Just Mad Ramblings

SLIPPERY SLOPE ARGUMENT IS LOGICALLY FLAWED

noreply@blogger.com (Shawn Bjorklund) — Thu, 03 Nov 2011 11:17:40 PDT

Dear Isabella,

Enclosed are my thoughts concerning one of the arguments used against permitting same-sex marriages. As same-sex marriage is a topic of much debate these days, I am writing this blog in a vague attempt to summarize my feelings about condemning people for their genetic character. I have faith that there will be less discrimination, less stigmatization, and less hurt in the world by the time you are on your own -- you know, when you are 35 years old.

Your loving father,

Shawn

Professor Volokh wrote a very good article regarding same-sex marriage and the “slipper slope” arguments used against it. Let me just say that I encourage others to read this article, as it brings up several good points that are generally applicable irrespective of the one slippery slope argument discussed below.

It has always been my position that the contention that same-sex marriage could lead us to a “slippery slope” leading to polygamy (or bestiality) is logically flawed. It is my position that by definition different-sex marriage leads us to this slope. Specifically, “marriage,” as a sanctioned institution, is what creates the slippery slope that requires us to determine what types of marriages are acceptable among consenting adults. To conclude that same-sex marriage is the cause of the slippery slope is the result of making a morale judgment before the logical argument begins.

Particularly, polygamy is the would-be consequence of different-sex marriage (or marriage in and of itself) and not same-sex marriage. History bears this out, as men with more than one “wife” have existed publicly from the beginning of time. It is only when one views same-sex marriage as deviant in some way that you put it before different-sex marriage as the starting point for the slippery slope argument.

Again, please read Professor Volokh's article for a more detailed discussion.

This blog is intentionally short as I will discuss same-sex marriage in more detail in two upcoming blogs. One will discuss the decision of the Roman Catholic Church (“RCC”) to abandon its adoption services in Massachusetts, because it has determined that children are better off with no home than a gay home. Let me just say now that this is just one more case in which the RCC has put the welfare of our children second. Also, in this blog I will discuss the RCC’s continued discrimination against women and its continued policy of covering up child molestation cases in order to protect its priest. These three items are insupportable to me and are indications of how old-fashioned the RCC has become.

The second blog will discuss same-sex marriage as it pertains to the Constitution and a recent case Lawrence v. Texas. As Randy Barnett so eloquently details in his 2003 article, this case (to me) indirectly provides another way to examine this issue (i.e., liberties versus licenses -- and the potential application of the Equal Protection Clause). Given that I went to Boston University as an undergraduate, I find special pride in Professor Barnett’s article. I am especially glad to see a thoughtful constitutional writing put together by Justice Kennedy in Lawrence (something that is very lacking in the writings of Scalia and other originalist).

Please note that Professor Barnett also coauthored an amicus brief to the Supreme Court in Lawrence. To me this brief frames a very important question. Specifically, what liberties, which are not specifically mentioned in its text, are covered by the Constitution? As the founding fathers recognized, and as referenced in Madison’s famous dialogue in his draft writing of the Bill of Rights, not all of the people’s liberties are (or could be) spelled out in the Bill of Rights. Answering this question requires a courageous and thoughtful person as it is not easy. For this reason, I find Scalia’s writings (dissents) so disappointing. After reading Scalia’s dissents, one might think that the Constitution does not protect my liberty to eat more than 3000 calories in any given day. I guess the question is, “so does it?” I think in answering this absurd question do we further define what "liberty" really means and what it covers. One more question. Could Congress make it illegal for me to eat after 9 p.m.? Certainly I don't have a fundamental right (or liberty) in the Constitution to eat after 9 p.m., but nonetheless such a law would seem invasive to my ability to live my life as I generally see fit. Do I have a constitutionally protected liberty to drive? Or is this a license? Could driving be outlawed altogether? Driving certainly impacts others (and has the potential to kill) when it is not performed with basic skills.

