Print Story I remember every detail, the Germans wore grey, you wore blue..
The B.A.D.TM

Cutting through the crap since 1972...



  • I watched Casablanca again last night for about the 17th time. It holds up pretty well even though I know what's coming. I'm still not certain if Ilsa was using Rick to try to get the secret papers or if she was sincere about wanting to stay with him. I think that's part of the magic with the movie, they drop so many hints but you never really know.
  • The SABP has released a new HIT SINGLE called 4 Wheel Drive. Yeah, the name is kinda lame, it was supposed to be a working title but the guy who did the final mixing forgot to change it to something cooler. Ipso facto and whatnot. I'm not too sold on the snyth, some parts work pretty well and others kinda sound like a giant bee-hive, but I left it in there cause it fills some sonic space. Plus it's kinda cool in a 80's Flock of Seagulls way, and we all know how mondo cool that is! Anyways, it will surely be the feel-good hit of the Summer and as always it will sound better if you hammer a dozen beers down before listening.
  • What's the deal with all these womens wearing these giant huge dorky-looking sunglasses???

    I mean, doesn't anyone check their look in the mirror before they leave the house anymore??? Crikey. I think it's time for someone to stand up and let these people know that THE EMPEROR ISN'T WEARING ANY CLOTHES AND HIS SUNGLASSES LOOK STUPID. There. It had to be said.
  • I'll be having the now traditional BBQ Chicken Deli shaved chicken breast stemitch for lunch, with a giant tub of small curd cottage cheese and some left over Nerds, even though they're a damn crappy excuse of a refreshing sugary treat.
  • Is it just me or is anyone else amused by the illegal immigrants marching for rights! Heh... what part of ILLEGAL don't they understand. Only in America can people who are breaking the law march for their law-breaking rights! Personally I think they should all be beaten with a rubber hose.
  • Okay, I've got my Windows machine working pretty well with only one thing left. When I shut-down or reboot it refuses to remember my theme settings. I have to go back in and change it to classic and then shut off the stupid sounds and reset the screensaver. Every. Time. It's only a minor annoyance but WTF???? Is this stuff kept in some registry somewhere that I can hack or is it getting reset during the startup process???
< Hooray For Boobies! | BBC White season: 'Rivers of Blood' >
I remember every detail, the Germans wore grey, you wore blue.. | 84 comments (84 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback
You forgot the spoiler tags. by ambrosen (2.00 / 0) #1 Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 06:02:42 AM EST
I've genuinely never seen Casablanca, but I'd like to, so you've just ruined it for me. Also, Darth Vader is Luke's father. And Padma's.

I didn't really give anything away though by Bob Abooey (2.00 / 0) #5 Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 06:15:04 AM EST
You really should watch the movie already, it's only been out since 1942 for cripes sake.

Warmest regards,
--Your best pal Bob

[ Parent ]
giant huge dorky-looking sunglasses by wiredog (4.00 / 1) #2 Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 06:05:18 AM EST
The 70's live!

Earth First!
(We can strip mine the rest later.)

re: Iran by wiredog (2.00 / 0) #3 Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 06:06:57 AM EST
This guy has been posting a bit latelt over at the Washington Post.

His latest:

But before too many people accept the partisan political mantra that the Bush administration is itself wild and that it is hell bent on war with Tehran, they should consider that the above war games were played during the Clinton administration.


Earth First!
(We can strip mine the rest later.)

Sure by Bob Abooey (2.00 / 0) #7 Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 06:25:17 AM EST
It's only smart to plan for all events. The odds of us fighting in the middle east have been much higher than fighting in Europe for the past few decades.

It's a tough problem, I heard it described as a slow moving Cuban Missile crisis on NPR this morning. I wonder if this administration has the ability to find a political solution.

Warmest regards,
--Your best pal Bob

[ Parent ]
wargames are a little different than, by DesiredUsername (2.00 / 0) #11 Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 06:32:35 AM EST
as Hersch reported on NPR last night, the WH refusing to take nuclear strikes off the table as the generals wanted.

---
Now accepting suggestions for a new sigline
[ Parent ]
Hmm by jump the ladder (2.00 / 0) #16 Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 06:49:41 AM EST
To be honest I think it's bullshit brinkmanship which both sides are playing at the moment.

[ Parent ]
In order to be brinksmanship by DesiredUsername (2.00 / 0) #17 Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 06:52:16 AM EST
wouldn't the WH have to be the source of the "nuclear options are on the table" leak? Hersch claims he uncovered the story, not that it was fed to him.

