decree -- 01/31/2007

Diario Las Americas - In Venezuela, Hugo Chávez is the State

Upside Down World - Sandinista Government Takes Power in Nicaragua

Today in Investor's Business Daily stock analysis and business news

An Ultra Right of Center Leftist Capitalistic Fascist is Born???

An Ultra Right of Center Leftist Capitalistic Fascist is Born??? ...one can only hope.

It's my baby I'm talking about here. Faced with the never ending crap of the world and the never ending stream of people more than happy to pour it over your head, I think she may have seen the light!!

Check out her latest comments on "The System" in:
I think I'm becoming a conservative!?

The Ultra Right of Center Leftist Capitalistic Fascism view of Abortion

I was discussing Fake Crisis Pregnancy Centers with Shadoe earlier today and I realized that even those who know me pretty well don’t really understand where I stand on much of anything. Leading me to believe that no one really knows me very well. Is that because I’m elite and above the masses? Probably not. Does that mean I’m an elitist? Nope. It just means that my views don’t hold to any one historical or popular doctrine. Instead, my views and positions on issues and the world in general are most definitely a la carte.

When my widely scattered and sometime apparently contradicting views are considered with my staunch often stubborn hardnosed take on issues I can think of only one title which fits my “political stance” well: Ultra Right of Center Leftist Capitalistic Fascism. I’m sure of course that others will think of a few of their own.

To explain further I’ll cover a few examples. I’ll start with one now and add others over the next few weeks. Let’s start with the subject of Abortion…

Abortion - I believe that a woman has the right to have an abortion in all cases where the woman is deemed sound of mind and legally capable of making such a choice. However, I also believe that the existence of a right does not constitute right. By that I mean, just because you have the right to do something doesn’t mean that doing so is necessarily right. So yes, a woman does and should have the ability to have an abortion is they so choose, but I don’t believe that doing so is the right thing to do. That statement is of course former fact and latter opinion. In my way of thinking, such a statement is perfectly acceptable.

Being a male obviously makes it impossible for me to fully understand the female point of view on this subject. Just further proof that males and females of the species are intrinsically different animals, different but equal animals in a perfect world. However, in thinking through this issue I have striven to take the female point of view into account as much as I am capable of.

My main concern where the choice for abortion is concerned is this: If carrying the fetus to full term and giving birth does not pose a mental or physical medical issue for the woman, then choosing to abort the fetus basically comes down to a choice of convenience or inconvenience. While I can honestly say, I would not want to be responsible for a child at this point in my life; I also realize that partaking in such activities as those which generally lead to the creation of a fetus, carry some amount of responsibility. If a person chooses to have sex, they should be prepared to accept the responsibilities which such activity might carry. Sex is great. Sex is good. Sex is not all fun and games.

This is of course assuming that the sex act which led to conception was consensual. That should go without saying I think and any law or even discussion which does not assume so is flawed from the beginning.

Let me be clear. In my view, abortion comes down to acceptance of responsibility. If a woman chooses to have sex, then any fetus which might conceivably come about as a result bears a responsibility upon that woman. If the woman has sex forced upon her however, then she should be free from actual responsibility and the choice becomes purely that…a choice. If in either case the woman then logically weighs the responsibility between protection of her own being, which must come first, and that of the potential child, which must necessarily come second, she should come to a logical conclusion…to bring the child to full term or abort.

Notice that I said “bring the child to full term”, not to “raise the child”. I am a strong proponent of adoption.

If the choice to have sex results in conception, in my view, it is the least a mother can do to carry the child to full term and allow it a chance at life. If that life is to be with her or another matters little at this point. There is no shortage of happy, loving, stable couples out there vying for the chance to raise a child.

So then, my view on abortion in short is this: to choose to have sex, then to choose simply out of convenience to abort a child instead of giving it a chance at life with loving parents, is a deprived selfish act…it is however also a right. It is a right for which I am willing to fight because all choice ultimately comes down to freedom. Freedom is something which must always be defended.

Bush’s Medical Plan

…yeah…it’s a joke.

Christian Exodus

“ChristianExodus.org is orchestrating the move of thousands of Christians to reacquire our Constitutional rights and, if necessary to attain these rights, dissolve our State’s bond with the union.”

Maybe you need to re-read that…I know I did the first time I came across it. This is an actual organization led by some guy from California named Cory Burnell. They just had their first annual meeting in Greenville, SC, over this past weekend.

This is a group of Christians who have taken it upon themselves to relocate to MY state, take over MY state’s government, and then, as they say, if necessary to meet their goals, secede from the union.

OK, admittedly, anyone who knows me knows I have issues with this state I live in. South Carolina is about as backward as they come in many areas. However, I have the right to work to change the state more to my liking because it’s MY state.

These guys are openly admitting that their plan is to move in outsiders in such numbers that they will be able to co-op the local, county and state government positions through election. At that point they will began passing their own laws and changing those they don’t like.

I can only say two things to this: 1) They obviously have no clue how independent we Southerners are, or how much we detest outsiders trying to manipulate us. 2) Umm…I’m pretty sure a group of people has already tried this whole secession thing once…and if I remember my history right…it didn’t work out so well for them.

You will definitely be hearing more from me on this in the near future. Take some time to check these people out though. There is an active discussion on them over at WitchVox.

These Exodus guys are a scary bunch…course not nearly as scary as I’m going to be if one of them tries to tell me *I* don’t have the right to believe and think how I want to in “THEIR” state.

Don’t make me angry Mr. Burnell…you wouldn’t like me when I’m angry.