I love this picture...

What is a Libertarian?

Steve,

Starting a new subject here...

When you have time, I wonder if you would define what you consider the concept of "libertarianism" to mean. Personally, I find the term to be fascinating.

I have in my collection a number of excellent reference books. Starting with my encyclopedias and dictionaries, I found libertarianism to be absolutely absent from my Britannica, as well as most of the dictionaries. Curious, that. I also have three or four compendiums on philosophy. Once again, the term is not even mentioned in them. Curiouser and curiouser...

I had decided to first see what I could learn about this term from bound volumes - and got essentially nowhere. So, reluctantly, I headed for the Internet. Wikipedia has a brave, confusing article on the term - with an external link to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

On reflection, I found this to be rather significant. "Bound volumes" (of reference) may constitute, if you will, a measure of a particular concept's gradual evolution. For instance, my 1944 Webster's cites libertarianism only briefly under the heading of "liberty". The term is then entirely excluded from the 1956 and 1969 editions. What this indicates, to me at least, is that the term had little or no common application at least up to the 70's. On the other hand, the Wikipedia and IEP articles are fairly extensive, which indicates perhaps that the term has only recently come into vogue.

I'm genuinely curious as to what you think the term means - and I don't mind telling you why. You have on more than one occasion identified yourself as a "libertarian". It seems to me this means you are guided (more or less) in your political thought by a specific set of principles. What are they?

-Chris

P.S. This might be fun.

I'm Getting Old...

I was reading some notes about the lifestyle and attitudes of the college graduating class of 2014 (18-year-olds this year). Some selected observations to consider (some are original):


- They have never considered it unusual to find Korean-made cars on the Interstate, let alone parked in the driveway next door.

- They are used to quick and easy access to 500 channels of digital television, of which they only watch a handful, because there is nothing on worth watching.

- They are 'digital communicators' in the extreme and have never (or very rarely) created a hand-written letter or note using cursive script. E-mail is too slow. And they roll their eyes at the thought of using 'snail mail'. 'Stamps' are a dance move.

- They always have a cell phone with them, but do not wear a watch because they get the time from the phone. They don't know that pointing to your wrist was once a request meaning “what time is it?”. And they have never used a telephone with a cord connecting a handset to the base unit. Or had to untangle the cord. “Rotary Dial phone? What's that?”

- “Dirty Harry” is an unknown character, but they do recognize the same man as being a great movie director.

- They never worried about what the Soviet Union was doing around the world politically. And thinking that 'Russia' has ever had nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles aimed at the U.S. seems laughably unlikely. As a matter of fact, Russians and Americans have always been living together in Space.

- American has always had soaring levels of trade and huge budget deficits. China has always been and economic powerhouse and threat.

- The phrase “venti half-caf vanilla latte” not only makes perfect sense, it's a part of normal, daily statements on the street corner.

- They don't know of a world where Buffy has NOT always been meeting her obligations to hunt down Lothos and the other bloodsuckers at Hemery High.

- Their classmates all have at least one immigrant parent, and the immigration debate is not a big priority to them unless it involves "real" aliens from another planet.

- They have never seen John McEnroe play professional tennis.

- Colorful lapel ribbons have always been worn to indicate support for a cause. (And are to be quickly discarded in favor of a different ribbon, just as soon as the next popular cause comes along.)

- Gene Roddenberry, the father of 'Star Trek', has always been dead.

- DNA fingerprinting and maps of the human genome have always existed.

- They have lived more of their life under Democratic presidents than under Republicans.

- Computers have always had at least a CD-ROM disk drive. And usually a DVD player. They have no idea what a “floppy disk” is.

- Czechoslovakia has never existed. Germany was never split into East and West.

- They're never seen a manned U.S. rocket launch that didn't use solid fuel propellants.

- Once they got through security, going to the airport has always resembled going to the mall.

- Bud Selig has always been the Commissioner of Major League Baseball.

- American companies have always done business in Vietnam.

- Exposure to 'Witchcraft' had nothing to do with the comedic lives of Samantha and Darrin, but was all about being 'Charmed' while Harry Potter went to school.

- Kurt Cobain and Nirvana is on the classical 'oldies' radio station. “Stairway to Heaven' is considered 'easy listening music. This is fine because they don't listen to radio anyway - their music is downloaded and viral to its core.

- Their parents' favorite TV sitcoms have always been showing up as movies. And the next theater always has a flick staring their parent's comic-book hero.

