Thoughts on Meat and Grass

I have similar views on meat and grass. They are both great. But they are also both over-utilized. Kind of a default in meals or landscape planning. I think changes would be beneficial in both cases. Let's start with meat:

Meat comes from animals. These animals lived for a certain length of time before they were killed for their meat. During their lives, they had to eat to grow. This usually means grains, like corn, wheat, etc. How much acreage of these grain plants are used just to feed animals that will in turn feed us?
http://www.extension.org/faq/4027

The link above reviews how the numbers vary, from 2 pounds of corn per pound of cow, to 20 pounds of corn per pound of beef. In any case, I'll just say 10 pounds of corn makes one pound of beef. So a 1/4 pound burger requires 2.5 pounds of corn that the animal fed on. Obviously a guy eating corn will be responsible for less acreage of corn planted to feed him than a guy that eats beef. So for our meat we have all the processing and space required of cows, and all the processing and space of their grain feed required. Eating lots of meat is costly for the environment, as compared to eating grains.

http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/lappe01.htm

According to the previous link, 1/2 of all our harvested acreage goes to livestock feed. It also compares eating grain-fed animal meat to driving a cadillac. The quantity of land required to support meat production is one reason not to eat so much meat. I'm not a vegetarian, and I don't see any pressing need to become one, but I do think that we could cut down on the amount of meat in our diets.

My second issue with meat is the huge disconnect between the living animal and what we put in our mouths. It is my personal opinion that every person should have to kill a cow before they eat beef, kill a chicken before they eat one, etc. This makes a lot of people queasy. But seriously. People that are willing to eat dead animals should be willing to appreciate that they are responsible for killing dead animals. We need to be ok with that. I think if everyone killed an animal once or twice, or even watched a video of it, maybe people would find it easier to consume a little bit less meat. I think consuming less meat is a good idea. Especially for me, because I can be a pretty hard core carnivore sometimes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-cor1uZ2AM&feature=related

The above is a link to Overlooked: The lives of animals raised for food. May bring tears to your eyes. Anyway, I think it's a good thing to see. More and more people are decreasing their consumption of meat, and I think it helps in terms of money, health, and the environment.

As far as grass is concerned, think about it. Why do we have to have it everywhere? Why grass and not something else? It's soft underfoot, but we put in sikewalks and try not to walk on it. Some might say it looks nice. I think maybe we are raised to think this. But think about it, if you're going to have a landscape portrait on your wall, would you rather have one of grass, or plants native to your area, or other plants? You don't see many huge portraits of grass. As the matter of fact, I've never seen any. There may be grass in a portrait, but it is never the focus of the piece.

The guy in the following link thinks grass is analogous to debt. We have both because we want to have what others have: http://www.debtreductionformula.com/blog/history-of-grass-lawns/
I don't have any problems with grass. It's a good place for a picnic. It's a good place to walk bare foot on. It's a good place to run and throw balls and play. But think of all the places that have grass in them. It's not just areas that are used for these things. You see it in lots of places that people never are meant to walk on. Here at University Village, there are huge swaths of areas between parked cars and buildings, and between roads and fences, and behind buildings... places that no one wants to walk, or picnic, or play, when there are so many better areas away from the cars.

Now consider how much it costs to water all of this grass. How much time and effort it takes to mow the lawns, use fertilizer, weed killer, etc. All the digging for sprinklers. Grass gets used in places like Utah where it is too dry, and so it costs more than in other areas. And yet we do it. Because everyone else does.
When I go up to research park to the clinic on my bike, there's this tiny little patch between properties that is untended by people. At some times of the year, there are sunflowers. There are also purple flowers, white flowers, yellow flowers, and a number of green plants. There are mice there, and maybe some snakes. A number of birds are always about there too. There are bees and bugs, and all kinds of little things. At some point it will get 'developed' and all this will disappear. And it will become grass and cement. I don't think grass can compare, and cement certainly can't.

Politicians

There are a lot of people that will attack politicians as a group for being dishonest. I believe most politicians are good people, that want to do what they think is right. The system that we have makes it difficult for politicians to be very honest, because everything they say is reduced to soundbites, and mostly only relayed to the public if there's some major gaffe, announcement, or change in policy.

It is easy now to listen to only one political party, and this can lead to people not understanding or wanting to understand differing viewpoints. If a person is conservative, Fox news and talk radio provide voices of agreement. A liberal person may watch MSNBC, read the New York Times, and view the Huffington Post. In both cases, these voices of agreement reflect what a partisan person thinks and adds similar perspectives to provide a world view. It turns into an echo chamber where the individual's views are all they hear, and so hearing their own opinions convinces them that their views are correct. And it makes it difficult to understand others' viewpoints.

I don't believe there ever was a true "golden age" where the news sources were objective, but I do think that in depth coverage of issues by people who aim to provide objective information is possible. Personally I always check my own views against what I imagine a person in a very foreign country might think about an issue, and then what a person that lived 2,000 years ago might think about the issue. These others may not always be right, but they do add perspectives different to my own, especially about the relative importance of the issues...

In the interest of full disclosure, I must confess, one of my goals is to get a didgeridoo into all that I do. I just think that we should all sit down and discuss civilly the things that really matter. Lets talk about the issues. Not about a gaffe. Or a scandal. Lets talk about the laws that we're making.

I think it's unfortunate that talking about the negatives of a political opponent may help more than talking about a candidate's own strengths. To some degree, I think this is necessary. Who is going to tell me what's wrong with a candidate if not his political opponent? But often it ends up that all candidates speak poorly of each other, and we never learn the positions and positives of the candidates. And then it becomes the lesser of two evils, instead of 'who is going to do the greatest good.'

I think the best thing to do to improve the political system is getting involved. Listen to opposing viewpoints, and understand where they come from. I think democrats tend to accuse republicans of believing that everything is black or white, while republicans think democrats don't stand for anything. I think in life there are advantages and disadvantages to every position. There are shades of gray. But at the end of the day, there is a 'best' option, and then there are other options. Thinking that one party has a monopoly on being right seems ridiculous to me.

And please don't write off all politicians because they are politicians. There's a way to get elected, and it's by promising what voters want. I think most of us that get to meet one up close find out that they are actually good people, regardless of party affiliation.

Jeff's Golden Age

The Myth of a Golden Age

There’s this idea that I see that pops up quite often. And it’s my pet peeve of the day. It goes something like this: A sports fan says “I wish it was like the good old days, when the players were good people, didn’t care about the money, etc.” Or a teacher says “The education today is so much worse than it was when I was in school. Kids don’t learn as much, and don’t care, and there were no problems with drugs, or violence, etc.”

Babe Ruth and Joe Jackson

I call it the myth of the golden age. It was a time when everything was great and perfect, and there were few bad things going on. Life was simple and easier back then. Most of the time, I see it when people are talking about their childhood. I think it’s not a question of what the times were like back then, but a question of what the person remembers and perceived during that time. When you’re five, and the world is new, and every day is full of interesting wonderful things, it can seem like the world is perfect. You are not aware that your parents have problems. You have no idea that the world has problems. You are only exposed to the good things. You didn’t worry about work, or your own kids, or your future, or money. I think childhood really was a golden age for most of us. But these conditions were our conditions, and not the conditions of the world, or our own homes. The other thing is sometimes the golden age is the time when we are first exposed to a subject that we come to know quite well. For me, sports had a golden age in the 90s. It was all about the 49ers and the Cowboys. It was the Dream Team and Michael Jordan. Nothing else can match up. But I’m sure that if you ask someone 20 years older, they’ll give you a golden age about 20 years earlier.



I think that in general we talk about how terrible the world is, and what a mess we are in, both as a country and as a planet. But really, I think we’ve never had it better. We have cell phones and internet. We have cable and satellites. Microwaves and central air conditioning. We have pressurized water, hot and cold. We have sewage systems. We have electricity, and light. We know where to build and how to build, and we have bigger homes than at any other time in history. We have more knowledge at our fingertips. Democracy has never been stronger over the entire earth. Several decades ago, we had MAD (mutually assured destruction) policies with the Russians. All of civilization could have been destroyed within a matter of hours. We know about environmental destruction now. There was slavery, and then institutionalized racism, and then illegal discrimination, and now we have a black president. The US has never really been stronger when compared to others, than in these past two decades. We have a strong safety net for the less fortunate. Each is able to get educated and pursue happiness according to his or her desire and ability. Many problems that were once ignored or considered too unimportant to focus on now receive detailed attention. There is focus on making the future better than the present. Has there ever been a society as free from hunger and malnutrition as our own? Has there ever been a time when the less fortunate are so well looked after that their biggest concern is obesity? We don’t worry about having clothes, or having enough clothes. Some worry about clean and new looking clothes. Many worry about style. I think that today is the real golden age.

Cookware materials

I've decided to post a blog about cookware materials. Islena and I have gone through quite a few pots and pans, and every time we go to look for "good" ones to replace the ones that are falling apart, we get into the same dilemma. Are we buying more of the same low quality pots and pans?

Knowledge is half the battle my friends. Go Joe!

So here's... I can't paste from my word document. Foiled again by COBRA!

I got it! Enjoy!

Basic Materials

Cast iron:
The Good: Cast Iron sears meats very well. It maintains steady heat long after the heat source is gone. It is also a good heat conductor, disbursing heat well. It can be heated up as much as you want. It’s inexpensive. It is good for blackening food, stir-fry, braising, casseroles, browning meats, slow cooking, frying, and baking. The best types of pans to get in cast iron are skillets and dutch ovens.
The Bad: Cast iron heats up very slowly, and may need to be preheated for a couple of minutes before use. It needs to be seasoned, although many are sold pre-seasoned. It is slightly reactive, so it may get the taste of previous meals, and give a taste of iron to food. It rusts, gets pitted, and may shatter if it falls just right. Food sticks to it, and it is very heavy. Being seasoned reduces reactivity, food stickiness, rust, etc.
Subtypes:
Coated with enamel. Maintains heat conduction and reduces disadvantages. Hard porcelain enamel coating provides a permanent finish and prevents reacting with foods. It may come in many colors. It doesn’t need to be seasoned. It can be cleaned however you want. It may lose the non-stick quality as compared to seasoning, and it may not brown as well. They can also be more expensive.
Carbon Steel. Isn’t really a type of cast iron, but it can be treated the same way. You will most likely encounter this material in a wok. It was traditionally used in Asia. A good carbon steel wok should be solidly built and quite cheap. Proper care will make it last a lifetime.

Copper:
The Good: Copper retains heat well, and will last for a lifetime. It is the best heat conductor of the common metals used for cooking. It’s good for delicate sauces and preferred by many professional chefs. It was traditionally used in continental cooking. Thicker is better, up to multiple millimeters of thickness, but it becomes very expensive.
The Bad: Copper cooking ware is the most expensive of all. Copper itself is highly reactive, so it is lined with tin, stainless steel, nickel, etc. Copper needs more maintenance, it is not dishwasher safe, it shouldn’t be air-dried (to prevent spotting), must be polished regularly, and the lacquer finish must be removed before its first use. Any lacquer stripper should work. Copper is poisonous. If acidic food touches copper or is heated touching copper, it will result in significant health issues. Very thin exterior layers are mostly for show and to charge more, and have no actual cooking value.
Subtypes:
Tin lined copper. This is the traditional choice, but will wear over time and requires retinning. It is soft, and if the pan becomes too hot, it will melt. Finding a shop to retin may be difficult. Tin discolors over time.
Nickel lined copper. Much harder than tin, and will last a great deal longer before wearing away, but cannot be replaced.
Stainless steel lined copper. Generally more expensive, but never needs retinning.

Stainless steel:
The Good: Stainless steel is rust-free, easy to clean, durable, stable under very high temperatures, non-reactive, resistant to wear, and light weight. It won’t tarnish or get nasty over time. Metal utensils can be used with it.
The Bad: The bad thing about stainless steel is that it has poor heat conduction. It is medium priced. Pans that are stainless steel-only tend to be very cheap, thin, and they warp easily, meaning less contact with burners, and even more uneven heating of food.
Subtypes:
Copper core. Copper sandwiched in stainless steel. May be very high quality. Very expensive.
Aluminum core. To increase stainless steel's heat conduction, aluminum is often sandwiched between an internal and external layer of stainless steel. In a high quality pan, this layer extends all the way up the sides, not just the bottom. Very good but expensive.
10/18. Represents high quality. 10% nickel for more shiny metal, 18% chromium to prevent corrosion.

Aluminum:
The Good: Aluminum is a good heat conductor, second only to copper. It is also inexpensive.
The Bad: It is reactive, interacting with food, and flavors some dishes. It is a soft metal that will deteriorate over time. It easily scratches. Some cheap aluminum pans warp quickly, are thin, and are prone to hot spots.
Subtypes:
Anodized aluminum. This means the Aluminum has been treated to prevent reactivity. The exterior is then called aluminum oxide. It is much less reactive. You still don’t want to make pickles in it or store tomato sauce overnight in it. It transfers heat well and doesn’t warp. It takes time to warm up, but it evenly disperses heat throughout the pan.

Glass/Ceramic/Pyrex:
The Good: You can see the food inside the dish while it’s cooking without lifting the lid. It also retains heat fairly well.
The Bad: May be damage during extreme temperature changes. It may shatter if you put cold water in hot pan. Food tends to stick to it a lot. They shatter if dropped, and glass lids may warp, which makes it useless for any dish that requires good closure.
Subtypes:
Pyrex. It’s more resistant to cracking than others of this type.


Teflon/Non-stick/new materials:
The Good: The good news is that, yes, it does make food stick less. If you’re doing a low-fat diet, you can use less oil than you otherwise would. They are also easier to clean than the metals.
The Bad: Non-stick materials don’t last very long. You have to use wooden/plastic utensils to avoid damaging the lining for most of them. Teflon, at least, breaks down at 500 degrees, and turns to a gas that kills birds. The non-stick will eventually fail, and when it does, you have to go out and buy another pan.
Subtypes:
New Calphalon, Circulon, Scanpan. Some newer materials give a long guarantee on the non-stick and are ok for metal utensils.



Important Qualities/Definitions

Tinning: The process that grafts a thin layer of a metal, like stainless steel, onto copper. This keeps the copper from reacting with acids in food, and from getting into food generally. Tin will last around ten years before it needs to be replaced by a specialty shop.

Seasoning: The surface of a pan, inside and out, is treated with a layer of vegetable oil or shortening. The pan is covered in it, and then it is baked to seal the fat into the pan. This will stop reactivity and corrosion, and will give a non-stick surface. Seasoning breaks down over time and has to be repeated. Wash and dry the pan thoroughly, lightly rub shortening into the pans surface, and bake the pan in an oven at about 300 degrees for an hour to an hour and a half.

Conduction: Good heat conduction allows for even cooking. Poor heat conduction means different areas of a pan are at different temperatures. Think of a 10 foot by 10 foot thin sheet of metal with a heat source beneath it. A poor heat conductor will be very hot right above the heat, and cool very close by. A good heat conductor will be fairly hot right above the heat source, but will also be fairly hot in the surrounding areas.

Reactivity: Copper, aluminum, and to a lesser extent cast iron, are "reactive" metals. That means they will chemically combine with certain foods, usually acidic ones, and this will alter the flavor and color of the food you’re preparing. This may mean consuming high levels of the metal as well. For some reason, copper is great for mixing egg whites, but reactive in almost all other situations.

Recommendations before buying: Make sure the lid fits snugly. Is the handle oven safe? Will it stay cool on the stove? How is the handle connected to the pan? Screws may come loose. How does it balance with something heavy in it in terms of comfort, ease of handling, and balance? Does the pan fall over when it’s nearly empty because the handle is to heavy or long? Does it have/need handles on both sides?

Premarital sex and divorce rates

Twice at the University of Utah, it was suggested in classes that I was in that waiting for sex until after marriage was sheer stupidity. Students said 'how could anyone leave something so important with a big question mark until after the wedding iteself? After all, sexual compatibility is important.' Or something to that effect.

Being a believer in Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, it is my belief that God has commanded his children to have no sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman. This includes premarital sex (fornication), post-marital sex with other partners (adultery), sex by yourself (masturbation), and sex with others of the same gender (homosexuality).

I also believe that God commands things because they are right, not that they are right because he commands them. That being the case, there should be something demonstrably bad about breaking commandments. I think it should be obvious that we can't expect strong scientific evidence for everything that Heavenly Father says as soon as He says it, but I believe that over the long term, His commandments are for our good. And this is one example.

Science has shown that God is right in the case of not having sex before marriage, in purely temporal marital duration terms. For a believer, my claim that 'God is right' isn't very interesting... it's like saying the sky is blue. Even for the atheist or the agnostic (at least the well-educated ones) it isn't a surprise that "traditional belief systems evolve in a highly beneficial way to their adherents."

Many studies have shown that those that have sex before marriage have a somewhat higher risk of divorce. Apparently the group of those that have had sex before marriage is much larger than the group that hasn't.

So why the divorce rate difference? In my view, sex is like a bond. In a marriage, there are multiple relationship bonds or links. Living together, friendship, sex, experiences together, maybe intellectual similarities, personality similarities, etc. So more bonds is good. The person who doesn't have the sex and living together bonds, but still has enough relationship bonds to get married, gets those two more links for their relationship when they get married. More bonds, less divorce.

So that's one reason of mine on why God commands his children not to have sex outside of marriage. Of course it's not an all or nothing thing. It's not 100% divorce for premarital sex and 0% for the premaritally faithful. I can't find any of the actual studies online for free at the moment, but I'd guess there's only a few percentage points greater probability of divorce for those who don't wait.

The same research also shows some other interesting factors. Women who only had sex with the person they married had the same rate of divorce as those that waited until marriage. Women with multiple premarital partners obviously had a significantly higher rate of divorce.

In the thick of thin things & the slow movement.

Over the past few years I've thought about the ways that I and others use time. During the industrial revolution it wasn't uncommon for people to work 100+ hours per week. Among those that don't make a living wage, working more than 50 hours per week is still common. Indigenous peoples often 'work' only 1 to 3 hours per day. The time that it takes to find food.

So what do we do with all of this spare time? I think most of us pay homage to the gods of the screen or of song. I waste way too much time playing video games, checking news, and facebooking. I'm 8+ books behind, as in, I own the books, I just haven't read them. But I think there is a fairly simple and objective way to distinguish between time wasted and time well spent. It has something to do with permanence.

I think blogging, improving relationships, learning things, teaching things, producing things, etc. is usually time well spent. The difference in time well spent and time wasted for me is how useful will this time be for me in a few years. Many kinds of entertainment and some kinds of socializing really aren't very useful in the long run.

A lot of people talk about how, although all kinds of inventions supposedly give us more time to do what we want, really no one has time to do anything because we are so busy in this 24/7 world. I don't believe that. I think that when a person feels that way, it's usually because they are wasting pretty much all of their free time. Then they don't have time to think, plan, prepare, or remember. I think we need quiet times to think as people. I think the lack of sleep or unhealthy sleep schedules, like those retards that write blogs at 1:00 AM instead of sleeping (me), can add to this effect.

Having kids also reduces free time drastically, but I think a parent's increased motivation to succeed, what they learn through raising children, and how they change are all positive steps most of the time, and they make up for the lost free time and more.

Earlier this evening I saw a couple that I home teach laying in the grass reading books. I was so jealous. One day I will do that. Even if I have to wait until Christian turns 10 or 11. Sleep calls. I must answer. Good night.

Jeff

It's on like Donkey Kong!

There's news of a group that has sent names, addresses, SSNs, birthdates, etc. of 1,300 people to media and government outlets in Utah. According to the anonymous creator of the list these are all people that are illegal. The news says that it is likely that someone at the department of workforce services or another state entity has been gathering these names and information during the course of their work. This is an illegal and unauthorized use of information. Not everyone on the list is illegal. How would you feel if your name, address, SSN, and birthdate was sent to all of these groups. If this list is publicized, then everyone on it has a chance of being victimized by identity thieves, vigilantes, and others.

On KSL one article that supposedly dispels myths about illegal immigration says the following:
With an issue as volatile as illegal immigration, it is important to have the facts. Getting the facts, though, isn't easy, primarily because so many voices cloud the emotional discussion with simplistic bumper sticker rhetoric and hearsay.

KSL applauds our sister news organization, the Deseret News, for a recent article exploring "the myths and realities of illegal immigration," and for astutely researching and declaring what is fact and what is fiction. Here is a sampling:

"Illegal immigrants cause most local crime, crowding prisons." Deseret News reporters found the statement to be categorically false.

"Illegal immigrants are taking away jobs." Mostly false, according to Deseret News research.

"Illegal immigrants don't pay taxes." Some do, some don't was the conclusion.

"Americans spend billions to educate children who are here illegally and crowd our schools." Again, the reality arrow points toward that statement being mostly false.

"Billions of dollars a year are spent on Medicaid for illegal immigrants." That statement, too, according to the Deseret News is false.

KSL welcomes this in depth look at a very contentious issue. We encourage you to read the entire article in the paper's June 27 edition. You can find it online at www.deseretnews.com. We hope you'll do it with an honest desire to better understand the hot-button issues surrounding the immigration debate.

The comments section of this story was capped after 20 comments. As far as I could tell, all but one or two of the posted comments were posted be people that are extremely angry and vehemently opposed to this article on illegal immigration. The level of sentiment against these immigrants is scary. They are called dogs in one comment, and parasites in another. Several of the comments passed judgment on 'them' by referring to names in databases or experiences with hispanics. These comments pass judgment on hispanics in general, with no reference to legal status. When a person has strong negative sentiments against a race of people, what is that called? I call it racism.

I have lived and been friends with many hispanic people, mostly because of my Spanish speaking abilities and my wife Islena. Hispanic people are as good a people as are white people. There is no way that I could tell the difference between legal and illegal immigrants, unless they told me or papers were checked. I believe this is because illegal immigrants, taken as a whole, are not bad people. In any large group of people there will be criminals. Just like anyone else criminals who are illegal should be punished according to their crimes. In this case, if we can get rid of criminals by sending them to a home country, then let's do it. But the action of crossing the border without documentation doesn't make them criminals. Any more than not using your turn signals when changing lanes, jay walking, speeding, or setting foot on private property without permission makes you or me a criminal.

The infraction itself is equally benign. It is a law meant to maintain societal order that is broken. It is a problem. It needs to be resolved. There are some really bad people that we really don't want in this country, and there are some really good people that we really do want in this country. There are some illegal hardened criminals, and there are some illegal 2 year old girls. Illegal hardened criminals in the United States are just as exposed and subject to our justice system as legal hardened criminals. Probably even moreso.

The laws on the books are inadequate to do what is right. If you ask me in person, I'll tell you two stories that I know of personally, of people that are/were illegal that should be legal. You will agree with me that the wrong action was taken, and it was taken in accordance with our laws.

There is so much anger and hyperbole on this issue that it sickens me. People blame the illegal immigrants for ruining the economy. They want someone to blame. Apparently the big corporations, bad lending practices, and the housing bubble aren't enough. People are calling them names that are dehumanizing. That is stage 3 of the 8 stages of genocide. I don't say that to imply that the country or the government would ever participate in genocide. But some individuals, left to their own devices, might certainly take murderous actions. Google "8 stages of genocide." It's interesting stuff.

People are saying that the 'illegals' are responsible for a high crime rate. This is where they invariably forget to distinguish between hispanic and illegal. In either case, those stubborn facts and data saying that they are not more criminal are brushed aside. The only statistic that I've seen (about hispanics, not illegals) that indicates that they do have a higher crime rate is obviously the result of a long search through crime statistics to pick out one rare type of crime for one year for one area. Cherry picked.

People say that the illegal immigrants steal their identities. One or some illegal immigrants may have done this. But we need to remember that there are several groups involved in this type of crime. Most illegal immigrants involved in this kind of crime are part of a scenario, where one guy or group obtains a long list of social security numbers. They are called 'Miqueros.' They will hang out on a street corner, and wait for illegal immigrants to come up and ask for 'papers.' The miquero assures the immigrant that they only sell SSNs etc. from dead people, so that no one will be harmed through this criminal transaction. The illegal immigrant then uses this id. Most of them will do the best they can to build and protect their credit using this false documentation. They will buy cars and houses, making payments and living their lives, etc. This is unfortunate, and it is criminal.

