Monday, October 27, 2014

A New Idea on Illegal Immigration


It's no great secret that the federal government doesn't like the state of Arizona, for a lot of historical reasons, which is why the Supreme Court stretched so hard to find something/anything wrong with our controversial SB 1070 anti-illegal-immigration bill.  It's also no great secret that the federal government has no intention of stiffening our cobweb border or stopping illegal immigration -- the Republicans because they want the cheap labor, and the Democrats because they want the cheap votes.  It's surprising but true that the Constitution does not say that anyone voting in an American election must be an American citizen.  States that try to fix that lapse get serious discouragement from the current -- Democrat -- federal administration, as we've seen.

So what's to do?  Arizona has been a major highway for illegals -- to the tune of 100,000 to 500,000 per year -- for the last decade, and the strain is beginning to tell.  The state clerks used to keep records of how many welfare recipients, inhabitants of our jails, and arrested criminals were illegal immigrants -- until the ACLU claimed this was "racist" and made them stop -- and the number was far greater than their percentage of the population.  Our physical and social resources are stretched to the limit, the state is seriously in debt, and no end in sight.  We simply can't take in any more illegals, and have to find an effective way to keep them out.

So here's my idea.  First, the state hire some surveyors to go to the national border and mark exactly where it is.  Second, they then measure ten yards in from that border, and draw another line there.  Third, the state government scrapes up the money to pay for a real, serious, impassible fence -- maybe one made of I-beams, such as a lot of ranchers and Navahos living on the border have already constructed for a good ten miles -- back it up with a solid earth berm and patrol it regularly, preferably with police hired from the Navaho tribes.  Between the two fences, pave a road running east and west across the state, from California to New Mexico and a few miles further if those states are willing;  in any case, where the Arizona border turns north, the wall should follow -- for much longer than the distance the road would take to reach the nearest California or New Mexico town.  Where there are roads through the federal border, the Arizona wall will have passageways also -- but with its own checkpoints, manned by state police for inspectors, who will have strict orders to turn back Human Traffic and to search very diligently for illegal drugs and explosive devices.  Since this wall will be very definitely on Arizona land it will have nothing to do with federal border regulations;  the Constitution does allow individual states to determine which people they will let into their own lands.  As for anyone else, they'll still be over the national border, on a road that will take them either way into more amenable states.  The federal government will have no legal reason to complain about the state wall.

As for the "federal strip", maybe it would be a good idea to post on the Arizona wall, every hundred yards or so, a large sign saying -- in Spanish: "Warning!  Illegal Immigrants, beyond this wall lies the state of Arizona.  Arizona is a poor state, and doesn't want you."  Then two arrows, one pointing east and one pointing west, then: "X miles east is the state of New Mexico.  New Mexico will welcome you with lots of jobs.  X miles west is the state of California.  California will welcome you with free food, free housing and free money.  Go east or west, but don't try to go further north.  Arizona will give you nothing but a quick return trip to Mexico."  If the states of California or New Mexico complain about this, tell them we'll take down the signs when they put up their own walls.

Before the automatic howls of "racism!" start, let's point out that "Mexican" is not a race.  Neither is "illegal immigrant".  Genetically, Mexicans are a varying mix of White and Indian;  so are a lot of perfectly good Americans -- including me.  "Race" isn't the problem between the United States and Mexico, and never was.

--Leslie <;)))><   

  


Wednesday, October 15, 2014

To Spank or Not To Spank

News about another case of child abuse has brought the Anti-Spanking crusaders out of the woodwork again.  Now they're quoting all sorts of studies which claim that spanking causes everything from poor impulse control to poor brain development, and of course leads to child abuse.  I notice that they carefully tiptoe around the fact that spanking is mostly practiced in working-class and poor families, while Other Methods are practiced by middle-class and rich families.  Nobody mentions that the supposed ill effects of spanking just might be the results of poverty itself.

And, of course, the people conducting the studies are middle-class or above themselves.  The few exceptions that I know of were writers.  G. B. Shaw once commented: "Never strike a child except in anger, even at the risk of maiming it.  A blow in cold blood must never be tolerated."  R. A. Heinlein spent half a chapter of his novel "Starship Troopers" explaining why spanking is healthy and realistic, and anti-spanking is subtly dangerous.  Interesting, considering that it's writers who usually turn a keen eye on class differences, class prejudices and class assumptions.