- They don't remember when Dr. Jack Kevorkian, Dan Quayle or Rodney King were in the news.

- Rock bands have always played at presidential inaugural parties.

- They probably assume that their parents' complaints about Black Monday had to do with punk rockers from L.A., not Wall Street.

- 'Movie Animation' means Pixar or Dreamworks.

- Since they were born, the Dow Jones average has never been below 3500. Since they started elementary school, it's never been below 7000.

- “Barney” has always meant a purple dinosaur, never Barney Google or Barney Fife. Beethoven has always been a dog.

- Ruth Bader Ginsburg has always sat on the Supreme Court.

- Honda has always been a major competitor on Memorial Day at Indianapolis.

- The nation has never approved of the job Congress is doing.


And, like all the generations before them, the class of 2014 considers themselves to be permanently 'hip', 'edgy', and 'in-the-know' on all the things that really matter. They have fast and easy solutions at their fingertips for each and every problem. And if - somehow - their ideas don't work in the Real World, it's not their fault - (a) their solution was sabotaged, or (b) they had good intentions, so the results don't really matter.

They are riding the waves of a fully-computerized technology-based culture that relies on iPhones and Blackberries for instant communication with others, they require rapid access to trivial and meaningless anecdotes 24/7, they demand quick-and-easy answers to any question - and they don't have a clue there is a huge difference between information and knowledge.

Once again, we are painfully reminded that a generation comes and goes in the blink of an eye. And despite their wishes and increasingly frantic efforts, they are, just like the rest of us, getting older and older...

And so it goes.

- Steve

If You're Fishing for a Climate Change Skeptic, Don't Bait Your Hook Genuine Science

Steve,

I call your attention to the fact that it is always easier to make an accusation than it is to verify it. The real damage occurs when people begin to accept accusations as facts without taking the extra time to discover if they are really true or not.

Back in February, on a short list of major problems with climate science, you posted this:

"To make matters worse, and proving this was not an isolated situation, the same thing happened again, aka AmazonGate, where the IPCC published and promoted claims of the impending endangerment of some 40% of the Amazon rainforest. (Bizarrely, even the WWF's own report on the Amazon forest doesn't support this conclusion. You'd think the IPCC's peer-review process would have caught that...)"

Let's take a closer look at "Amazongate" and see what we can learn about facts and accusations - and specifically, yours. I'll warn you, this is going to be a long post.

First mention of this "controversy" appeared at the website of British blogger Richard North, and was later carried as an article in The Times. Mr North had uncovered a supporting reference in the IPCC's 4th assessment which seemed a little fishy.

In the 2nd Volume (take note: by Working Group II) of the 4th IPCC Report, "Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability", under chapter 13, "Latin America", Mr. North found the statement that "40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation...".

Reference for this conclusion was listed as "Rowell and Moore, 2000" ("Rowell, A. and P.F.Moore, 2000: Global Review of Forest Fires. WWF/IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, 66 pp. - as it appears in the reference section).

As noted, the Rowell and Moore publication is a product of the IUCN: The International Union for the Conservation of Nature. While it is an excellent report (you can download it here), its authors, Andy Rowell and Peter F. Moore were characterized as "green campaigners". From Mr. North's article:

"Thus, the IPCC is relying for its assertions that "up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation" on a free-lance journalist/activist and a specialist in policy and analysis relating to forest fires in Australia, Asia and South Africa."(my emphasis).

Not only that, but if you read through the article itself (I have), as Mr. North pointed out, you find no reference at all to the 40% Amazonian forest sensitivity figure.

Mr. North concluded:

"In all, then, the IPCC claim is a fabrication, unsupported even by the reference it gives, which it should not in any event have used as it is not a primary source."

Now this is the kind of accusation which really resonates in the denialist blogosphere. It perfectly fits the claim that climate science and global warming are being used by alarmists to further a radical, environmental agenda. But is that actually true?

Along comes George Monbiot, who wrote in a July 6th Guardian article:

"There is no doubt that the IPCC made a mistake. Sourcing its information on the Amazon to a report by the green group WWF rather than the abundant peer-reviewed literature on the subject, was a bizarre and silly thing to do.

...But far from “grossly exaggerating” the state of the science in 2007, as North claimed, the IPCC – because it referenced the WWF report, not the peer-reviewed literature - grossly understated it. The two foremost peer-reviewed papers on the subject at the time of the 2007 report were both published in Theoretical and Applied Climatology.