It has always been my contention that if the Constitutional analysis is done correctly one should examine the “liberty” that is sought to be protected (and not the specific “act” -- such as sodomy). Assuming this is done, the specific “act” should only be controlled through legislation if it directly conflicts or infringes on the same (or similar) underlying liberty of the public -- with special attention given to "commercial" transactions.

For example, the right to use drugs in one’s home could be argued to infringe on the public’s right to tranquility in the home (or on the public streets) because of the resulting criminal behavior or physical damage or harm that such drug use will cause in enough cases. This argument could also apply to prostitution. Moreover, the “customer” relationship in such transactions creates a unique situation in which one is vulnerable and could be harmed -- not to mention the issue of true "consent." These situations are totally different, from consenting adults engaging in sodomy as part of a relationship, because they involve transactions that have been shown to result in public or personal harmed -- and where "consent" is at question.

MEDICAID IS A CHOICE

noreply@blogger.com (Shawn Bjorklund) — Wed, 27 Apr 2011 08:25:33 PDT

We spend $400 billion every year on health care for people who can't otherwise afford it.

Personally, as this is a choice we make, it might make more sense for the States to decide if such care is going to be provided. Such States could then tax its residents to cover the costs. This might force States to be more competitive, effective in providing such services. Especially those States that exploit cheap labor.

I understand the debate of providing health care to all and generally agree with it. However, it should be paid for and not financed through additional deficit spending. In such a world, we might have a two-tier system; with the public "HMO" tier being paid for by premiums and taxes (which could only be used for such health care expenses).

How many uninsured individuals are there right now? I thought it was something like 40 million. If we take the 400 billion the Fed pays and the other 100 to 200 billion the States pay, couldn't we just pay the premiums for the uninsured?

Maybe the money paid includes insurance for the undocumented individuals that number around 20 million; and that is why is seems like the governments are paying way too much for health care.

I guess the only way this system could work is for all individuals in the U.S.A. to be documented and paying their fair share. A national sales tax might help?

FINANCIAL CHAOS

noreply@blogger.com (Shawn Bjorklund) — Wed, 27 Apr 2011 08:42:00 PDT

We are living in a time of financial chaos. Currently the Government has accumulated debts (loans) of over $14 trillion. This amount is almost 100 percent of our nation's GDP; and does not include its off balance sheet obligations. This also doesn't include the States' debt obligations of around $3 trillion; or their various off balance sheet obligations.

The Government is going to collect around $2.5 trillion in taxes this year. However, it will spend about $3.9 trillion. This will add another $1.4 trillion to our Federal deficit. Are we becoming more like Japan like some people fear?

Japan has around 900 trillion Yen in debt obligations; which is almost 200 percent of its GDP. Japan brings in around 40 trillion Yen in tax revenues each year and spends about 55 percent of this amount on social security and debt servicing.

Based on our numbers, I expect the market to retest its lows sometime during the next five years. However, I would expect Japan to face a new crisis first if our deficits are to have this type of impact on our economy.

SPITTING IN THE FACE OF GOD

noreply@blogger.com (Shawn Bjorklund) — Mon, 21 Feb 2011 11:10:50 PST

To assume that life has value only because it was a "gift" from God seems to be limit, or eliminate what we term as the inherent value of life.

For instance, does life have less value if God does not exist? To assume that it only has value because of "creation" seems to eliminate the "inherent" value of life we now hold to be true; and therefore, seems to suggest that such a gift is worthless without our Godly giver.

SPEED OF LIGHT

noreply@blogger.com (Shawn Bjorklund) — Mon, 21 Feb 2011 11:11:11 PST

What if the speed of light is not constant, but is in fact relative? We might call it the relative speed of light.

What if the speed of light is moderately altered by the physical characteristics of the galaxy in which in travels through? Namely the diameter of the galaxy and the gravitational forces, masses within such galaxy.

It seems odd that we assume that the speed of light is a constant when we have not been able to test this notion from a point outside of our own galaxy. Maybe we should put an asterisk after this notion, theory to indicate that the speed of light is only (relatively) constant within our galaxy?