---
Now accepting suggestions for a new sigline
[ Parent ]
Two possibilities by jump the ladder (2.00 / 0) #21 Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 06:56:08 AM EST
  1. A leak from someone opposed to this policy
  2. Disinformation feeding Hersh 
I reckon both are equally likely.

[ Parent ]
Right, exactly by DesiredUsername (2.00 / 0) #26 Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 07:04:34 AM EST
A leak from someone opposed would mean it's not brinksmanship. And Hersh says he called them (and he's known his sources for a long time) so it's hard to be disinformation.

---
Now accepting suggestions for a new sigline
[ Parent ]
Well, duh by wiredog (2.00 / 0) #40 Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 07:29:25 AM EST
Why limit your options? Just because we're including them in the plans doesn't mean we'll use them.

Besides which, if the Iranians (and their trading partners in Europe, Russia, and China) think the US is preparing to use nukes, then they might become a bit more reasonable.

See this bit in Slate, for example.

OTOH, this piece is interesting, too.

Earth First!
(We can strip mine the rest later.)

[ Parent ]
So handing nuclear weapons over to them by DesiredUsername (2.00 / 0) #42 Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 07:32:13 AM EST
is also the table? I mean, just because we're including the option doesn't mean we'll do it.

According to Hersh, the miltary wanted to take it off. It was the politicians that kept it on. That's the scary part.

---
Now accepting suggestions for a new sigline

[ Parent ]
According to Hersh by wiredog (2.00 / 0) #46 Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 07:37:00 AM EST
and his sources... Who may be (judging from what I've heard, are) somewhat biased.

The US has plans on the books for nuking North Korea, why not Iran? I imagine there's a SIOP for for Iran. I'd be very surprised if there wasn't. In fact, I'd be surprised if there wasn't one 10 years ago.

Earth First!
(We can strip mine the rest later.)

[ Parent ]
Well, duh by DesiredUsername (2.00 / 0) #49 Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 07:41:25 AM EST
Of course they have plans "on the books". Did you actually listen to what Hersh said before you channeled Scott McClellan? These aren't contingency plans, these are plans that are being put into tentative operation, with a "go or no-go" decision pending.

---
Now accepting suggestions for a new sigline
[ Parent ]
the nukular option by theantix (2.00 / 0) #59 Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 08:29:43 AM EST
these "plans", do you mean preemptive or reactionary?  I would not be at all shocked if 10 years ago there were reactionary plans against any country remotely capable of acquiring and using nuclear technology.  But I would be rather surprised to see the Clinton administration planning preemptive nuclear war, and same with Bush Sr. or Reagan.  Aggressive preemptive war wasn't even on the horizon until Bush made it a reality, and a nuclear first strike wasn't even remotely conceivable until Americans started electing the ugliest GOP assholes they could imagine to the highest offices.

____________________________________
You sir, are worse than Hitler.
[ Parent ]
You haven't studied history, have you by wiredog (2.00 / 0) #63 Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 09:38:33 AM EST
Every administration since Truman's has kept the option of a first strike against the $Enemy (usually the USSR) on the table. It was a major part of the warplans for Europe.

Earth First!
(We can strip mine the rest later.)

[ Parent ]
I doubt it by Bob Abooey (2.00 / 0) #55 Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 07:51:58 AM EST
Besides which, if the Iranians (and their trading partners in Europe, Russia, and China) think the US is preparing to use nukes, then they might become a bit more reasonable.

They know we're not going to nuke them. Just like we know North Korea isn't going to nuke us when their whack-job leader goes off on us in the press. It's sabre rattling and nothing more.

I don't even see a good way for us to bomb them without all hell breaking loose in the area and I doubt we really want to deal with that. We could have WWIII come out of that.

Warmest regards,
--Your best pal Bob

[ Parent ]
I Don't Know by Improbus (2.00 / 0) #56 Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 08:15:08 AM EST
Dubya is just dumb enough to use nuclear weapons.  Reality doesn't seem to make much of a dent in his thinking.



If you immediately know the candlelight is fire, the meal was cooked a long time ago. --- Oma Desala
[ Parent ]
There's a big difference by lm (2.00 / 0) #62 Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 09:03:31 AM EST
The US has tens of thousands of nuclear devices in various sizes and shapes and an astonishing cornicopia of delivery mechanisms ranging from bombers to ICBMs that could plant an H-Bomb in Tehran within an hour of the order being given.

North Korea is suspected of having all of the parts to be able to put together a few nukes and has no reliable delivery mechanism that can reach the US.