...The first paper, by Cox et al, shows a drop in broadleaf tree cover from approximately 80% of the Amazon region in 2000 to around 28% in 2100 (Figure 6). That is bad enough, involving far more than 40% of the rainforest...

So what does the second paper say? Betts et al go even further(2). In their model runs:

“By the end of the 21st Century, the mean broadleaf tree coverage of Amazonia has reduced from over 80% to less than 10%.” "

Mr Monbiot goes on to note that both papers were actually cited elsewhere in the IPCC AR4 report. And indeed they are. Here is the link he provides, which leads to a list of references supplied by Working Group I (keep that in mind).

BTW, the papers are:

1. PM Cox et al, 2004. Amazonian forest dieback under climate-carbon cycle projections for the 21st century. Theoretical and Applied Climatology, 78, 137–156. DOI 10.1007/s00704-004-0049-4

2. RA Betts et al, 2004. The role of ecosystem-atmosphere interactions in simulated Amazonian precipitation decrease and forest dieback under global climate warming. Theoretical and Applied Climatology, 78, 157–175. DOI 10.1007/s00704-004-0050-y

Back came Richard North with a July 29th response in The Guardian: " Response to George Monbiot: Why 'Amazongate' matters", in which he writes:

"That he (Monbiot) claims that there is research which supports the general thesis, is not the point. Apart from the fact that its meaning and value is arguable, the fact is that Working Group II of the IPCC did not refer to this work and did not call it in aid of its claim."(my emphasis).

In essence, what Mr North continues to claim is that the original Rowell and Moore reference still matters because it was included in the report in the first place. And, crucially, Working Group II (not WG I) - the group responsible for the section covering the Amazon forest, failed to mention the relevant, peer reviewed literature. In other words, even though peer reviewed literature did exist to support the "40%" claim, Working Group II was not aware of it - a fact which exposes their claim as a fabrication.

However, possibly what Monbiot, and certainly what North didn't realize, is that Working Group II really did cite the appropriate literature. Here is a link to page 253 (references) of Working Group II's report (Chapter 4) on Ecosystems, which is entirely the appropriate place to cite these papers. Note that the "Betts, etal" (and later, on page 255, the "Cox, etal") papers are clearly cited.

But wait, there's more. Remember, the IPCC report had quoted the figure of 40% of the Amazonian Forest's sensitivity to reduced precipitation, where as the Betts and Cox articles appear to support an even higher figure. Why is this?

Well, even before the Monbiot article, on June 20th, The Times had already published a correction of the North article, along with an apology for running it. From the correction:

"In fact, the IPCC’s Amazon statement is supported by peer-reviewed scientific evidence. In the case of the WWF report, the figure had, in error, not been referenced, but was based on research by the respected Amazon Environmental Research Institute (IPAM) which did relate to the impact of climate change. We also understand and accept that Mr Rowell is an experienced environmental journalist and that Dr Moore is an expert in forest management, and apologise for any suggestion to the contrary."

and perhaps more to the point:

"In addition, the article stated that Dr Lewis’ concern at the IPCC’s use of reports by environmental campaign groups related to the prospect of those reports being biased in their conclusions. We accept that Dr Lewis holds no such view – rather, he was concerned that the use of non-peer-reviewed sources risks creating the perception of bias and unnecessary controversy, which is unhelpful in advancing the public’s understanding of the science of climate change. A version of our article that had been checked with Dr Lewis underwent significant late editing and so did not give a fair or accurate account of his views on these points. We apologise for this."

So now let's look back and again consider Mr. North's less substantial accusation that the 40% figure had to be a fabrication because: "the fact is that Working Group II of the IPCC did not refer to this work and did not call it in aid of its claim..."

Is this accusation credible?

No, it isn't - and for reasons which Mr. North, had he been a more responsible journalist, could easily have discovered. Here's why:

First of all, peer reviewed papers dealing with Amazonian Forest sensitivity to lower precipitation were appropriately referenced by Working Group II in a related chapter. STRIKE 1. Secondly, the 40% figure cited was actually backed up, as the Times Correction states, by published, peer reviewed research from IPAM (Instituto de Pesquisa Ambiental da Amazonia) STRIKE 2.