Doesn't light slow (no matter how slight) as it passes through solid objects?

TIME TRAVEL

noreply@blogger.com (Shawn Bjorklund) — Mon, 21 Feb 2011 11:11:26 PST

I argue that time travel could be proven to be an impossibility by combining complex physics and logical equations; basically, by combining the complex and the simple.

If we assume time travel is possible, then what is the probability that time travel would be perfected as time approached infinity?

This "time travel probability" should approach 100 percent as time approached infinity.

As this (time travel) probability approached 100 percent, then what is the probability that someone would travel back in time and alter the course of our history. Let's call this the probability of someone violating our own "time travel prime directive."

Given the fragility of humans, it could be argued that as time approached infinity that the probability of humans violating this (time travel) prime directive would approach 100 percent.

Furthermore, it could be argued that the probability of humans violating this (time travel) prime directive at a prior point in time (from now) would also approach 100 percent as time approached infinity. As such, if time travel was possible, we should currently know of its existence; even if we are unable to reproduce it now.

Otherwise, the perfection of time travel and humans would have had to occur simultaneously. Now what is the probability of that happening?

BCS

noreply@blogger.com (Shawn Bjorklund) — Mon, 21 Feb 2011 10:16:05 PST

The BCS is a joke. The games should be determined by rankings; number 3 should play 4, etc.

Or, college football should get rid of the "13th^" game of the season and have a playoff with the top 8 teams (with 2 weeks between each round).

The first round would be held when the 13th game is normally held. The second round would be two weeks later and the championship game would be two weeks later.

This would add one game for most teams and two games for a couple.

The remaining teams (ranked 9 to 22) could play games during the off weeks according to rank; basically, the strongest teams play each other.

SPACE TRAVEL

noreply@blogger.com (Shawn Bjorklund) — Mon, 21 Feb 2011 11:11:46 PST

How do we effect space travel? We need to figure out how to rewrite DNA in order to control atomic particles. We need to figure out how to combine computer science, physics, and microbiology.

How does light (photons) pass through objects?

JAMIELSLAW

noreply@blogger.com (Shawn Bjorklund) — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 18:28:20 PDT

Sanctuary cities and gangs.

BUSH SUCKS

noreply@blogger.com (Shawn Bjorklund) — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 16:35:36 PDT

It has been 2 days, so I thought I should reiterate that Bush really does suck. I cannot wait for 2009!!!

And to think I used to be a Republican. He and others (including McCain) have ruined that party for me. Why cannot there be leaders that understand the importance of keeping religion separate from politics, upholding our laws (even at the border), defending our youth from the drugs crossing the border, spending less not more, and leaving various popular issues of the day to be handled by the States (or the Court as it often turns out).

Final though: Bush Sucks!!!

HAVE I MENTIONED LATELY THAT BUSH IS A TERRIBLE PRESIDENT

noreply@blogger.com (Shawn Bjorklund) — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 16:48:33 PDT

Man Bush really really sucks the big one. He is what is totally wrong with a lot of developed nations. You know, if you are from a "rich" family then you get to step over people that are more qualified. But I guess this has always been true; its just the way it is.

Bush is a complete idiot. Just listen to him speak. He is the worst Presidential speaker that I have ever heard. Listening to him speak is like watching President Ford walk; waiting for that one inevitable misstep or fall.

It makes you wonder about the hanging chads in the 2000 election. It makes you wonder how easy it would be to manipulate the election in order to get a "Haliburton" man elected, as VP, in order to control a truly stupid President.

The real problem is our press is so incompetent at "investigating" criminal activity that we will never know. After all, each of our major press organizations are owned by publicly owned (big) businesses.

Now, and always, publicly owned businesses have one primary responsibility; to make their shareholders richer. They are obligated to their shareholders to increase profit margins and expand revenues, and to do so quarterly.

Sure, there are rules that prohibit broadcasters from "directly" spreading lies, but what about spinning the truth, or deliberately not reporting or pursuing the truth without actually telling direct lies?