Consequently, the US knows North Korea couldn't initiate a first strike even if they wanted to. But Iran knows that the US is able to launch a first strike at will. And after Iran watched the Coalition of the Willing topple Bagdhad, I think it safe to conjecture that the Iranians are going to take US claims of a nuclear first strike being on the table very seriously.


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
We hope so, anyway by wiredog (2.00 / 0) #64 Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 09:40:03 AM EST
That's how deterrence works. But see the Pournelle piece I linked to in a reply to one of DUs comments. We can be deterred, too.

Earth First!
(We can strip mine the rest later.)

[ Parent ]
Deterence of the US by lm (2.00 / 0) #65 Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 09:57:57 AM EST
I doubt very much that nuclear capability in and of itself deters the US. Gratned, massive nuclear capability like the Chinese and the Russians have certainly deters the US, but I doubt that nukes themselves make a difference.

What makes Iran different is its apparently feasible cruise missle program. I guarantee you that more people in DC are losing sleep over Iran developing a rocket that can hit anywhere in the US with impunity than over Iran getting the bomb. Even if the Iranians get the bomb, there won't be all that much consternation until they have the rockets.

I think two things are interesting that don't get much press. The first is that the US is more concerned with economic power than nuclear capability. Taking a kid-glove approach with North Korea is more about the US relationship with China than anything else. The second is that at the last Arab League summit, the head openly called for all Muslim nations to strive towards nuclear capability. I might rearrange my assessment above if all of the members of the Arab League did just that.


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
What also makes Iran different by joh3n (2.00 / 0) #66 Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 10:20:08 AM EST
Is a working army, air force, etc.  Toppling Baghdad the second time was easily done because there was only a skelton army left.

----

[ Parent ]
I used to think that by lm (4.00 / 3) #68 Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 10:42:31 AM EST
But in one of these discussions a week or so ago, I did a bit of research on the Iranian armed forces. It seems that they're big on research and low on resources. At best, they've got Vietname era kit ready to put on the ground and in the air. It seems that the US trade sanctions (with regard to heavy industrial gear and electronics) has actually had some impact.

But what Iran has that Iraq didn't is a fierce sense of nationalism. Iraq hasn't been fiercely nationalistic since the modern era began. What was once the jewel of the civlized world reverted to tribalism centuries ago. But the Persians are another story altogether.

And in addition to nationalism, the Iranian people have a measure of autonomy that the Iraqis under the Hussein regime never had. If Machiavelli was correct in his estimation of human nature, the more the people at large have been exposed to freedom, the longer and harder they will fight to retain that freedom against an invading force.


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
troop strength by ucblockhead (4.00 / 1) #71 Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 01:00:19 PM EST
The trouble is that we don't have enough troops to appropriately secure Baghdad, much less deal with any Iranian incursions. Sure, we can create impenetrable bases in Iraq that the Iranians can't do much about, but if it came to blows, the border would be a sieve and the Iranians could easily force the US to either greatly raise troop strength or face much higher levels of "insurgency".

This is doubly worrying because the Iranians have certainly made many contacts with the Iraqi insurgency. Hell, they're probably funding a lot of it.

I don't see the American public standing for increased troop strength.

My impression is that unlike Hussein, the Iranian leadership is not at all delusional.
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman

[ Parent ]
I agree with your assessment of the US populace by lm (4.00 / 2) #72 Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 02:19:15 PM EST
I think we had one really good shot at rebuilding Iraq in our image and likeness and we blew it. Rather than following up the `shock and awe' with enough troops on the ground to enforce law and order and instituting a Machiavellian policy of ``cruelty well used'' to make brutal examples of those who disrupt civil order, the Coalition of the Willing idly stood by as the insurgency took form. IMO, the number of troops presently in Iraq is the number that ought to have been in Afghanistan. The occupation of Iraq should have started with at least half a million pairs of boots on the ground. If the GWB administration had made the war a national effort, I think the US could have pulled that off. But the administration didn't and now I fear that the Iraq may not be salvageable.

Now that the members of the insurgency have tasted autonomy, it will be harder and more difficult to put them down. Rather than taking half a million troops to restore order in Iraq it is likely to take twice that. And, because the government did not ask the people to participate in a national war effort, public opinion is fickle. It is highly unlikely that the US populace would support sending the resources to Iraq that need to be sent to restore order. A new president might be able to pull it off, but it would be an uphill battle.

