Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Ken Smith on 3 Jan 2007 09:01 In article <1167795024.451323.271660(a)n51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, Winfield Hill <hill(a)rowland.org> wrote: >Ken Smith wrote: >> Americans don't want to pick lettuce. So long as there is a strong market >> for the labor with political clout, the fence won't be built or effective >> if it is. > > Plenty of Americans DO pick lettuce. But they don't want to work for > factory farms at $4 or $5 per hour doing it; they need $8 to $10 to > make it reasonable. It's a bit surprising to realize that this labor > cost difference would only modestly raise the final selling price. > And, if all the growers had to live by the same wage rules, for the > most part it wouldn't greatly affect their profits either. The "wouldn't greatly effect" seems to be the hard part of your argument. The factory farmer operators are knowingly hiring people who have no right to work in the country. They, at least, have the issue of the risks they are taking pushing them away from doing this. The pay difference is the only motive you have allowed for them to do this. This suggests that in their opinion, the pay difference is significant. Perhaps you could argue along the "if any do it, they all must to remain competitive" line, but I don't think that works either. These people work against the US gaining control of its border. Since gaining control of the border would effect all farmers, they would not see this as something they need to do for competitive reasons. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: unsettled on 3 Jan 2007 09:31 Ken Smith wrote: > In article <1167795024.451323.271660(a)n51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, > Winfield Hill <hill(a)rowland.org> wrote: >>Ken Smith wrote: >>>Americans don't want to pick lettuce. So long as there is a strong market >>>for the labor with political clout, the fence won't be built or effective >>>if it is. >>Plenty of Americans DO pick lettuce. But they don't want to work for >>factory farms at $4 or $5 per hour doing it; they need $8 to $10 to >>make it reasonable. It's a bit surprising to realize that this labor >>cost difference would only modestly raise the final selling price. >>And, if all the growers had to live by the same wage rules, for the >>most part it wouldn't greatly affect their profits either. > The "wouldn't greatly effect" seems to be the hard part of your argument. Agriculture has yet to learn the significance of "passing on the costs." > The factory farmer operators are knowingly hiring people who have no right > to work in the country. They, at least, have the issue of the risks they > are taking pushing them away from doing this. The pay difference is the > only motive you have allowed for them to do this. This suggests that in > their opinion, the pay difference is significant. To understand the significance to the farmer one has to look at their entire financial picture. By harvest time total expenses for the growing season have nearly peaked with no income yet, and harvest is an out of pocket *right now* expense when the least cash reserves are available, the selling price is at its lowest, and shipping costs are just over the horizon. These difficulties are the same for all farms, regardless of size. > Perhaps you could argue along the "if any do it, they all must to remain > competitive" line, but I don't think that works either. These people work > against the US gaining control of its border. Since gaining control of > the border would effect s/effect/affect > all farmers, they would not see this as something > they need to do for competitive reasons. You're right. By harvest time they're at the edge of broke. Late harvest is almost as bad as no harvest notwithstanding the shipping expenses. It is an annual financial crisis.