Finally, the reference to Rowell and Moore had to be a typo. Why? Well, every single author and reviewer on Chapter 13 were drawn from institutions in South or Central America - and without doubt would have been familiar with the work of IPAM. Not only that, but many, if not all of them would almost certainly have previously cited IPAM material, if not collaborated with that institution first hand. Thus, since they had access to and knowledge of the IPAM material, they had absolutely no reason to fabricate the 40% figure and back it up with the wrong reference. STRIKE 3*.

So, after a patient examination of all the facts, "Amazongate" goes up in a puff of smoke, and turns out to be nothing more than an effort by a biased, right wing blogger to manufacture a controversy out of a mere typo. I want to conclude this post with a few important observations...

First of all, no matter how many times you repeat it, a lie is still a lie. This is something we should have learned back during the Red Scare and the McCarthyism of the 50's. Somebody makes an accusation, others pick it up, add to it, and the whole thing gets repeated over and over until it acquires the semblance of fact. Everybody's saying it, so it must be true - no?

The sad truth is, this is a game played with a stacked deck which favors the accusers. They make the accusations, and a credulous American public with a short attention span buys into them. Not necessarily because we are ignorant, but because we are intellectually lazy.

Now if those right-wing sources we rely on for judgements about climate science were really interested in the truth, they would have researched this phony controversy, as I have, and concluded it amounted to absolutely nothing. But Steve, they're not interested in the truth. All they really want is a means to discredit the science and the scientists which fairly calls their political views into question. Facts don't matter to these people.

Steve, it took me over half a day and well over a thousand words to refute a single accusation which took you only a single paragraph and a few seconds to make. This is the kind of odds the establishment of climate science is up against. I can't tell you how many times I've asked myself, "What's the point?". If you are so determined to believe these false accusations that you will not do this research yourself, why should I waste my time doing it for you?

I decided to create this post, not specifically to refute "Amazongate". I could have done the same thing with any of the other accusations you made in your earlier posts. My point here is to demonstrate that should you have the desire, you have the means to check these things out for yourself.

Peace.

-Chris

* note: If you question this conclusion, I'll go back and check academic references and resumes. However this process is very time consuming and in my opinion unnecessary in view of the fact that it is no more plausible to believe an expert physicist would not know about Einstein's work than a South American climate scientist would not know of IPAM.

Yep, Poor Prop 8

Chris, I *did* read the ruling. All of it.

As I tried to say, I agreed with the principle behind the challenge to the amendment by the gay activists. I also pointed out that the presentation in support of the amendment was bungled (by focusing on so-called 'wisdom' and reasoning behind it). Knuckleheads, one and all. I am surrounded by well-meaning buffoons on all sides.

Sidebar: IMHO, Someone should consider bringing impeachment proceedings against elected and appointed officials for refusing to 'defend' the state constitution, regardless of their personal feelings in the matter. But that's another matter entirely.

Let me say here that I disagree with the amendment itself *and* the ruling. Neither should have been necessary. IMHO, were it not for an activist judiciary 'finding' (inventing) rights out of thin air, it never would gotten this far. Oh well.

Nonetheless, a claim was made. The state court 'found' a 'right' in the State Constitution. The public disagreed with the court's ruling and took the correct legal approach to change the State Constitution in ways more to their liking. This lead to another challenge; throwing the California amendment against the U.S. Constitution. A (lower court) federal judge decided - for whatever reason - to overturn a legally implemented state constitutional amendment. Whether he did so in response to a mismanaged defense is not the point... he should have kicked it upstairs as being "above his pay-grade". Period. And the case should have been argued SOLELY on the merits of whether or not amending the State Constitution on this subject was within the rights and responsibilities of the citizens of California. Period.

I am reminded of Prohibition and where the U.S Constitution was amended, and, later, when the populous wished to change their decision, they had to amend the Constitution again. I fail to see why this procedure should not be followed in this case, just because it happened at a state level. (IMHO, they chose this path because the activists *knew* that winning their case in the court of public opinion was unlikely. And its much easier to influence a single judge, or small panel of judges, than it is to convince the populous as a whole of the correctness of your position.)

I won't argue that some kids are well-treated when raised by gays. There are some who are well-treated when raised in a traditional household. There are some who are well-treated in single-parent households. And, in all of those scenarios, there are also some children who are horribly abused. Yes, children should be nurtured and cared for. More power and kudos to anyone who does that, regardless of lifestyle. But that is not the point, either.