And guess what will happen in Iraq if the US does begin bombing Tehran? I could be wrong, but I'm thinking that the Shi'ite majority in Iraq will not sit by idly and watch US bombs rain down on their Shi'ite brethren in Iran.


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
I agree completely by ucblockhead (4.00 / 1) #73 Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 04:03:18 PM EST
I remember saying we needed half a million troops back in 2003 and being told by a certain prominent user here that I was wrong and that I didn't know anything and that Rummy and co. had it all in hand.

A half-assed job is worse than no job at all, but we got a half-assed president and a half-assed defense secretary, so there ya go.
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman

[ Parent ]
Oh, it does by wiredog (2.00 / 0) #75 Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 03:00:32 AM EST
Given that a "small", 15 kt, bomb could wipe out an armored division. If Bush ordered an invasion and the US lost 10,000 troops in the first hour, well, the knowledge that such was a likely outcome is a strong deterrent. How hard would it be to deliver a bomb against the US naval forces in the Persian Gulf? Not very. A 15 kt bomb could certainly sink a $12X109 aircraft carrier...

For that matter, what would be the effect, on the US, European, and Chinese economies, of nuclear strikes on Saudi Arabia?

Never mind that it wouldn't be that hard to smuggle a bomb into the US (or Canada or Mexico) if you really wanted to.

Earth First!
(We can strip mine the rest later.)

[ Parent ]
Maybe I am overly cynical by lm (2.00 / 0) #77 Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 04:00:32 AM EST
But I think that influential members of the present administration would love to see any of the hypotheticals you brought up become actual events so as to justify the total obliteration of Iran.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
They don't want to do that. by wiredog (2.00 / 0) #78 Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 06:56:58 AM EST
Their friends in the oil business would be pissed.

Earth First!
(We can strip mine the rest later.)

[ Parent ]
Why so? by lm (2.00 / 0) #79 Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 07:02:57 AM EST
Maybe I overestimate US conventional weapons capacity, but do we not have enough firepower to level Iran using mostly non-nuclear means?

I don't see why the Texas Oil crew would object to paving Iran and then hiring Halliburton to rebuild the oil infrastructure. From the oil industry perspective, that means more record margins while supply is temporarily interrupted.


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
You overestimate by wiredog (2.00 / 0) #80 Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 07:08:30 AM EST
Tehran is a good sized city. Then there's Qum, Tabriz, etc.

One of the problems is that, if we do attack Iran with nukes, we cut off lots of oil flow. The voters will be unhappy with $5/gallon gasoline (and the election fast approacheth). Iran's neighbors, especially the ones downwind, will also be pissed, and might reduce their output. At that point what do they have to lose? Oh, and what do we do when it turns out that oil coming into the US is contaminated with fallout products?

Nevermnd that there's the Iranian retaliation(probably via Hezbollah) to worry about...

Earth First!
(We can strip mine the rest later.)

[ Parent ]
Dresden was also a good sized city by lm (2.00 / 0) #81 Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 07:24:00 AM EST
A few rightly placed nukes (made acceptable by Iran's introduction of nukes to the conflict) in conjuction with large quantities of self-oxidizing fire bombs and conventional explosives would go a long way toward making Iran a parking lot without making Halliburton's job of rebuilidng oil drilling capcity too problematic.

Aside from which, the US public will willingly accept gas far higher than $5/gallon if Iran uses nukes first. And Hezbollah is a non-starter. They've got no nukes and no real capacity for bringing their guerilla war to the US.


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
I thinking more about deterring a US first strike by wiredog (2.00 / 0) #82 Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 09:15:38 AM EST
If the Iranians srtike first then, yeah, Iran is toast.

Earth First!
(We can strip mine the rest later.)

[ Parent ]
That's where the math gets a bit fuzzy by lm (2.00 / 0) #83 Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 09:52:14 AM EST
I understand where you're coming from and I'll allow that your view has much to commend it, but I don't think it's quite complete. Iranian nuclear retaliation against a US conventional attack will be treated in the popular mind as an Iranian first strike. This is amost certainly true for the US public and probably true for the UN security council.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
My fear by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #70 Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 12:52:29 PM EST
If you're a religious jihadist, you might want to see some Iranian bunker get nuked because of the way it would inflame the Arab world and turn Europe utterly against the US.
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman
[ Parent ]
In some cases, it's two birds with one stone by lm (4.00 / 1) #74 Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 07:08:40 PM EST
Some of the more screwball factions would be elated that the infidel Shi'ia got nuked and, in the process, provided a rallying cry for all of Islam.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
Good lord. by blixco (2.00 / 0) #4 Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 06:09:57 AM EST
Is your user account an administrator account?  In answer to your question, the bits that describe a theme are kept in the registry.  In practice, though, they should not be re-set on reboot unless something is corrupted (at which point your system reverts to default).

