May 9

On April 23rd, Arizona interim Governor, Jan Brewer, signed into law the "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act." In short, this act means that law enforcement officers must ask people about their immigration status if they're suspected of being in the country illegally.

Hrm.. let's think about this. First off, what the hell does an illegal immigrant look like? We're talking about Arizona where there are a huge number of perfectly legal immigrants, as well as a pretty large hispanic population that was BORN in the United States. I know, let's ask the Governor. Surely she wouldn't pass this law without having a good description of an illegal immigrant:

Oh .. well.. umm.. I'm not sure what to say. So the Governor doesn't know what an illegal immigrant looks like, but she's sure that there are people who believe they do. What really struck me about this answer is that it almost sounded like she disagreed with those who thought they knew. Odd way to answer.

At any rate, this really highlights one of the main problems with this law. Who do you demand ID from? The Governor seems to think this can be enforced in a non-discriminatory way, but I'm not sure that's even remotely possible. Let's be real about this. The majority of the illegal immigrants in Arizona are Mexican. That would lead me to believe that those who appear to be of Hispanic origin will be prompted for ID. I highly doubt that your typical white anglo-saxan will be bothered, even if they might be here illegally from Canada or Europe.

Illegal immigration is a problem, though, and we need to do something about it. We need to look at why immigrants are here, first. I would say the majority are here to take advantage of what the US has to offer with respect to freedom and opportunity. Others are here for purely illegal reasons such as drug trading. Obviously we'd like to get rid of that latter bunch. Arizona's Governor is trying to make the case that this new law is specifically aimed at that latter category of illegal immigrants.

Creating such a wide ranging law, just to prevent one specific group of illegal immigrants, is problematic, to say the least. If you think about it, law enforcement officers already verify identities when confronted with someone they think is in the country illegally. This law really doesn't add anything new other than to make it mandatory that officers specifically look for illegals to target. In the end, I think it will cause more harm than good as officers will be seen as harassing rather than complying with the law.

Stopping illegal immigrants from coming to America has another set of problems, though. Illegals do the jobs that Americans are "unwilling" to do. Unwilling jobs such as picking vegetables on farms, washing dishes in restaurants, etc. Let me redefine unwilling, however. Americans are unwilling to take jobs that don't pay enough and that don't have sufficient benefits. Illegals, on the other hand, don't make a fuss because they're here illegally. I'm not condoning this by any means, but it's a fact. Perhaps we should be going after business owners to prove that each and every employee is, in fact, legal.

What if we use technology to solve some of these problems? Perhaps we can build low-cost robotics to handle picking vegetables or dealing with dirty dishes. Maintenance of these robots still provides jobs to qualified personnel, keeping jobs available. Robotics removed the need for "cheap" labor, thus removing jobs for illegals.

Let me be clear, I am not opposed to people immigrating into this country, provided they do it legally. It appears that most of the immigration has to do with people being unable to provide for their families in their native homes. Can we do something to help those countries? Is there some other way we can attack this problem? There has to be another answer, because legislation that leads to profiling like this can't possibly be the answer.


Posted by Jason Frisvold

Defined tags for this entry: ,
Vote for articles fresher than 7 days!
Current karma: none, 0 vote(s) 49 hits
Mar 4

Funny, funny stuff here.. And for a good cause at that... Excellent work, gentlemen.. Excellent work.


Posted by Jason Frisvold

Defined tags for this entry: ,
Vote for articles fresher than 7 days!
Current karma: none, 0 vote(s) 106 hits
Feb 24

Did you know that the US government is currently dealing with the worst hostage situation in history? The Senate, and thus the government as a whole, is being held hostage by the Republican party. There are approximately 290 bills currently sitting in the Senate, already having been passed by the House. Why is this? Are these bad bills? Have they not passed some sort of worthiness test? Surely this can't be a case of petty bickering.

I'm sure there are bills in this list that are worthless. Although, they did all pass through the House. But, as with anything, opinions abound. But there are also bills in here that seem to be fairly important. Let's take a quick look, shall we?

H.R. 22, U.S. Postal Service Financial Relief Act
H.R. 384, TARP Reform and Accountability Ac
H.R. 577, Vision Care for Kids Act
H.R. 749, Technical Amendment to Federal Election Campaign Ac
H.R. 915, FAA Reauthorization Act
H.R. 1029, Alien Smuggling and Terrorism Prevention Act
H.R. 1253, Health Insurance Restrictions and Limitations Clarification Act
H.R. 2034, Rural Homeowners Protection Act
H.R. 2410, Foreign Relations Authorization Act, FY 2010 and FY 2011

And the list goes on. Are these decent bills? Should they be passed? Honestly, I'm not sure as I haven't read them. Based on their names, they sound like semi-important pieces of legislation. How about that second one? TARP Reform. You'd think the Republicans would jump on that immediately, but they haven't.

The Republican party seems to be stuck in a loop. They fight to get things their way, but when they get them, they still vote no. They seem to have forgotten how bi-partisanship works. I've seen quite a bit of work done to accommodate them, yet they still want more. And if it continues this way, then nothing will ever get done.