This is a Constitutional issue. It has a special focus on States Rights and Consent of the Governed. It strikes directly at the core question of "Who Decides"? *THIS* is the issue that needs to be resolved at the highest levels. It's not about what is best for the children or best for society or - for that matter - whether or not the concept of equal protection under the law applies in this case... It's about who has ultimate CONTROL over what the law *IS*. And that is a dangerously slippery slope indeed.

I strongly dislike that something as contentious as gay marriage is the lightning rod. It could just as easily have been abortion or illegal immigration. But here we are. Having this issue clouded by personal activities which do not belong in the courtroom is distasteful, to say the least. We cannot always choose our preferred battleground; this one is before us and the storm clouds are gathering.

Chris, I believe the future of the country is at stake. We've already had the Kelo decision from SCOTUS striking at the very core principle of private property rights. This decision will likely be just as far-ranging. *I* am fearful for *my* rights, too. And it would appear 'minority' rights (there is no smaller minority than One) are being relegated to the back of the bus, again - cast aside before the altar of political correctness.

The tyranny which exists under an unaccountable ruler (even if it's just a 'judge' and not a monarch) invariably leads to destruction.

And so it goes.


- Steve

"Despair is a sin"

I titled this post with the old cliche lest we both fall into the pit with our eyes closed.

Like you, I grow increasingly tired of the finger-pointing and meaningless drivel coming from all sides. Yes, we have an economic disaster looming, the likes of which has never been seen. The Great Depression will be fondly remembered by some as a time, "we all pulled together". Hogwash. You are correct in that the root of the problem is a societal change in attitude. It will be difficult to recover. Yes, as you pointed out, we got here by going for faster and cheaper... on promises that tomorrow will never come and that actions have no consequences.

Sadly, we can't go back to The Good Old Days of an 'industrial' lifestyle, anymore than we can turn back the clock or stop the rain. That means a new approach will be needed. Technology marches ever forward, and we must change with the times or perish.

I humbly suggest we consider going back and embrace that which truly got this country off the ground - a spirit of rugged individualism and a desire to Be Left Alone. No looking to some Big Brother to fix our problems that we ourselves caused with our bread-and-circus machinations. No requests of our government other than to provide for an even playing field where the same Rules apply to all. Where the political class does thing out of a sense to protect the rights of the minority - and there can be no minority smaller than the individual: a minority of one. A county that abandons individual rights and responsibilities does so at its peril - the tyrannical rule of the mob is not far behind. We need a rebirth of belief in something beautiful and value in each person, but also something special that is larger than themselves - a country where each can achieve his heights according to his own competence. And without trying to rig the game in anyone's favor.

I admit, it's a childish dream. But I dream of a time where the Best and Brightest willingly step forward to do what they can to address the issues at hand. Not out of a desire for self-promotion, or personal aggrandizement, but because they CAN DO THEY JOB. And then, once the job is done, they graciously step out of the public eye and return to their own tasks, leaving the next problem to someone else.

Sure, this is a dream where there *IS* a bit of "from each according to his ability", but there is no demand to distribute the results of such successes "to each according to his need". I only ask that the producer of True Wealth be allowed the courtesy of deciding what to do with what they have created, as opposed to allowing some bureaucratic functionary to make those decisions according to HIS whim and personal desires.

I believe that, when the capable are left to themselves, they will achieve greater things than we can imagine. Then, having done so, the table will be set for all to reap the rewards of a new age, a new time. Arising tide raising all ships, if you will. However...

As long as we focus on trying to find new masters to make our decisions and provide for our every petty desire, we will discover that the plantation we willingly build for our own slavery will be darker than any hell-hole ever envisioned by any doomsayer (including myself).

And the mob will one day look up at the world they have built for themselves and scream: "But I didn't *know*!"

I believe we - as a people, a country, a species - can rise above where we find ourselves today. But we will fail if we work to keep those around us - who are better able - from passing us by; we would be surrounded by midgets. Instead, I would rather do what I may to lift those around me to whatever heights they can achieve; whereupon, I will be surrounded by giants. In the battle for existence, I won't as many 'big and effective guns' on my side as possible, rather than try to win with a multitude of the barely competent. I'd rather march to battle behind someone who knows how to win, instead of just ambling along as part of a rag tag bunch that only worries about out-numbering the opponent.

We can climb out of this hole, if we have the will to do what it takes. That doesn't mean it will be easy, or even pleasant. But, then, doing the Right Thing rarely is.

Let us cast aside our despair. Step back and look again at the picture with new, fresh eyes and will see the silver lining within the dark clouds. We will see that we are so blessed with riches, that our despair is driven by our childish immaturity always wants more.

