More on immigration. (Wow, people are stupid and petty.)

So, I'm reading Arizona SB 1070, as amended (which makes me a minority among those discussing the bill). I'm actually kind of impressed at just how straightforward and clear-cut this is. It also makes me despair for the public discourse because of how much misinformation there is about it. Not only is this even more outrageous than normal political pandering, but it's actually far worse. It doesn't involve spin or political underwriting; instead, to argue against the provisions of AZ SB 1070, one has to be both disregard existing federal law (which is, in fact, more likely to result in ethnic profiling than AZ SB 1070), disregard a State's ability to enforce existing federal law AND be unwilling to represent facts. In short, to dismiss SB 1070 as fodder for racism and profiling is, if fact, to dismiss factual discourse.

Not only does the law REQUIRE that a CHARGE be present, but it is a violation of the enforcement clauses of the law for law enforcement officials who disregard that requirement. In other words, not only is it illegal for a cop to approach a group of individuals who are not BEING CHARGED with ANOTHER, PRIMARY OFFENSE for the purpose of verifying citizenship, but they will presumably be subject to fines and/or charges for violating the requirement. Perhaps the AZ legislature ought to enact a companion law that provides for a three-strike style reprimand system for officers who do not adhere to the enforcement clauses. This would surely resolve the national discussion, wouldn't it?

Of course the answer to that question is a resounding "no". It has become abundantly clear that the majority of the media, the political class and special interests whose interest pertains to illegal immigration (which is, even according to existing and active federal law, what it is, regardless of denial of deflection from current government officials) care little for the facts of the debate, and are entirely subdued by the emotional discussion, and the political capital they will gain by turning this discussion into something it has no business being. This is a discussion about the enforcement of existing federal law, expanding the existing federal law to include State-level penalties, and cleaning up an issue which has implications for our country that are entirely negative. How could anyone argue that AZ SB 1070 is anything but a good law?

The answer to that question is quite simple: it is politically expedient to deny the facts of the situation and ride the emotion to the public discourse. As Americans, we unfortunately have little desire to discover reality for ourselves, we get our information from those with an agenda that involves getting us to believe as they do, regardless of the cost. Listening to a politician for news is like listening to Phillip Morris for the health effects of smoking. It simply doesn't make sense, and will invariably leave the listener disillusioned. That is, undoubtedly, what is happening in this debate. President Obama is lying. Most opponents of the Arizona law are lying. They are either ignorant of the facts, or deliberately distorting them. Either way, they're wrong, and they oughtn't have the power they do. But, they do. And, unfortunately, they have a greater influence than their position demands. And, they are willingly misleading the public to disapprove of something that they not only know nothing about, but will actually cause us to both be safer AND enjoy greater freedom.

President Obama, please read the bill. Please instruct those in your Cabinet who desire to speak out regarding the bill to read it. Please cautiously consider the things you say to the public on all subjects, especially those about which you have no clue. Please stop putting our country in danger, and please stop attempting to allow hypocritical foreign leaders to attempt to influence domestic policy when their own countries' enforce their existing laws, which are significantly more strict, and lead explicitly to profiling (!!!).

For anyone else who desires to enter into a meaningful debate about any topic - especially something so emotionally charged as the immigration debate - PLEASE inform yourself before speaking out. You'll do yourself a great deal of good by allowing you to know what you're talking about and, most importantly, you'll avoid getting caught looking like a complete FOOL when you speak (unfortunately for most of our politicians, they've been unsuccessful at following this simple advice).

An interesting take on the immigration debate.

In listening to and reading the debate about the Arizona immigration law, and the immigration debate in general, I've come to a realization. The debate unearths (not that it was very well buried) some of the worst things about our society, but also the best. Despite the definitive downward spiral we've been on economically, politically and otherwise in the past 3+ years, people still view America as the most desirable place to which to escape their current lives. People are willing to give up everything they have where they are in order to start with nothing here.

Don't misunderstand what I'm saying - illegal immigration is illegal for a reason! It's no less wrong because of the nice things it says about us. As narcissistic as our country tends to be (or, at least, tends to be portrayed), we oughtn't allow people to break our laws (which exist for good reason, and the alternative method of entry isn't entirely inaccessible - more on that later), even if the breaking of those laws says something nice about us. And, Arizona is completely within its right to make something that is already illegal, illegal. Their law doesn't supercede or alter federal law - in fact, it is less strict for the aggressor, and more restrictive to the enforcer (but you wouldn't know that if your information comes from the people talking about it... who haven't read it... like most of President Obama's cabinet). We need to enforce our laws. Perhaps (maybe "perhaps" is too weak a term) we need to make it easier to enter legally, but the difficulty of immigrating legally is no reason to break the current laws.