After all, given that NBC is owned by General Electric (a major corporation with significant military endeavors), what is the chance that NBC would ever report on any illegalities conducted by GE or any of its affiliates?

Have you ever wondered why there are never "breaking news" stories before "Enron goes belly up;" basically all of the major stories these days are after the fact or involve some type of sensationalistic topic that consumes a month of news time.

Who is left to ensure that the truth is discovered? We know the media will not do it, and it is unlikely that any politician will either.

I guess we are left with the whistle blowers, and the loan revolutionary. With these as our options, it is probably better that we move towards a socialistic society. After all, power really does corrupt, and we have such a great concentration of power in this country.

WHAT IF OBAMA DOESN'T WIN IN NOVEMBER? WAS IT ALL A RUSE?

noreply@blogger.com (Shawn Bjorklund) — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 21:08:07 PDT

I think Clinton would have won in November against McCain, so what if McCain wins against Obama?

How did Obama get so well financed so soon? Is it possible that he was propped up in the primary to lose in November? I know, it seems very unlikely, right?

We are always told that big business controls the government. I guess we will finally see if it is true this November.

Now, I think the one way to screw up such a wild "conspiracy theory" would be for Obama to chose Clinton as his running mate. This is why I think he would be a fool not to pick her, but then we all have our own hubris.

HOW BAD DOES BUSH SUCK?

noreply@blogger.com (Shawn Bjorklund) — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 16:52:40 PDT

Let me tell you how terrible a president Bush has been. He has been such a bad president that he has unified a nation against "his" policies, and has forced (or allowed) us to put aside all of our racial bickering and sexist beliefs in order to select not only a black American, but also a woman for the 2008 Democratic ticket. Now that is what I call special.

Some people might not think that this is that big a deal, but during my whole life I have been repeatedly told how racially divided we are as a nation; not to mention how difficult it is for a woman to earn an equal wage. However, after 8 years of sucking on Bush's terribly corroded tail pipes, it appears that we have put all our major differences behind us in order to get rid of the Bush stank.

Of course, we could all still hate each other and this could be just another trick by the "man" used to sneak McCain through the back door. After all, Obama did receive unprecedented sums of money from the so called "grass roots." So we are either not as racially divided as we have been told by our useless media, or we are all truly being played by man in one masterfully orchestrated ruse.

Who knows.

Personally, I will not vote for McCain unless he specifically says that he will not support any amnesty legislation while he is in the White House. If he does not specifically say this to the public then I will vote for Obama and let the rich deal with all the new taxes to pay for such amnesty.

But McCain is an idiot, and to me he and Bush are the reasons that I will probably never vote for a Republican again (after doing so for the entirety of my life). Both parties suck, but at least the Democrats will find a way to make the old Republicans pay for their policies.

You heard it here first, but we are on our way to becoming a socialistic society; the next Germany or Sweden I suppose. I guess this is the truest statement of how Bush sucks; he killed the republic as we know it and it will never be the same. Oh well, new adventures, new fun for the next generation.

NBA REFS SUCK

noreply@blogger.com (Shawn Bjorklund) — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 17:41:11 PDT

I was watching the Finals tonight and just don't get some of the touch calls that change the game. It makes the game too boring for me. Let the stars play.

There has been some mention lately that the NBA fixes games. This would at least explain why the refs seem so incompetent some times.

During the 2002 Western Finals, I too did wonder what in the hell was going on with the calls. It always appeared that Shaq was being given calls in order to boost his status.

Because of the odd string of calls made by the refs in favor of Shaq, I thought long ago that there was a concerted effort to promote his success.

I guess the NBA is a bit "Broadway" too, along with our Congress and press. At least we still have football where we still have good old cheating, but the games are not fixed.

COST OF ILLEGALS

noreply@blogger.com (Shawn Bjorklund) — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 19:43:07 PDT

Here is an example of the true cost of illegals to California.

Currently, there are about 1 million illegal families (with about 2 kids per family give or take) in California. For purposes of this example, and simplicity, we will assume that these 1 million illegal families include 1 dad, 1 mom, and 2 kids.