In Display Properties, on the Themes tab, are you saving your theme with a unique name?
---------------------------------
Taken out of context I must seem so strange - Ani DiFranco

User account I think by Bob Abooey (2.00 / 0) #8 Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 06:28:53 AM EST
I'm using XP Home Media Centre 2005 ( I think) and quite frankly I don't recall ever setting up an admin account. It never prompted me to do so and I've been doing everything from the Bob account which, as far as I can tell is the only one.

I've never named the theme. Are you telling me that I need to save it as something before Windows will stop willy nilly changing it back to the default crappy theme?

Warmest regards,
--Your best pal Bob

[ Parent ]
It might help by blixco (2.00 / 0) #15 Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 06:41:38 AM EST
to name it and save it.  But it sounds like there might be a file corruption or profile problem.

Also, when you log in...if you log in...you may want to try Ctrl-Alt-Del twice, then enter administrator for a username and no password.  If it logs you in, please change the administrator password.

Though it may have disabled the admin account, and your Bob account is the admin account, you just don't know it.
---------------------------------
Taken out of context I must seem so strange - Ani DiFranco

[ Parent ]
I'll give that a try by Bob Abooey (4.00 / 1) #19 Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 06:53:57 AM EST
I'll save it and give it a name to see if that works.

I'm not logging in when it boots up. It just comes up and there it is. Maybe because it's the Home version of XP?? Dunno. As it's not hooked directly to the Internet I'm not too concerned about security.

Warmest regards,
--Your best pal Bob

[ Parent ]
illegal immigrants by DesiredUsername (4.00 / 1) #6 Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 06:21:28 AM EST
I can't get too excited about this issue since nobody is talking about fundamental causes: employers. If employers had to prove their employees were here legally, there would be no "immigration problem".

The one good thing about legalizing the lot of them is that they would suddenly feel safe enough to report their employers for the safety, health and wage violations that are undoubtedly going on. Of course, if OSHA et al are as lackadaisical about enforcement as $WHOMEVER_IS_IN_CHARGE_OF_IMMIGRATION has until now, that won't mean much.

---
Now accepting suggestions for a new sigline

Right by Bob Abooey (2.00 / 0) #9 Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 06:32:08 AM EST
I'm not opposed to letting them work, but they should have some sort of system by which they can do it legally. Then make em sign the proper papers and whatnot before they can work.

It's almost as silly as a guy who breaks into someone's house and gets shot and then turns around and sues the guy for shooting him. Well, maybe not that silly, but if they want to work here in USia then follow the rules or just shut yer yap.

Warmest regards,
--Your best pal Bob

[ Parent ]
I agree they should work legally by DesiredUsername (2.00 / 0) #14 Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 06:40:09 AM EST
but not because I'm hellbent on making sure every last blue collar worker has all his or her "papers" in order--that's really just a bureaucratic detail. I want them to get fair wages in a safe work environment with adequate benefits and the only way to ensure that is for they themselves to complain if they don't get it. Illegal aliens don't complain because they'll get fired or deported.

And while I agree it seems silly for illegal aliens to demand rights, OTOH they do have responsibilities and many (most?) even pay their taxes. If they are working for us and contributing their fair share, why exactly shouldn't they demand rights? They are de facto guest workers that are only here because the government is turning a blind eye to the practice so how fair is it to suddenly get anal retentive about their status at this late date?

I'd say it's more like a guy who is invited into someone's house with a wink and a nod, then collared later and told to leave later by that same inviter because he didn't follow procedures.

---
Now accepting suggestions for a new sigline

[ Parent ]
statistics by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #10 Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 06:32:27 AM EST
It is estimated that 80% of farmworkers in California's central valley are illegal aliens.
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman
[ Parent ]
noted (nt) by DesiredUsername (2.00 / 0) #13 Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 06:33:29 AM EST


---
Now accepting suggestions for a new sigline
[ Parent ]
I heard a guy on the radio a few weeks ago by lm (2.00 / 0) #23 Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 07:00:06 AM EST
He said that the IRS has a computer program that is capable of checking taxpayer ids against birth and school records and flag suspicious numbers. Supposedly, the IRS used to run the quarterly tax paperwork from all employers against this program and send notice to employers who filed suspicious numbers giving them one quarter to fix the number, mail proof of validity of the number or fire the person who is using the number.