But, that doesn't change the fact that the majority of people looking to escape their current country would choose ours. It's because ours is a land of opportunity. It's because ours is a land of freedom, of wealth, of the ability to make for yourself a life that you wish to have - normally without fear of government reprisal or confiscation (to a certain point). It almost makes you shift your paradigm when it comes to our current status as a country.

Don't get me wrong, we're still struggling - but less so than pretty much everyone else. We aren't all that we can be - but we're still better than everyone else (and have been for quite a while). We have to make progress (in a "moving forward" sense, not in a "let's destroy wealth and follow fancy pseudo-scientific ideas about phenomena that aren't actually happening and pay higher taxes if you work harder so you can support all of the lazy asses who are 26, living at home and using their parents insurance - thanks for that, BTW, BHO!).

But, we are still that shining city on a hill. Despite the fact that some of that shining is from the ever dimming torches of the liberals showing up on the doorsteps of Wall Street execs, or the ever brightening torches of the Tea Party activists who are outraged at the radical expansion of government and villification of wealth, we are still the "gold standard" in terms of countries. We are still what everyone wants to be, we are still the society of which everyone wants to be a part.

No other experiment in history has so fully succeeded in balancing personal freedom with civility - so much so that the individual citizens can be so outraged that they take to the streets and, generally with amazing civility, protest their government. And, in no other country can we, the people, assuage our fears and criticisms in knowing that the chance to change the course is but a few months away before the next election. Others around the world can only DREAM of a country where their voices matter in any capacity.

Despite our disgusting, vile and seemingly inhuman politicians who largely represent the worst of us, our people are enviable. Our standards are enviable. Our freedoms are enviable. Our lifestyles are enviable. Our prosperity (even now) is enviable. Despite all of the problems, the ugliness, the disagreements, the scandals, the nepotism and all of the other vices in our government and our society, we are still the envy of the world.

If nothing else, we ought to celebrate this. God truly has blessed America.

Rand Paul is right. (And Rachel Maddow is still Keith Olbermann with male genitalia)

Before I begin writing this, let me say that my position is rooted in the inability of government to effectively regulate anything, and in the ability of person-composed companies to do what is right for their business. I believe, in fact, that government's inactivity in something is the road to the best-case scenario. I am, in no way, encouraging racism or any other type of prejudice.

Rand Paul was asked by Rachel Maddow if he would have voted for or against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Paul attempted to explain his position. Dr. Paul explained that he in no way supports racism, institutional or otherwise. He admitted that many of the provisions of the act were necessary. He also asserted - and was cut off - that there were things that government ought not be able to restrict, regardless of the moral implications.

Allow me to explain my interpretation of what I would hope he would have said.

People are generally followers. People also tend to be altruistic when their actions are broadly judged by society. Unlike at the beginnings of this country's history (or the current statuses of other countries), the larger majority of people recognize the general equality of all people - regardless of [insert the government required fine print non-discrimination verbiage... blah blah blah]. Paul's arguments are rooted in the elimination of institutional racism, and allowing the people to do with their businesses what they will.

If a business owner chooses to allow whites-only to patronize their establishment, they are necessarily limiting their customer base. This is not only because of the non-whites who will not patronize the establishment, but also because of the whites who value diversity and/or detest discrimination. Likewise, if a bar owner limits their customers to straight males, they will not only exclude females and gay males, but they will also lose the business of men who enjoy the company of women at such an establishment.

The market does work, despite the constant drumbeat of regulators blaming the market for their failed regulations. People will only purchase products or employ services in which they see value: that is, it is something they agree with, need or want and would not be embarrassed to employ (with some exceptions, but I'm talking about physical businesses here). If a business owner, regardless of their personal feelings about diversity, desires to maximize profits, they need to maximize their customer base. In fact, in most communities, an establishment of any kind wouldn't survive if they discriminated in their customer practices (or hiring practices, for the most part) even without government regulation.

As I write this, I'm watching the Flyers vs. Canadiens in the Stanley Cup Playoffs. It brings to mind a time when non-whites were completely disinterested in the sport. In the past decade, the NHL has seen more "minority" players on the ice, which has broadened the interest-base of the sport. What does that mean? Inclusiveness has actually increased profitability. Government didn't have to step in and institute a racial quota. The league and its teams see the benefit of racial diversity (taking talent into consideration, obviously) and now go out of their way to employ non-white players where talent allows.

Contrarily, professional basketball has been consistently thought of as a "black" sport in recent decades. Most of the superstars are black - and most non-black players do not make waves - so most of the fans of the league are black. Viewership of NBA games has decreased in the past several decades because of the perceived lack of diversity (and its decline). When it comes to basketball, most non-black "customers" prefer college ball, likely caused at least in part by the diversity of college basketball teams, as opposed to NBA teams. Don't even get me started on the WNBA.