According to California, it spends around 9 thousand for education per kid. So for our example, each illegal family costs California around 18 thousand per year (or 18 billion in total).

Now if we assume that these illegal families do not have health care insurance; and such is paid for by California, then it is probably conservative to assume that these families cost the State around 15 thousand a year per family for "emergency room" health care. The "wholesale" price of health care for the average family of 4 is around 1500 per month. For most, this expense is paid for in good part by "employers" while the rest is paid for by the "employees." The retail (or emergency care) price of this health care is up to 3 times this. Therefore, assuming that this expense per illegal family is around 15 thousand seems fair for purposes of this example. At 15 thousand per illegal family, this health care expense costs California around another 15 billion dollars.

Now what about the expenses associated with incarcerating around 100 thousand illegals per year in California? At 40 thousand per inmate per year, this adds an additional 4 billion per year.

Now what about the expenses associated with all the infrastructure issues, such as maintaining the roads, dealing with the additional pollution, etc. Who knows what the number is, but for this example, let us assume it is at least 1 billion per year.

How about all the drugs that are brought into California directly from Mexico? How do you measure the expense associated with the fact that most of the big name drugs used in the U.S. are either walked or driven into the U.S. from Mexico? Again, who knows. But we will assume for this example that this costs California another 5 billion a year in crimes, deaths, health related issues, reduced productivity, etc.

In sum, under this example we have around 43 billion in direct expenses to California because of the illegal families now living in the State.

So what do these families give back to California? Well these families must be out earning some money right. Let us assume for this example that each family earns 60 thousand dollars. This is a guess, but it seems fair, give or take.

Now we know that around 50 percent of illegals do not pay taxes, but for this example, let us be very conservative and assume that 100 percent of the illegals pay taxes as they should. Let us further be conservative and assume that these families pay such taxes at an effective rate of 50 percent when you include sales and federal taxes (with 16 of the 50 going to the State).

Under these generous, conservative assumptions this would lead to 30 billion in total taxes (with a portion going directly and indirectly to California). Even, if we assume that 100 percent of these taxes ultimately made it to California then we are still running a 13 billion dollar deficit.

But there must be much more gains to California associated with having a cheap labor force, right? Personally, I would argue that these gains net to zero or thereabouts. First, any money saved by businesses go to these businesses profits and is therefore taxed, etc. However, if these businesses didn't have such a cheap labor force, then such savings would go to the employees as higher wages and be taxed.

Sure, maybe less businesses would be in place, and California's economy might not be growing so fast or be so large, but what would this mean to the average legal family? I would argue that there would be less traffic and a much greater quality of life. After all, how do you measure the cost of an additional hour in traffic a day because of illegals? What is an hour of a person's life worth? How about 250 hours a year?

Therefore, given all the quality of life intangibles, it could be argued that the costs associated with the deteriorating quality of life issues equals the so called "unseen" economic benefits of having this cheap, but illegal labor pool; at least for the average person.

Personally, the quality of life really deteriorated while we were living in California. Further, I never felt or realized any of these so called unseen economic benefits associated with all these illegals. Things still seemed expensive to me; much more expensive than other parts of the country. But it was the quality of life issues that made living in California unacceptable. To much time in traffic, too much pollution, just too many people. And way too many drugs and crimes.

So based on all of these assumptions, California should be experiencing around a 13 billion dollar deficit per year directly associated with its illegal families. Now this only equates to around 450 dollars per legal individual (including minors), but 13 billion is still a large sum of money. And I am sure each family of 4 could use that additional 2 thousand dollars each year.

Even though this is an example, we do know that California is running an overall deficit this year of around 14.5 billion. So maybe there is some truth in the numbers above?