I've noticed myself that an awful lot of social science is affected by the class prejudices -- "ethnocentricities" is the official term -- of the social scientists themselves.  I don't think anybody needs to be reminded of the piously proper medical researchers of a century ago who claimed that the "Negro brain" was "less developed" than the proper Caucasian brain.  Looking back from today we can readily see the blatant errors in logic of those Terribly Proper studies, but nobody has noted the glaring logical errors of our modern social scientists whose findings support and agree with the prejudices of our current middle and upper classes.  Here's one: when people protest "Hey, I was spanked as a kid, and I did all right", the anti-spanking pundits reliably answer "If you think spanking is acceptable, then you're not all right".  That's a classic example of circular logic.  They might as well say outright "If you disagree with me you're insane."  Uhuh.

Well, I was not spanked as a child, and I was not all right until I got away from my parents.  The reason is that, as I've noticed elsewhere, parents who don't spank use nasty psychological torments instead to enforce their will.  My brother and I learned to be actually relieved on the rare occasions when we could provoke our parents to lose control and physically smack -- partly because, not having practiced spanking, they didn't know how to do it right and would miss as often as they hit, and partly because afterward they would feel attacks of Liberal Guilt and would refrain from the psychological punishments.  Honest spanking would have been kinder.  Pain is only pain, and the memory of it fades quickly, while psychological scars can take years to heal.  ...Needless to add, I grew up to be a rebel -- and learned martial arts.

Here's another case, which the anti-spanking crowd will no doubt call "merely anecdotal" (that's what bigots call evidence contrary to their prejudices, until the number of "anecdotes" drown them).  Back in post-revolutionary Russia there lived a middle-class Jewish family -- safe from Soviet government harassment because the father worked for a government bureaucracy -- who earnestly believed in all the "progressive" biases.  Among other children, they had two daughters: call the elder Katya and the younger Anya.  Katya was a practical cynic while Anya was an idealist.  Being middle-class Liberals, the parents did not spank;  instead, they used psychological punishments -- while telling the children they should be grateful for such treatment.  For example, whenever their cousins came to mooch a meal, the parents would hand over the babysitting of the cousins' retarded child to their daughters, telling them they should be grateful for a chance to display their virtue by "caring for the unfortunate".  As soon as the adults were out of sight, Katya would foist off the job on Anya.

One day the girls disobeyed an order -- making beds, IIRC -- and their mama decided this required severe punishment.  She ordered the girls to each bring her their favorite toy, and she said they wouldn't get the toys back for a full year.  Katya handed over her least-favorite toy, a worn-out doll, on the theory that she wasn't going to do without her favorite for a year, and mama wouldn't know the difference.  Anya handed over her favorite toy, a mechanical bird, on the theory that after anticipating it for a year, regaining the toy would be that much sweeter.  Well, the year passed and the day came.  Instead of giving back the toys, mama admitted that she'd given them, the very day she got them, to the local orphanage -- and the girls should be grateful that they were able to give joy to the "disadvantaged".  Katya gave a dutiful smile to her mother, and a knowing smirk to her sister, and went off to play with her favorite toys.  Anya decided that she hated her mother, and hypocrisy, and self-sacrifice, and the "disadvantaged".

Katya went on with her family-planned life, but Anya concentrated on her schoolwork.  She specialized in techniques of film, and eventually got herself a scholarship -- and government permission -- to leave Russia, go to America and go to Hollywood to study filmmaking.  As soon as she got there, she renounced her Russian citizenship, applied for American citizenship, got a job as a script-girl and worked up to script-writer.  She also changed her name -- to Ayn Rand.

Yes, that Ayn Rand.  She spent the rest of her life writing scripts and influential books in which she denounced progressivism, and self-sacrifice, and hypocrisy, and altruism.  We don't know what happened to her family back in Russia when World War Two broke out, or after, but none of them wound up with Ayn Rand in America.  She also took care never to have children of her own.

Sure, all this is "anecdotal", but the moral is clear: don't spank your kids, and you'll wind up with extremists and rebels.  Then again, seeing the "ethnocentricities" of the middle and upper classes, maybe this is a good thing.