If something is not profitable, a business will likely not do it. For instance, a company that employs only one classification of people (based on gender, ethnicity, etc.), is significantly less likely to garner the business of the community at large. Forced diversity solves nothing - it's faux altruism that instills racial quotas, costs beyond what are reasonable and penalties for not complying with some bureaucrat's idea of diversity. It fosters negativity in the marketplace, the workplace and the community. Supporters of quotas are angry with the perceived lack of concern for diversity in those who disagree, and those who seek talent regardless of classification are derided for their insensitivity, and punished for their disdain for diversity.

In reality, people are most satisfied when they accomplish something on their own. When they are compelled to do something, they do it solely for the reason of compulsion. Think about when you were a child. If your parents let you pick your friends, you were satisfied with your choice and enjoyed yourself - and tended to have a modicum of diversity in your social circle. Contrarily, if your parents told you with whom to be friendly, you likely held an amount of disdain for the friends, for your parents and for the ends that your parents attempted to accomplish (that is, no matter what reason, the compulsion caused disdain that may not have been there prior).

The argument isn't about race, gender, sexual orientation, religion or any other meaningless classification. The argument is rooted in the difference between government compulsion and personal freedom. If we look through history, the most successful societies are the ones with highest degree of person freedoms. Governments only work when they have an enemy. Who is the enemy in the argument about compulsory inclusion of minorities? It ends up being the majority - regardless of culpability - especially those who are perceived as having been favored. For example, let's imagine that I am a candidate for a job, and the only other applicant is a similarly qualified minority applicant. I have a little more experience than the other applicant, and minimally higher results in my pre-employment testing. In some cases, an employer will - usually for fear of reprisal by the government, the other applicant, or both - choose the less qualified applicant to avoid potential consequences.

This doesn't happen as often as it's purported. However, it does happen, and it's detrimental to everyone involved. There is also a double standard. If a company employs mostly "minorities", there is no obligation (theoretical or actual) that they hire a white person, or a male. For government to impose penalties for ideas that do not cause physical harm is government overreaching.

People are more content when they are empowered to make their own decisions. When a person is compelled to do something, they gain little satisfaction from their actions and, as I stated, often disdain both the authority compelling them and the action they're forced to perform. It is not beneficial in a society such as ours (where people are free) to exclude people from employment or being able to patronize a business; in fact, to do so is most often detrimental. Wouldn't it make for a better society to allow qualifications - not genetics, physiology or personal choices - to determine someone's eligibility to participate in something? Wouldn't it lead to a better workplace environment if everyone there knew that they were there because of their fitness for the job and not because of some government regulated quota? Would it reduce - or even possibly eliminate - certain tensions in society if things were based on the wants, needs or practicalities of that society, and not based on government compulsion?

I would posit that our society would actually be more vibrant, that racial tensions would decrease dramatically, that businesses would be more successful and individuals would experience a greater amount of satisfaction with themselves and others around them if we allowed society (and the market) to regulate itself. Government intervention is like overuse of antibiotics - it decreases the ability of the body's natural immunity to fight off infection, and creates dependence on an external force to do a job that the body ought to be able to do on its own, as well as disables the body from adapting to future infections. In the end, the perceived altruism of government intervention is actually one of the most dangerous things for society.

Again, racism is a disease. Sexism is as well. There is no place for them in society. The point of my writing this is exactly that - society will dispel of them on its own, as long as it isn't dependent on government to do it for them. Rand Paul is right - the concept of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a great one, and the goal the same. But, in practice, it does more harm than good, fosters continued hatred and disables society from acting on its own.

Richard Dawkins is a mean mean man...

I read Richard Dawkin's "The God Delusion". And to clairify, by read, I mean listened to as read by the author. This is an extremely important fact which I'll comment on later.

Admittedly, I am terrible when it comes to reading a book. I read slow, I stop reading and have a hard time picking the book back up. This is why I love audio. It gives me the opportunity to listen while I'm driving, while I'm shopping, while I'm doing the dishes... I love my Blackberry.

As a brief background, Mr. Dawkins is the modern day champion of Darwinian natural selection. He also holds atheism as a virtue of the highest regard. That is all I will comment on his background, because his background has very little to do with the content of my rant.

Mr. Dawkins has made several fatal mistakes to his case which are so numerous I cannot faithfully go into them here without missing key points. If you would like to discuss/debate me on this topic, please mail mrprmiller@gmail.com or post your comments. This, also, is not the reason for my rant.

I will also say that something he does in most of his philosophical arguements and many of his ontological arguements is to use weak and mediocre examples that have very little to do with the topic he is discussing. I believe this is intentional. While this is not the topic of my rant either, it does have a least something to do with it. He's dumbing down his talk for his percieved audience.