Fear not. Better days are ahead.

- Steve

I despair, again

Steve,

The reason why I have lost interest in the issue of illegal immigration is that I've come to view the current debate as all form and no substance. Opinion makers in and out of Washington weigh in on treatments for the symptoms but not the disease. I consider this to be characteristic of today's American political landscape. We have become a people afflicted with a national case of attention deficit disorder. What we want are the quick fixes and the easy answers - as if some social phenomena, evolved over generations, are no different from a leaky faucet or a loose floorboard.

Just over 40 years ago, as a young man of 18 living in the proto-typical town of Marion, Indiana, I could have easily quit school and gone to work at any one of a dozen big factories. A determined man who took this course would not have gotten rich overnight, but with hard work and a little common sense could have bought a home and a couple of cars, started a family and eventually sent his kids to college. Health care? Such a man would probably have been covered from day one - 100% that is, with no deductibles or co-pays. And when he got married, his wife and kids would have been covered too - at no additional cost. Steve, most of even the smallest local businesses offered some form of health insurance. Not that it really mattered that much - in those days a guy without health insurance could visit a doctor and afford to pay for it.

My Dad worked as a white collar employee in the personnel department at the Marion RCA plant. I myself worked summers there while I was in high school and later on between semesters at Indiana University. The plant was constantly expanding. I can remember many occasions when management had to go out into neighboring communities on recruitment drives. Imagine that. Today, when any factory announces a few precious job openings, you always see hundreds, if not thousands of applications for every one position. In those days however, just about anyone who wanted to could easily have worked at least 20 or 30 hours of overtime a week - no matter what factory he worked at. I know, I was there. And by the way, you were too.

How did it all end? Back in 1987, Thomson SA, a French company, bought RCA. Eventually, due to the high cost of labor, the closed the Marion plant and moved most of its operations to Mexico. Isn't that ironic! Today we sit around complaining how illegals from Mexico are stealing our jobs. Here's a case over twenty years ago where they didn't even have to bother with coming up here to get them. A French company courteously shipped the jobs down to them.

What happened at RCA also happened to just about every other big factory in Marion - usually by the same scenario. And this in turn has been repeated in just about every city and town across America.

Now you can talk all you want about your housing bubbles, the CRA and sub-prime lending. You can finger the Barney Franks and the George Bush's for stupid government policies. Make the whole thing as sophisticated as you want, with all the dastardly villains a man could care for. But the reason why nobody can pay for or sell a home in Marion is a lot simpler than that. Steve, it all happened because the factories left town.

Steve, there has to be an incredibly important lesson in all of this. Today, we live in a dramatically changed America. Those blue collar jobs which constituted the bedrock foundation of our economy have all but disappeared. We still need TV's and computers and lawn mowers, but now we pay other nations to build them for us. This can't go on.

Blame? Sure, why not. Republicans are going to blame the unions. It was the greedy unions who literally priced their own people out of jobs. Democrats on the other hand are going to blame corporate America: the WalMarts, the Targets, and so on. None of this really gets to the essential truth that a successful society, like ours, will eventually achieve a standard of living so far above the rest of the world's that it cannot be sustained indefinitely. Sooner or later, someone hungrier than us is going to work harder for less.

When that happens, we begin to substitute the real wealth of manufacturing for the phony wealth of borrowing. And that is exactly what is happening now. You can rant all you want about how taxes are too high or too low. You can claim government spends too much or too little. But if you can get high enough above this whole charade, you begin to see that most of government taxing and spending is nothing more than a massive, communal effort to maintain a standard of living which is no longer possible. Sooner or later its going to catch up to us, and we'll be hauling our dollars in wheel barrows down to the supermarket to buy a loaf of bread.

OK, let's build our fence along the border - and not let so much of a mouse in. Lets send all the illegals back home and start over. Steve, the only thing this is going to do in the long run is force businesses to bring them all back into this country by way of a "guest worker" program which already exists. Oh and, *surprise*, that program is actually counter-productive - not just for the businesses which would find themselves paying more for labor, but for you and me too - average citizens who would inevitably foot the bill.

So, send them back, or give them amnesty and keep them here. Whatever. As a moral question, I would favor amnesty. These are the same, hungry people who are doing the jobs most Americans don't want anyway. At a minimum, they just might teach us how to get by with a whole lot less: a skill all of us are going to have to learn in the coming years.

-Chris