--Leslie <;)))><         



 

 

Tuesday, October 7, 2014

Killing Virus


Note: "virus" is the proper plural spelling of "virus".  It's a Latin word of the Third Declension, which is where the Romans stuffed all their "irregular" nouns -- which meant oddball spelling.  So what I'm talking about here is killing more than one virus.  Keep that in mind.

With my odd fandom connections, I'd heard about this long before Rasty told me the story of the zookeepers and the giraffes, but that tale confirmed what I'd heard.  It seems that Rasty was visiting the zoo with his kids one day, and he noticed a zookeeper feeding onions to the giraffes.  Being a curious sort, he bothered to ask why.  The zookeeper explained that when a creature has a neck over six feet long a sore throat is a serious health problem, so the zookeepers took special care to keep the giraffes from catching colds.  Onions?  Yes, onions.  They'd found that fresh, raw onions in the diet prevent colds.  There's something about onions that kills cold virus and keeps the giraffes healthy.

This is interesting, because I'd also heard of some folk remedies for colds that likewise include onions.  I'd heard of others that include fresh, raw garlic.  I'd also heard of a French doctor who cured gangrene by filling the wounds with shredded, lightly blanched cabbage.   On doing a bit of research on cabbage, I learned that fresh, raw cabbage is also good for curing colds.  It seems that there's an organic poison in cabbage, fierce enough to kill the mold that causes gangrene and quite capable of killing virus too.  The amount of poison in eight cabbages is enough to kill a human being -- if a human were capable of ingesting eight cabbages all at once.

Well, put 'em together and what have ya got?  A virus-killer, I do believe.  The last time I had a cold I tried chopping up equal amounts of fresh, raw garlic, onion, and cabbage in a blender, and swallowing the odorous throat-stinging mess.  It stung my belly for awhile, but when I woke up the next morning, the cold was gone.  Guessing I was onto something here, I made a point of eating garlic, onion and cabbage whenever I could.  I haven't had a cold since.

I've spread the word to friends, who report similar results.  Between me, them, and the giraffes, I think we've got some conclusive evidence that a mixture of (fresh, raw, chopped) onions, garlic, and cabbage creates an effective broad-spectrum virus-killer.

Given the current panic being spread about Ebola and the new virus that paralyzes children, I think we'd best spread this story too.

In fact, I have to wonder why this folk-remedy hasn't been talked about before.  I know that the big pharmaceutical industry -- and its lobbyists, and therefore its media-flaks -- hate the very idea of effective medicines found in cheap natural foods, but seriously, shouldn't the medical business be willing to give up a little money to save lives, and maybe stop a spreading panic?

...Unless fanning the panic is the point.  So long as the public's attention is absorbed by Ebola and the new entero-virus, it might not focus too closely on the war with ISIL.  Having worked in the media a bit, I know how easily their attention can be manipulated, and there are a lot of people who regularly do such manipulation -- usually big industries and governments.  Now the latest reports that we've heard about the ISIL problem are solemn pronouncements that the war can't be won without participation by other Arab countries, and lots of "boots on the ground" (i.e. infantry).  Just about every "expert" we've seen on the news has claimed that the war can't be won with air-strikes alone.

...But what if it can?  As I mentioned in an earlier post, thanks to the development of small disguised spy-drones, it now is possible to identify and locate individual enemy troops -- and then take them out with pin-point bombing by larger and more lethal drones.  Don't you think the military would want to keep that fact out of public -- and therefore enemy -- knowledge as long a possible?  Well, since the media are manipulable, get them to distract the public (and therefore the enemy) with passing tales of how inadequate air-strikes are and how important and dangerous the two viral plagues are. 

Well, goody for them.  Keep the foaming Jihadists in the dark until the drones can kill them all -- and for the sake of the public peace, do kill them all -- but there's no need to stampede the public with virus-panic.  Since the mainstream media can't be counted on, really, to serve the public good, let's spread this part of the story ourselves, folks.

Equal parts by volume of fresh, raw onion, garlic, and cabbage, eaten twice daily, is an effective broad-spectrum virus-killer.  Pass it on.

--Leslie <;)))><   )O(