I bet when you consider the huge amount of drugs coming into the U.S. from Mexico, and the quality of life issues, there are many more negatives associated with our "open border" policy. What about the thousands of people that die each year from the drug usage associated with the drugs coming across the border? The U.S. Census states that 20 thousand people die nationwide directly from illegal drug use each year. How many of these deaths are associated with the drugs coming across the border? 10, 20, 30 percent? How many of these deaths could be eliminated with a tougher border policy? I bet we could save at least a 1000 lives each year.

So what do you think?

WILL ILLEGALS IN CALIFORNIA REDUCE THE VOTING POWER OF LEGALS?

noreply@blogger.com (Shawn Bjorklund) — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 18:01:56 PDT

Once the illegals are given citizenship (through amnesty) legal citizens in several States will lose a significant portion of their voting power.

In California, "amnesty" would end up creating around 2 million new voters in a State of around 10 million votes (give or take). Basically, this will virtually eliminate any value associated with any Independent or Republic votes.

Just one more example of legal citizens be thrown under the bus for politicians. And another reason why we could no longer continue to live in one of these States.

TOPIX ON IMMIGRATION AND SCHOOLS

noreply@blogger.com (Shawn Bjorklund) — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 02:02:56 PDT

LONEWACKO ON OBAMA

noreply@blogger.com (Shawn Bjorklund) — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 02:01:28 PDT

FUTURE OF CALIFORNIA'S KIDS???

noreply@blogger.com (Shawn Bjorklund) — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 01:59:46 PDT

Nice article.

ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS COST CALIFORNIA 10 BILLION ANNUALLY

noreply@blogger.com (Shawn Bjorklund) — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 01:57:58 PDT

With 1 million illegal families in California this number is probably low.

Each family requires around 18 thousand in State funding for public schooling (at 9 thousand per student). Each family requires around 10 to 16 thousand for medical services and other social services paid for by the State.

These numbers do not include the fees for the drugs brought into the State or the criminals incarcerated by the State.

So how much does each of these families pay in State taxes through their low skilled jobs?

CALIFORNIA'S EDUCATIONAL CRISIS

noreply@blogger.com (Shawn Bjorklund) — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 22:25:18 PDT

. . . In January, Education Week reported that California spends almost $1,900 below the national per-student average, ranking us 46th in the nation for education spending. The 2007 "Getting Down to Facts" studies led by Stanford University concluded that if we are going to prepare our children to participate in the global economy, school districts would need several billion dollars more each year. . .

CALIFORNIA'S 50 BILLION DOLLAR BUDGET DEFICIT

noreply@blogger.com (Shawn Bjorklund) — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 22:26:10 PDT

Here is some more info on California's dismal educational structure:

California ranked almost last in terms of the ratio of total school staff to students in 2005–06, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. The state had only 72% as many school staff members as the average state. With respect to administrators, California had 274 students per administrator. That was significantly higher than the U.S. average of 174 and higher still than the average of 109 in Texas, another of the five most populous states. California had only 33% as many district officials/administrators as the national average and only 63% as many school principals and assistant principals as the national average.

With respect to teachers, California ranked 49th, with 75% as many as the national average. California ranked 51st—last—on guidance counselors and librarians. California had only 1.1 guidance counselors per 1,000 students, compared to an average of 2.1 nationally and only 0.2 librarians per 1,000 students, compared to 1.1 nationally.

MRS. OBAMA DOESN'T REALLY LIKE WHITE AMERICA?

noreply@blogger.com (Shawn Bjorklund) — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 22:39:12 PDT

See prior post on Wright. It just goes to show you how complicated the issues are when a person that attended one of the best schools in the "world," and makes more money than 99 percent of all people in the world, still has never really been "proud" of her country.

A very "glass is half empty" attitude that reflects a psychology of racism that now exists in our nation. Truth be told, this psychology of racism causes more problems for us than just eliminating racism and poverty in American.

For example, even if we could magically eliminate the bigotry and poverty that exists in this country, a good amount of black Americans would still "perceive" racism. The simple psychology of it suggests that if you kick someone in the gut enough times, then this person will enter new relationships expecting to be kicked in the gut.