From: jmfbahciv on 3 Jan 2007 09:31 In article <459924BD.1F94F5EC(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >> >Ken Smith wrote: >> > >> >> This is flat wrong. Many americans have been and are being listened to >> >> without a warrent. Bush claims that no warrent is needed. >> > >> >Do you have some insight into what the activities are of >> >the official US sleuthing business? >> > >> >Does the US constitution extend its protections beyond our >> >borders? >> >> This is the crux of the matter. It amazes me that the >> anti-Bush people insist that all have to follow our >> Constitution yet hide behind the European nationalist >> skirts when it comes to paying for it. > >Who are these "European nationalists" ?? Those who denounce the US using its armed forces, but expect the US to provide protection when the messes become too big. Europe has the job of dealing with Iran. There isn't much going on is there? And Iran's delaying tactics are working. In two years, we'll see if these tactics worked as well as they did in the 1930s. >> The US anti-Bushers >> seem to want European law rather than US Constituional law. > >There is no "European Law". Exactly. > What did you mean ? > It's what keeps getting referenced, AFAICT, when all the anti-Bushers say he's breaking the law. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 3 Jan 2007 09:41 In article <enbamj$6p7$1(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <enb0v0$8qk_001(a)s957.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>In article <d5c01$45980c28$49ecf63$3990(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >[....] >>>Does the US constitution extend its protections beyond our >>>borders? >> >>This is the crux of the matter. It amazes me that the >>anti-Bush people insist that all have to follow our >>Constitution yet hide behind the European nationalist >>skirts when it comes to paying for it. The US anti-Bushers >>seem to want European law rather than US Constituional law. > >What planet did you fly that in from? None of the anti-Bush folks posting >here have suggested any such thing. The people you are parroting do. If you bother to continue to exptrapolate their logic, it's the only conclusion. > The US Constitution sets limits on >what the US government is allowed to do. This was done to protect the >people from the actions of an overreaching US government. The anti-Bush >folks have been suggesting that Bush is in fact exactly the sort of >"overreaching government" person that the founders forsaw and attempted to >protect the nation from. The executive branch is not the piece of government that passed the Patriot Law. There is no part of it that allows warrantless wiretapping. One of the things that has changed is the procedure to get those warrants. In the case of global terrorism, the target is identified by monitoring incoming communications. This is not wiretapping. The techiques being used are undergoing evolution, as all technology does when it's used for a new application. It always takes years to sort out what is "legal" and what is not. The Patriot Act is being changed as time goes on because experience is gained. > >[....] >>>> You should care. It is the very things that have made the US a free >>>> country that are being lost. >>> >>>Then instead of simply talking about it you should be >>>bringing a class action lawsuit. >> >>To use the US Constitutional rights would undermine their claim. >>This one of those ironies that is beyond bizarre w.r.t. their >>illogic. > >Is that from the same or a different planet? Law suits have been filed >and some have made their way through the court system. Yes. and this is how our Constitution and legal system work. Do you honestly think that any collection of humans can write a perfect law that will apply forever and won't require any changing? >This is how the >kangaroo courts that Bush wanted to use on the captives were found to be >illegal. Which captives? The ones who do not have rights under our Constitutution? If you claim that those terrorists have US Constitutional rights, then you are demanding that the US Consititution apply everywhere, including Europe. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 3 Jan 2007 09:45
In article <enbfde$qgt$3(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >In article <enb17e$8qk_002(a)s957.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>In article <en90n9$5un$4(a)blue.rahul.net>, >> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>In article <em3gds$8qk_001(a)s969.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>[....] >>>>>Are you really denying people in America are being listened to? >>>> >>>>Some are but none of it is warrentless. >>> >>>This is flat wrong. Many americans have been and are being listened to >>>without a warrent. Bush claims that no warrent is needed. >>> >>>[.....] >>>>>The military commissions bill passed recently denies people held the writ >>of >>>>>habeas corpus (check out what Sen. Spector had to say about it). >>>> >>>>Which people are denied? >>> >>>You are should you Bush happen to want you to be. >> >>Why would he want me to be? >>> >>>> Be very specific. I don't care what >>>>Spector said about it; there was a campaing and election going on. >>>>There still is a campaign going on. >>> >>>You should care. It is the very things that have made the US a free >>>country that are being lost. >> >>I see. You cannot list those who are denied their US Constituional >>rights. Perhaps those who are being monitored under this law >>are those who have no Constitutional rights? > >And who are those? Democrats? Liberals? Muslims? In-coming communications that use certain keywords at a certain count. In the news, this is called chatter. > >>IOW, they are not >>of this country but are an enemy of this country. >> > >The worst enemies of this country are those who would subvert our >constitution. If you want to see one, look in a mirror. There you go again--projecting your characteristics onto me. It will not make the danger go away. /BAH |