The guy that related all of this information claimed to be a former IRS employee. He also said that this program was halted in the first quarter of 2001. Unfortunately, I can't recall the guy's name. If he was a straight-shooter, then the math is pretty simple as to who wants cheap labor.


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
Should be easy to cross-check by DesiredUsername (2.00 / 0) #25 Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 07:02:33 AM EST
I keep hearing this "12 million undocumented workers". I don't know where that comes from, but if they've been tracking it then it should be pretty simple to pinpoint exactly when the IRS stopped doing that, if true.

---
Now accepting suggestions for a new sigline
[ Parent ]
this has only become an issue because by cam (4.00 / 1) #50 Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 07:41:42 AM EST
a certain party's numbers are in the crapper. It was done so the media could froth at the mouth and flap their gums till they bleed.

cam
Freedom, liberty, equity and an Australian Republic

[ Parent ]
Wild Speculation! by hulver (4.00 / 2) #12 Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 06:32:35 AM EST
It's just Wild Speculation!

Erm, OK. But is it true?

It's just Wild Speculation!
--
Cheese is not a hat. - clock

It's not just the sunglasses... by atreides (4.00 / 1) #18 Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 06:53:08 AM EST
...chicks seem to think they're cute. Party Girl had a pair this weekend and I remember Dredlock Girl complimenting her on them.

Have you seen The Passion yet? Here's a spoiler for you: Jesus dies.
"...compassion is more than a 16 point word in scrabble." - MostlyHarmless


Most likely by Bob Abooey (4.00 / 3) #22 Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 06:59:40 AM EST
They think it's cute because they see their favourite pop stars wearing them. Cause -> Effect. That's why we need to apply pressure to the starlets to stop this heinous behaviour before the whole thing gets out of hand.

That's how the whole droopy drawers thing got started. I doubt any junior G-man would have looked at some rube wearing his pantaloons half way down to his knees and though it was cool until he saw some gansta rapper do it on MTV.

Warmest regards,
--Your best pal Bob

[ Parent ]
That's the kind of thing by ad hoc (4.00 / 1) #32 Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 07:17:54 AM EST
Bingo! by Bob Abooey (4.00 / 1) #35 Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 07:24:57 AM EST
That's a giant QED!

Warmest regards,
--Your best pal Bob

[ Parent ]
A distraction by Vulch (2.00 / 0) #84 Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 11:20:37 AM EST

That's what's needed to get away with that type of shades.

NB: NSFW, may contain boobies

[ Parent ]
hey wait a sec by sasquatchan (2.00 / 0) #20 Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 06:54:15 AM EST
I thought I rememberd this title.. Probably not the first time, either. At least there's computer problems and the BALM in both. A step in the wayback machine.

Immigrants.. I agree with DU's sentiments, but the counter that some conservatives say makes more sense: why should we reward folks who are breaking the law with citizenship ? Guest worker visas, sure. Citizenship ? No. Get back in line and do it the right way. There's plenty of folks who have paid their dues (ie waited for the visa) and come to the US legally. If you didn't, you shouldn't get cuts into the front of the line for citizenship.

Sunglasses, Bob, those were in vogue what 1-2 years ago ? I guess things really do move slowly to Cleveburgh. But, they are still ugly.

Plucking chickens and emptying trash!=paying dues? by DesiredUsername (2.00 / 0) #24 Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 07:00:58 AM EST
I can see this point of view for sure--I just think that maybe we could cut these people a little slack. Sure, they broke the law, but they broke the law so they could cut our lawns for $2/hr and wash our dishes for 18 hours at a stretch including weekends.

If they just came in to party and use the emergency room, that would be one thing. But they are productive, including doing jobs that I doubt anyone on this website would be willing to do. We have no obligation at all to them after letting them in to do this stuff?

---
Now accepting suggestions for a new sigline

[ Parent ]
Not for $2 per hour by lm (4.00 / 1) #27 Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 07:04:42 AM EST
But there are few jobs your average red-blooded American won't do for a living wage.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
Yes by DesiredUsername (2.00 / 0) #29 Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 07:08:59 AM EST
I definitely disagree with those who say that illegals are "doing jobs Americans won't do". Given an option between starving and gutting fish, I'll gut fish. That said, it sounds like there are a lot more undocumented workers than out-of-work Americans. Presumably if you put better employer-level controls in place the number of illegals will drop at which point those Americans get jobs. (Not to mention that if you pay them fairly it'll be less attractive to hire illegals in the first place.)