Therefore, the task of all America is not only to remove real bigotry and poverty, but also to prove to those black Americans that have suffered the effects of racism for decades that white Americans no longer hold those horrible beliefs towards black Americans. [And as Obama recently stated in his speech on Racism, this will require us to significantly improve our schools; and therefore the opportunities available to black Americans. This is however not going to be easy when our schools are also having to change their curriculum to account for large amounts of non English speaking students.]

Hopefully, if Obama becomes President some of his wife's disparaging feelings towards white Americans will dissipate just a bit (in her and others like her). This is why for me, notwithstanding the fact that Obama has made some racially insensitive statements (such as "typical white"), I think it is important for me to continue to support him in hopes of building a better tomorrow. How bigoted of me, right? Man I am confused.

MR. WRIGHT IS A BIGGOT

noreply@blogger.com (Shawn Bjorklund) — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 22:36:23 PDT

Oh well. In my life time there will always be black Americans that dislike white Americans. And, as long as the poverty rates are so high among black Americans, it is hard to imagine it otherwise.

I guess the real question is how do you convince the average white American that if they step forward to help reduce the poverty rate of the average black American that such black Americans will no longer hold their currently held resentment; whatever that means?

[It is hard to write about this as I will never know what if feels like to be a black American; I can only attempt to put out my thoughts in hopes of creating a better dialogue. I do know what it feels like to grow up alone, without loving parents, and never feeling like I quite fit in or had a home. I do know what it feels like to grow up feeling incomplete and struggling to make my way; struggling to make a home. Of course my resulting insecurities were not tied to the color of my skin so they were easy (at times) for me to hide.]

Unfortunately, I don't think color had that much to do with the original acts of slavery in the Americas, or other places for that matter. It seems to have been more about money; and the "haves" taking advantage of the "have nots."

But through these hateful acts grew hateful stereotypes that began to control our thoughts to some extent or another. And in the end, what started as pure greed somehow became an issue of race; an issue of black and white that we have used to label good and bad (and vise versa).

Then again, throughout history, cultures have spent a good amount of time "looking down" on other cultures; and even within cultures there seems to have always been class systems. This has been true in Europe, Africa, Asia, and the Americas.

I believe that people are people and our character is unrelated to the color of our skin. The color is just a convenient scape goat. If Europeans had dark skin (and Africans had light skin) I think history would still have been the same; you know, with the aristocratic few taking advantage of the many.

It has been Africa's climate that has led to its peoples' skin tone. Unfortunately, over the last 1000 years it is probably also this climate that has made living in Africa more challenging than some other countries. Thus, our situation is probably more a reflection of human nature than skin color. More a reflection of the fact that humans have spent most of our history conquering new lands than making good neighbors.

After all, we all originally came from Africa; we are all genetically African. Therefore, we are really all the same under it all. And our differences are really not differences at all; they are really similarities resulting from our primitive human nature to be the king of the mountain.

But somewhere along the line we started to allow our physical differences to define us; to be the cause of our actions.

CALIFORNIA'S IMMIGRATION CRISIS

noreply@blogger.com (Shawn Bjorklund) — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 21:47:22 PDT

For political reasons, the press always seems to represent that illegal immigration is an economic positive when it is all said and done. Well if this is the case, then California should be at the forefront of reaping the benefits, as a majority of the illegals currently reside in California.

So how is California doing?

The Governor recently stated that unless California takes action right now, and makes significant budgetary cuts, that California faces a projected $14.5 billion deficit by June 2009.

These cuts include a 10 percent reduction in teachers and educational spending in California. Not good, right?

Currently, there are around 30 states that spend more per student on education than California. So how can this be, given that California has an unrestricted supply of illegal immigrants?

Is it because the millions of illegal immigrants that live in California are primarily comprised on low skilled labor? Could it be that such low skilled labor provide less to the tax base than they require from California in social services such as education?

If the illegal aliens are adding so significantly to the economy of California, then should not there be a surplus of resources to help educate its children?

I guess only time will tell, but if illegal immigration is truly a good thing then why is California asking the government to keep the National Guard on the border?