I hope the American public sees what's happening here. I hope these guys can be replaced with someone better. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like that will happen. Just take a look at the current lineup in the Senate. There are only 35 senators currently serving that are in their first term. The rest of them have had 2 or more terms, with 16 of them having at least 4 terms in office! A senate term is 6 years. That means that 16 senators currently in office have been there for more than 24 years. Contrast that with the president who can serve a total of 8, two four-year terms, and various other government offices with varying term limits per state.

I think we need to break the cycle of professional politicians. If they truly want to be professionals, they should work through the ranks of local, state and finally federal office. But, they should be limited in the number of terms they can serve. We don't need to have senators who have served 50+ years in the senate. I believe those people have lost touch with the American public and don't understand the day to day life of a "normal" person.

The Senate is being held hostage. Both by unmoving Republicans who refuse to work with the current Administration, and by lifelong senators who have made a career out of politics. It's high time for a change.


Posted by Jason Frisvold

Defined tags for this entry: , ,
Vote for articles fresher than 7 days!
Current karma: none, 0 vote(s) 128 hits
Feb 9

It was only a matter of time... Terrorists have wandered into the land of breast augmentation surgery. Of course, this particular surgery ends with a bang.

Britain's MI5, the British equivalent to the United States' CIA, has uncovered a plot to have explosives implanted into the breasts or buttocks of a suicide bomber. After implantation, the terrorist can presumably move freely, passing through security checkpoints with ease. In fact, the new full body scanners that are being touted as the best new defense against terrorists would be fairly useless against such a threat.

It's funny how this works, though... Islamic extremists claim to be very devoted to their faith. They hate the west and everything it represents. Women are basically non-entities who have no rights and are to remain covered at all times, can't leave their homes without a male relation as an escort, etc. If that's the case, how can they justify using breast implants as weapons? Women are not trustworthy, shouldn't be given responsibility, etc., yet they're relied upon to be suicide bombers? Way to make sense..

At any rate, this particular technique has the potential of being quite effective. According to Australian counter-terrorism experts, the only real defense against this would be bomb-sniffing dogs. And I have to wonder how effective that would be as well. Implants are sealed. Add to that the implantation into the breast area, which would heal over time. I expect that the time it takes to heal combined with the sealed nature of the implant would remove any scent that could be detected.

Detonation of the explosive device is quite easy. Bombers can easily pose as diabetics, allowing them to pass through security with needles and vials of a catalyst agent. When they want to detonate the explosive, it's as simple as injecting the catalyst into the implant.

That isn't to say that this method would be completely effective. Surely there would be injuries, but there are some limitations to the damage that could be done. First, the human body acts as a buffer against explosions. As demonstrated numerous times on the battlefield, jumping on a grenade can save those around you from being injured in the resulting explosion. However, if the implant was designed as a shape charge, it may be possible to direct the energy in such a way to make the resulting explosion truly devastating. To be effective, however, I believe the bomber would have to position themselves against the part of the plane they are trying to destroy. This, surely, would be noticeable.

It remains to be seen if the terrorists will follow through with such a plot, and whether they will be any more effective at triggering the explosive as they have been in the past. Thus far, the ineptitude of Al-Queda plotters has prevented any major mishaps. Still, the law of averages says they'll succeed eventually. The question is, will we be able to stop them before they do?


Posted by Jason Frisvold

Defined tags for this entry: , ,
Vote for articles fresher than 7 days!
Current karma: none, 0 vote(s) 116 hits
Jan 21

Are You Fucking Kidding Me? Well, I suppose that since the Senate took the idea of healthcare out back, beat the shit out of it, bowed down to the healthcare industry, and shit out a complete waste of paper, maybe this isn't so bad. But to completely give up like this?

Democrats need to grow a pair and stop screwing around. Sure, the senate bill was a piece of shit, but that's only because you cowed to Republican pressure, changed things to make them happy, and they voted against it anyway. How about putting together a bill that makes sense. Market the living hell out of it. Make sure America knows exactly how awesome it is, and then see what the Republicans do. Sure, they'll probably vote no. Then you have a really good case to go back to the public with and say "See? They're trying to fuck you over, Mr. John Q. Public. We did everything we could and the Republican's are still trying to stick it to you." We'll see how fast that majority comes back.

As for know, I'm completely disgusted with the government as a whole. The Republicans in office are completely useless with their "Vote No" shit. How about using your fucking brains, stop playing games, and make actual decisions.

As for Democrats, you're a bunch of pussies. You had a majority and you squandered it. That's what happened in Massachusetts. That's why Brown is in office and not Coakley. Think about it, they were both horrible candidates. Neither of them would make good Senate material. Although, perhaps in retrospect, they're both perfect fits... Regardless, the reason Brown won has nothing to do with the Republican view, it has to do with the utter disgust America currently has with Congress in general. Republicans won't make a decision, and Democrats are fucking everything up and blaming it on attempts at bi-partisanship.

If you're in office right now and you want to stay there, you need to wake up and look at reality. Stop playing games with people's lives and start making mature decisions. Screw the party, vote with the people. We elected you, how about you start listening to us. Massachusetts is only the beginning. If things don't change, and change quickly, I can easily see a lot more lost seats. And if the current Republican view gets in control again, we're fucked.


Posted by Jason Frisvold

Defined tags for this entry: , , ,
Vote for articles fresher than 7 days!
Current karma: none, 0 vote(s) 126 hits

(Page 2 of 16, totaling 78 entries)