---
Now accepting suggestions for a new sigline
[ Parent ]
That's the (an) issue by ad hoc (4.00 / 1) #33 Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 07:21:22 AM EST
They are doing jobs that Americans won't do at that wage.

So the choice is between two things: the status quo (illegals working for below a poverty wages with no rights or benefits) or increase the wage to a point where Americans are willing to do those jobs. Which do you think will be the ultimate outcome?
--
Close friendships and a private room can offer most of the things love does.

[ Parent ]
Answer by DesiredUsername (2.00 / 0) #36 Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 07:25:05 AM EST
A guest worker program where "guest worker" is a person whose name gets written down as they run across the border so we can ensure they get poverty wages with no rights or benefits.

---
Now accepting suggestions for a new sigline
[ Parent ]
Yes by ad hoc (2.00 / 0) #41 Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 07:30:07 AM EST
Probably not by lm (4.00 / 1) #48 Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 07:41:08 AM EST
I'm fundamentally opposed to any plan that pays guest workers below a living wage.

But the cardinal problem with that is it is still legal to pay US citizens below a living wage.

The two problems are inter-related.


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
You forgot by Bob Abooey (2.00 / 0) #43 Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 07:32:14 AM EST
They get FREE healthcare. And a piece of the American Dream! That's gotta be worth something.

Warmest regards,
--Your best pal Bob

[ Parent ]
You left out a choice by Bob Abooey (4.00 / 1) #38 Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 07:27:59 AM EST
You know, the one where the Govt. subsidises the employers so they can pay higher wages without shaving off any of their profits!!

Wasn't that the deal with the tobacco industry for years and years?

Warmest regards,
--Your best pal Bob

[ Parent ]
D'oh! by ad hoc (4.00 / 1) #39 Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 07:28:58 AM EST
minor quibble by lm (4.00 / 1) #44 Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 07:33:23 AM EST
US labor force is about 150M. Unemployment is presently about 5 percent or about 7.5M. This unemployment number doesn't reflect those who are underemployed nor those who have given up on finding jobs. Various estimates I've seen of the ``real'' unemployment rate range from six to eight percent which would give a range from 9M to 12M.

Estimates on the number of illegal immigrants vary, but the present numbers being bandied about by the press are between 11M and 12M. I don't know if this number only includes adults or also includes children. If we assume that it only includes adults who are looking for work, then the number of labor-ready illegal immigrants is approximately the same as the number of out-of-work labor-ready US citizens.

That aside, I'm pretty much on the same page with you on everything else you've brought up on the issue.

I would also add the observation that this is one place where just a touch of central planning might make sense. If places that really had jobs that present US citizens won't do (such as the shortage of seasonal fisherman in some  parts of Alaska) and those jobs pay a living wage, then they should apply to the feds for INS to facilitate immigration to those areas.


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
It's my favourite line from that movie by Bob Abooey (2.00 / 0) #28 Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 07:08:29 AM EST
It's no surprise it got used twice.

re: Right. Don't make em citizens unless they start from square one and follow the rules. In the meantime maybe have some kind of indentured slavery program where they can work here without being put to death, or something along those lines.

rere: Yeah, but I'm seeing them more this year than ever before. This morning I saw two hotties jogging down Ocean Side Ave. wearing huge dorky looking shades, the kind that 90 year old people have to wear when they get drops put in their eyes. Just makes me want to cry.

Warmest regards,
--Your best pal Bob

[ Parent ]
Ocean Side Ave? by georgeha (4.00 / 1) #31 Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 07:14:32 AM EST
Why would there be an Ocean Side Ave in Cleveburgh, which is situated on a Great Lake? Something's fishy here.


[ Parent ]
Oh.. by Bob Abooey (2.00 / 0) #34 Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 07:21:59 AM EST
Well, I may have gotten the name of the street wrong. I'll double check it tonight on the way home.

Warmest regards,
--Your best pal Bob

[ Parent ]
My proposed solution by lm (4.00 / 1) #30 Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 07:14:29 AM EST
Add a year to the residency requirement for citizenship for every year they've spent undocumented in the US and fine the individual enough to be painful, but not so painful as to be a perverse incentive so that illegal immigrants are unwilling to become documented.

The key to this puzzle is to look at it finding the best way to manage an influx of immigrants that is not going to stop no matter what. A strict law and order approach on the supply side is (most likely) only going to be as successful as the War on Drugs. Strict enforcement on the demand side (employers) will go a good ways towards properly managing the problem, but something still needs to be done with the people who arrived here illegally.


