🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <43gbds$59u@zippy.cais.net>, gahler@cais2.cais.com (Mark
Gahler) wrote:

> Dan Ferber <Dan_Ferber@qms1.life.uiuc.edu> wrote:
> 
> [SC opposes Prop 187; Create a new Homestead Act, I say]
> 
> DF>Where's the land going to come from?  Do you propose taking private land? 
> DF>the fertile land is already being used.  The land claimed by your
> DF>ancestors was not "owned" (except by the Native Americans who were driven
> DF>off of it--I won't get into that).  It is a different time and place.
> 
> Isn't about 70% of the land in the West still public? There's plenty 
> for new immigrants to have if SC wants to encourage illegal immigration. 
> I'll bet there's even alot that can be planted and watered. Even what 
> isn't especially fertile, we can find better land for them than what 
> they're leaving in Mexico or China. Remember, many of last century's 
> immigrants were given relatively crappy land and their decendents are 
> still here. If they can't farm it, then maybe they can mine it, ranch it, 
> or develop it. 

> For example, we could slice up Yosemite into homesteads and the new 
> immigrants could make a living by charging Sierra Clubbers to hike 
> across their property. Or we could dole out the Redwoods and immigrants 
> can make an honest living as timber harvesters. You just need to use   
> your imagination.
> 
> There are surely tens of millions of people who would love to come to
> the U.S. If SC wants California to maintain incentives that attract
> illegal (read uncontrolled) immigration, then SC should give some 
> thought to how those people are going to live. 


First of all, MOST of that public land in the west is not arable.  Have
you been through Nevada, or Utah or Arizona?  Second, the public land that
is good for grazing is being used already for grazing, (abusively so in
many cases).  Third, would you seriously get rid of all our national parks
and hand them out to "homesteaders"?  Then we'd be left without the
parks--what kind of improvement to the country would that be?  Or have I
blasphemed against the religion of Rand, by saying that total private
ownership of ALL land is NOT for the good of the American public.  Also,
who says that the "development" is the greatest of all goals, with our
dwindling natural areas.  I'm sorry, but a vast majority of Americans want
to KEEP our National Parks, thank you very much. 

My main point is that this is not a 19th century economy anymore, and the
frontier is gone. Instead of a Homestead Act to integrate them into the
1875 economy, integrate them, along with disenfranchised Americans, into
the 1995 economy with education, job training and provide them with a
safety net for health care--they are often hard working innovative people
who can help the country as well as themselves.
> 
> DF>Having said that, I also think that our borders should be tightened to 
> DF>get illegal immigration under control.
> 
> Build a big wall perhaps?

No...increase the ability of INS to deal with it by increasing number of
agents and tools to prevent illegal immigration and track and deport
illegal immigrants.  Is that so preposterous? 

> Did anyone else see "TV Nation" a few weeks ago where they had a story 
> on how lax security is along the Canadian-U.S. border. That was funny, 
> especially the lady who got past the custom officer wearing a big sign 
> that said something like "I Need A Job." At the end, the "reporter" 
> implied that racism is the reason for the difference in our security 
> efforts between our north and south borders. It would be racist of us if 
> we didn't build a big wall along the Canadian border to match the one 
> we build along Mexico.

Well, I haven't seen a huge influx of dirt-poor Canadians smuggling
themselves across the border and requiring government expenditures for
their health care etc.  Perhaps I missed the news that day.

> >I don't think that "librill" is necessarily a code word for Jew, (although
> >"Hollywood cultural elite", "international banker" and "east coast elite"
> >sure are, and these words are used by conservatives often.  Just ask Bob
> >Dole about the Hollywood elite.).  
> 
> Is it possible for Bob Dole to complain about Hollywood without using
> an anti-Semitic slur like "Hollywood cultural elite?" Or is it that any 
> complaint against an industry with a disproportionate number of Jews is 
> automatically a slam against Jews in general? Or is it that some people
> always see the race or religion first and the individual behavior as 
> secondary.

I think Dole had a point, but he destroyed his credibility by singling out
Time-Warner and calling Repub Schwarzenegger's True Lies "family
friendly".   So, if it was just behavior, why did Dole single out, out of
all the film companies, Time-Warner and a CEO named Levin?  Hollywood
bashing has a long history of antisemitism, going back to the 1920's.  Joe
McCarthy did it all the time, and want out and destroyed the lives of
artists and filmmakers by getting them blacklisted.  Commie wasn't the
only dirty label he put on people.  Dole is just joining a long
tradition--it isn't even original. Perhaps some non-Jews are less
sensitive (read oblivious) to this sort of veiled bigotry, but we Jews
have seen it before.
 
> Who are the "east coast elite?" It's not a term I'm familiar with. Do 
> the Kennedybergs belong to it?

Cute. No, it's not just Jews who are liberals, as I already stated--many
are not.  But antisemitic literature going back 200 years has stirred up
hatred by implying a select group of rich elite Jews are conspiring to
control society and take over the world.  The insidious power of these
terms comes from how people perceive them, not because you can play
devil's advocate and find an exception.

So, my translation of the implications:

east coast = New York (the epitome of the term in many peoples minds)

New York = city with a lot of Jews

elite = rich, arrogant group who wants to tell us "normal" Americans how
to live our lives

Read anything from the far right-wing militia idiots or the KKK if you doubt me.

Dan