There is a very different type of crime, which is identity theft to steal money, where people steal others' identities to take out loans, get all they can, and then leave these others with the debt. This type of crime has no relationship to the illegal immigrant needing false papers. The illegal immigrant wants to treat their false paperes very well and very carefully, because they may be good people, but even if they aren't, to avoid any suspicious eyes and law enforcement that is brought in by stealing others' identities for illicit financial gain. My understanding is that the great majority of people that commit the more destructive kind of identity theft are citizens, born and raised, of the United States of America.

I don't understand this fixation that people have of race as a primary predictor of criminal activity. The statistics don't back it up. The attribute most associated with crime is gender. You want to reduce crime by taking action against a whole group, let's take all the men out. The second best predictor of crime is age. If you want to reduce crime, put all the 18 to 25 years olds in jail. So I ask "Why do we skip these attributes when deciding what group to be angry about and go directly to race or ethnicity?" To me it is very clear. We skip gender and age attributes because they are close to us. We are male, or were or will be 18 to 25 at some point. What is the attribute that represents the greatest difference between the angered citizen and the criminals in their minds? Race or ethnicity. We associate ourselves as white and legal and good, and them as minority and illegal and bad.

When we see someone that is white and criminal, we think "stupid criminal" and don't attach it to any other association. When we see someone that is minority and criminal, we connect the picture or name to the stereotype that we already have, and it reinforces the racist belief. I'm sure this phenomenon has a name. I don't know what it is. I saw a news article several weeks ago about a crime that made no mention of names, races, ethnicities, or legal status, and there was a disturbingly high number of comments made by people who were already 100% sure that the perpetrators were from one minority group or another.

I find it really upsetting the way that so many people who are completely unaffected by illegal immigration in any way can find the time to be so hateful. To me it is the result of the echo chamber effect. A person feels one way, and only listens to others who feel the exact same way. Everyone is saying versions of the same thing to each other, and the people involved see it as inherent evidence that their views must be correct. That is all they hear. They begin to feel very strongly against those of the opposing viewpoint. They simply cannot understand how any rational human being could hold the opposing view.

Of course sometimes I may be quite one-sided in my opinions, as you've read. But just for the record, I don't think that all illegal people should be unconditionally legalized. The borders do need to be sealed, as much as is possible. I do think we need to recognize that a total seal is impossible. I think the best way to stop drug trafficking and violence is to stop the problem at its source. The source of the problem is the American people who want and pay for drugs. The way to stop the problem is by educating young Americans in school about the entire issue. As far as stopping terrorist cells coming across the border, the main border to worry about is 1) airports, 2) Canadian border. Honestly, if you were a terrorist, which border would you cross, the northern border that is almost totally unprotected, or the southern border that has never been protected as well as it is now? I mean seriously...

Back to defending my objectivity and neutrality... as if that's possible. :) After the borders are protected as well as can be done (and the best terrorist protection isn't border guards, it's education and PR in the Middle East) right. So, after the borders are protected, then illegal immigrants who are here should have to pass a number of hurdles to become legal. Have committed no crimes. Have paid taxes. (Don't tell me none of them do. Some do. I know this to be fact.) Pay some monetary penalty to cover costs of legalization. What else? Anyway, after all of this is done, then better workplace verification laws need to come into play. This will take care of the good people. But those that are wanted for crimes, or broke more laws than just crossing, won't come forward. Those that need legitimate work will be forced out. Those that don't need legitimate work will be caught only through regular law enforcement channels, as is done currently.

I don't know. It just seems like, to me, the 'crime' of illegal immigrants was crossing a physical line. The federal government didn't say they could cross it, and they did. To me, the act itself is no more serious than stepping into a yard with a keep off sign posted, or going 66 in a 65 mph area. The penalty (being kicked out) for this crime is fine for a person that's been in country a week. The penalty for the child that grew up here, or even the parents that have lived most of their lives here, doesn't fit the crime. Maybe there should be a statute of limitations at least, like there are for more serious crimes. A couple of decades maybe. Or, say, if a person has demonstrably lived for more than half of their life here, then they can (having passed all hurdles) become residents.