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
Why the fine? by ad hoc (4.00 / 1) #37 Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 07:27:55 AM EST
Just to make sure they stay below the poverty line?
--
Close friendships and a private room can offer most of the things love does.
[ Parent ]
Not at all by lm (2.00 / 0) #45 Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 07:36:23 AM EST
I think a fine, as a matter of practicality, is needed to find the balance between making the program so easy that that it rewards illegal immigration and making it so hard that most illegal immigrants will avoid the program.

Ideally, the fine would be proportional to the payroll taxes that a given individual would have paid if he or she had been properly documented.


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
You're assuming by ad hoc (2.00 / 0) #47 Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 07:39:14 AM EST
Yes and no by lm (2.00 / 0) #52 Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 07:44:14 AM EST
I'm assuming that they're earning a legal wage once they are in the system. But I'm assuming nothing about what they may have been earning prior to that.

But, as I mentioned in other posts, without aggressive demand-side enforcement, this plan will fail just as all other plans will fail. As long as employers are able to pay sub-living wages with impunity, then there is no tenable way to manage the problem.


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
I've yet to hear by Bob Abooey (2.00 / 0) #51 Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 07:43:33 AM EST
Who is going to pay for this program? Me thinks it will quickly become a bureaucratic quagmire with millions and millions of taxpayers dollars as casualties.

Warmest regards,
--Your best pal Bob

[ Parent ]
Employers by DesiredUsername (2.00 / 0) #53 Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 07:44:58 AM EST
They can take all money they saved by hiring illegals and pay to make them legal. </daydream>

---
Now accepting suggestions for a new sigline
[ Parent ]
Pay for what? by lm (2.00 / 0) #54 Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 07:50:18 AM EST
My plan has no additional costs over and above the present system.

Wages are the responsibility of the employers. This is no different than the present state of affairs. The market, as it is wont to do, will absorb increases in costs the same way it always does. (Hint: the present skyrocketing of corporate profits and executive salaries indicates market inefficiencies.)

Enforcement is the province of the IRS and INS which already have the requisite enforcement infrastructure and will receive additional funding from the fines they ought to be placing on both employees and employers who violate the law.

So what else needs to be paid for?


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
Well by Bob Abooey (2.00 / 0) #57 Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 08:21:22 AM EST
Someone will have to somehow form a paper trail for all these illegal immigrants, and verify how long they've been here and how long they've been working etc etc.

Warmest regards,
--Your best pal Bob

[ Parent ]
The INS is already charged with that by lm (2.00 / 0) #58 Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 08:27:23 AM EST
And, as I mentioned, if there are new costs, it is not likely that they will exceed the fines that should be levied on employers and employees who broke the law. But I think that maybe you underestimate the extent of the existing INS and IRS infrastructure.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
Maybe I do by Bob Abooey (2.00 / 0) #60 Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 08:31:34 AM EST
Maybe I also underestimate their ability to enforce any new rule that comes down the pike. How long has this been going on?

Warmest regards,
--Your best pal Bob

[ Parent ]
That's a good point, but hardly relevant by lm (2.00 / 0) #61 Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 08:39:13 AM EST
You've been reading either too much Ron Hubbard or Ayn Rand. I'm not certain which.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
Illegal Immigrants by jimgon (2.00 / 0) #67 Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 10:42:09 AM EST
See, you're missing the political end.  If the politicians upset these people then they'll lose all these votes.  And obviously the politicians can't lose the illegal immigrant votes in Florida, New Mexico, California and Texas.  That's the biggest voting block they have.




---------------
Technician - "We can't even get decent physical health care. Mental health is like witchcraft here."
That's the beauty of it all by Bob Abooey (4.00 / 1) #69 Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 10:51:53 AM EST
The politicians can't come right out and tell us they want to give the illegals a free ride because it makes it look like they only care about big business and about getting elected, duh, so they have to do their little dance around the issue which hasn't been real effective up to this point.

Warmest regards,
--Your best pal Bob

[ Parent ]
Cheap Labor Conservatives by jimgon (4.00 / 1) #76 Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 03:59:42 AM EST
It's a hard spot for them.  They want the cheap labor, but they also want all the poor USAmerican to think that they care about them.  In the end they'll do the right thing.  The Wall Street Journal will speak with the words of $God$ and all will be revealed. 




---------------
Technician - "We can't even get decent physical health care. Mental health is like witchcraft here."
[ Parent ]
I remember every detail, the Germans wore grey, you wore blue.. | 84 comments (84 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback