...sounds remarkably similar to what I'm hearing here in the letters, which is the deafening sound of one point missing.

Because unless you're a Native American, you're an illegal immigrant. Not just that, a genocidal illegal immigrant. And so what's good for those at the "front" of the queue, should be fine and dandy for those at the back, as well, right? No?

Especially when you consider that the economics which support your ability to make your borders somewhat difficult to cross at the present time are supported by a set of rigged rules that make other places on earth less desirable than the bit of land you had a Manifest Destiny to migrate onto.

Pointing out that the US is "less crowded" than elsewhere (to use Andrew's summary) is just one single "point" in a much larger debate, about resources, about the forces of history, and about the bankrupt morality of "I was here first" when a) you weren't, and b) your co-dependent relationship to those who weren't "here first" is much, much more complex than you'd like to admit.

It's ok to argue from "realpolitik" and suggest that there might be other priorities, or more effective ways of addressing the problem than to revisit some of these arguments --- but it's absolutely not ok to pour forth thinly veiled xenophobic bile and call it intelligent commentary, unless you want to be called on it.

[I make] $66,000 a year. Yes, I'm a scientist and a college professor. I have years more training than you have, the same amount of experience, a PhD for God's sake, and I make probably 2/3 of what you make.

And how many years of the last 20 have you spent unemployed?

And if you have a bad day at work, Mr. "College Professor" how many people die? Come to that, how many lives are in your hands -- directly -- on a daily basis?

How many nights did you spend away from your family in the last year/month/week?

What's the risk of your college (or any college!) suddenly going bankrupt and you having to start at your next college as a student tutor rather than a role similar to the one you have now?

You might have a PhD, professor, but you have serious reading comprehension issues.

I'd love the Democrats to move to the center of the political spectrum -- the global center, that is. That would of course mean that they were moving left.

It's only poor definitions that leads people to call the mid-position-so-far-right-you-can't-see-it-from-the-actual-center the "center" of US politics.

The US has two right of center parties: one slightly further right than almost every single right-most major political party on the spectrum of every single 1st world democracy (that party is called the Democrats); and one that needs a two-page fold out to depict it on the traditional left-right axis, and only then when you jig the scale.

But now I'm well off track... apologies for venting on a pet peeve.

Thanks again Glenn for your spot-on analysis.

Arwright wrote:

Christianity turns out be a religion of human sacrifice, and the notion that sacrifice of any kind, goats or people or just the one man, can have any influence on the workings of the real world

Amen.

How one "innocent", "perfect" person dying a pretty tame death (compared to some one can easily think of if one tries) somehow "cancels out" all your "sins" is baffling.

What is the mechanism at work there? Let's try to work it through:

The devil says "Sinners are mine!" God responds "I'm substituting Jesus at the last minute!" Then the devil is supposed to say "Fair enough I'll accept that". Then God says "Fooled ya! Jesus is innocent!" The devil connects four and whines "Pretty tricky God!"

It's too farcical to even put in the same room as the system of thought by which we've developed the means to see that our children don't routinely die, the "free time" from working to feed ourselves to have conversations like these; and an understanding of the workings of our universe that is so routine we've taken things out of the hands of God himself (like the weather).

And furthermore it's precisely that idea of blood sacrifice "making things all ok" that makes Christianity not even remotely interesting as a "rules system for life" or even "an internally consistent myth".

Boys and girls are invited to chew cheese-flavored snacks and then sip some water, after which they are to spit the resulting 'bodily fluids' into a cup...

Hey! That reminds me of this website I was browsing the other day...

...oops, did I say that out loud?!

Seriously though, if presented in yet another context -- the courtroom -- pushing minors through such an exercise could very easily qualify as serious psychological abuse.

Being disgusted with the functioning of your own body is, after all, a fundamental part of several psychoses.