Mr. Dawkins believes that all believers are stupid for their belief, not delusional. This is the reason for my rant. Roughy a third of the content of his book consists of quotations of many immediately unrecognizable people except to those who have knowledge and background in scientific fields. This is not the majority of readers. My question then is this: who was he writing this book for?

The next third or so of content is an onslaught of attacks aimed directly at the intellect of believers in God. (I can't specifically say Christianity as I would like, because he does attack all religions.) This seems to be in direct contrast to the title of his book.

Now, if I had read the book, I may be able to shrug it off as bad context. If another person read the book for the audio edition, I could say that he took it out of context. But it was read by Mr. Dawkins himself, and it is his ability to put the right emphasis in his sentences.

His audience then, by default, is atheists and "the scientific elite". Only a truly stupid man would write a book for agnostics and believers and proceed to insult over and over again one of the chief targets. People are, by nature, sympathetic to the plight of another, especially in America. We take a particular joy in championing the cause of the oppressed. And there is no mistaking the tone of Mr. Dawkins' book. Agnostics, I hope, see the mean-spirited writings for what they are: malicious and insulting in the best light.

With that said, I can draw a conclusion: this book is useless for the purposes of science or debate, but only good for the insulting of those Mr. Dawkins believes are unintelligent. But this also flies in the face of his title...

Which is it, Mr. Dawkins? Are we all delusional, or are we all stupid?

---

Simply using quips and mean-spirited attacks does not prove your case. I intend to do it the right way, in regards to morality.

I will agree with Mr. Dawkins that atheists are much more effective that theists when it comes to a few matters.

When I combine the highest expected death tolls in the Spanish inquisition (110,000 from torture, but prision and malnutrition mainly), the European witch trials (110,000, which were much worse than the Salem witch trials double-digit worst case value) and the Crusades (5,000,000, which ALSO includes Christians), I come up with a number of 5,220,000. I'm sure there were more. I'm not naive to think there weren't more. So for arguments sake, let's double the value to 10,440,000. All these happened over the course of about 1,000 years. We will NOT double the time period, because that would skew the average per year in favor of Christianity.

I will not reinvent the wheel, nor will I push it aside as Mr. Dawkins did. Atheism and communism go hand-in-hand with the two biggest offenders (and I challenge anyone to say differently). Since the early 20th century, communist Russia and China have a body count of 131,000,000 in the low estimates.

The difference is it took Christianity 1,000 years of sin against it's fellow man. It only took atheism 100 years, and I've only included the most extreme examples. The Holocaust and totals from World War II bolster this number quite a bit.

To also clarify, to paraphrase Lewis, witch trials are not an issue of morality. We do not kill witches now because we do not believe they exist. If we did find out that there were people that had sold their souls to the devil for the power to kill their neighbors and countrymen, then surely those people would deserve death. It is a leap of logic and understanding. You wouldn't call a sheriff humane for not shooting criminals if there were no criminals to shoot.

Christianity does agree with atheism in this sense: the better the materials the man is made of, the worse he can become. If intellect can lead to genocide of this magnitude, I would prefer to remain blissfully ignorant than to become affiliated with murderers.

Christianity allows people to "raise their conciousness" to the idea that murder because of belief is a terrible thing on moral grounds. We not only believe that our murders were terrible, sinful catastrophes but can also believe that we should have never commited them because we believe God throughly disapproves of murder. Christians also believe that an atheist who wants nothing to do with God will not be let down. He will have nothing to do with them. He will respect their wishes, because Christianity at it's core is a fighting religion, but a respectful one. (I expect this will raise an objection or two.)

Despite an atheists' objections, they have no refuge from morality. Morality in the "refined and enlightened" sense is simply a matter of opinion or preference. If this is true, you can't blame the communists for murder anymore than for the color of their skin. And if you do object to murder as an atheist based on morality, you must take a strong look at who's morality you're judging them against. If it is against your own sense of morality, it is against your own preference. If not, then who's morality? I believe I know the end answer, but I will respect your wishes in this sense and not mention His name.

---

My personal opinion of Mr. Dawkins cannot be much lower at this moment. With this in mind, had I not been a believer, I might feel slighted because of the vicious attacks on my intellect and feel I had the right to retribution. To insult a group on such an important topic as intelligence would be a dangerous thing to do to any other vast and numerous group of people. But I am a believer, and because of my belief, not only can I do him no harm but am under orders to pray for him and forgive him, should he ask for it some day in the distant future). All Christians are under common orders.

I believe he takes this fact for granted. If he does understand it and chooses to do it anyway, he is at the least prideful, but definitely a malicious and shameless man when it comes to the feelings of others.

But I am human and do take a hint of delight. I hope Mr. Dawkins goes batty knowing that the whole of Christianity is required to pray for him and does so daily. Nothing, I believe, should upset him more.