Saturday, September 16, 2017

Revisiting Amerika. 2017.

Revisiting Amerika.


One of the most depressing films from the late 1980s was a TV miniseries called (1.1)>>AmerikaI had to FORCE myself to watch it all the way through the last time I saw it because I was so confused by my random memories of the short parts I'd seen before. Let me just say, SO not worth it to sit through the whole thing. If the election of an American president abetted by Russian interference seems stranger than fiction, you're almost right. Right now the fiction of Russian meddling is sort of the same propaganda in line with Amerika . Back in the 1980s   , it was the hard-line Reagan era of the "evil empire" . So fittingly our media machine created unique anti- Soviet propaganda that in a certain way equaled anti - American Soviet propaganda . When I watched the series on Youtube , just watching it . I found amazing psychological parallels in our current American anti Russian hysteria generated by the election of Donald Trump .  Exactly 30 years ago, in the midst of the Cold War, (1)>>ABC aired a seven-night, 14-and-a-half-
hour miniseries depicting life 10 years after the Soviet Union manipulates the presidential election as meek and deflated Americans shrug. “Amerika,” was heavily criticized at the time for peddling the histrionic premise of a bloodless coup. And while much of the production remains implausible, its core message is more relevant today than ever. Well ahead of it's time but well worth watching today for it's topical relevance. Russia takes control of the United States and the Americans find their way of life altered and thereafter, all but destroyed. The TV series was a  gut wrenching . And therein lies the fatal flaw of ''Amerika.'' The root idea - that the United States would simply crumble from within because of a national moral flabbiness - is monumentally implausible. (2)>>''The Day After,'' whatever its artistic quality, at least dealt with tangible realities. There are indeed nuclear stockpiles hovering over our lives. There have been colossal nuclear accidents. And the possibility of a nuclear holocaust must be confronted. 
Some interesting notes on the Actors and Actresses .
But ''Amerika'' asks us to believe that our country was taken over by the Soviets in 1986 in a bloodless coup - the few revealed details are bewildering - primarily because the bulk of the American population had lost its moral fiber, its will to fight for freedom. Rubbish. This is the kind of Armageddon vision nurtured by those who find men in long hair or women in short skirts threatening. Also living in Milford is (2.1)>>Peter Bradford (Robert Urich), Devin's boyhood friend from more humble social circumstances. Practical Peter collaborates with the new authorities in an effort to make the best of things. Meanwhile, his wife Amanda (Cindy Pickett) becomes increasingly more dubious about her husband's strategy and begins to think fondly once again about her first love, (2.2)>>Devin Milford. Weaving in and out of these lives periodically is the elegant, sophisticated (3)>>Russian Col. Andrei Denisov (Sam Neill), who, when not ruminating endlessly on the admirable ramifications of the American dream, is engaging in a torrid love affair with the young actress Kimberly (Mariel Hemingway), who is committed to what has become underground theater. Eugene O'Neill? Tennessee
(Sam Neill)
 
Damian Omen III portrait as the Anti- Christ
influenced his Russian Col. Denisov
vary well in Amerika .
Williams? No, we first see Kimberly in ''The Fantasticks,'' which presumably will keep on running no matter what the world comes to. Needless to say, given the time, money and intense effort that has gone into ''Amerika,'' the production does contain a few considerable assets. While several members of the cast - especially Mr. Kristofferson, long a vocal protestor against nuclear arms - have publicly expressed reservations about appearing in the film, the nervous concern seems to have given some of the performances an extra edge. Mr. Kristofferson gives a fine, strong performance that takes on Lincolnesque dimensions. And Mr. Neill as the suave Russian Colonel Denisov just about walks off with the mini-series, bringing authority and charm to every scene he steals. Ms. Hemingway's actress is a bit of inconsequential fluff, but Ms. Lahti and Ms. Pickett are splendidly solid, making two rather odd women genuinely sympathetic. Add this to the effectiveness of some of the more emotionally choreographed scenes - the parade that ends Episode Two is a heart-tugging display of flag-waving patriotism - and ''Amerika'' clearly can claim a decent share of dramatic assets. But getting through the enormous glut of stereotypes and preachifying dialogue that surround them will tax even the most willing suspenders of disbelief. (The only real villain, incidentally, is the East German named Helmut; the Russians on display are positively enlightened sorts, ashamed of the ''hotheads'' back in the Kremlin.) While the viewer gets occasional, mystifying reports of the Soviets dealing with problems in other parts of the globe, from Afghanistan to Alaska, the story sticks to locales in Nebraska, Washington and Chicago. Will Devin be able to lead the people against Peter's compromise for a decentralized and thus fatally weakened America?


Trump and  Russia .
Crossing from Fiction to reality .
 After the collapse of the Soviet Union a quarter-century ago, the jokes petered out for a while after authorities lost their grip on power.  Honestly I don't think many Americans believe as they do about  a Russian take over of our political system . Meanwhile, as "normal”  Americans, they manage to cast a rather bright spotlight on the rather absurdist new “normal” that is on display for a posse of Trump Administration appointees and insiders, so many of which just coincidentally have some Russian connection or other.  The post offers
a “handy reference chart" of those leaders who seem genuinely disturbed by the now statistically-impossible-to-be-explained-by-mere-coincidence phenomena of so many people in the Trump camp being connected to Russia and those who are trying hard to act like it’s perfectly normal to, say, hang out with Ambassador Kislyak or have a bank account at the Bank of Cyprus.  We know there are now numerous investigations going on, but in this moment before the shit really hits the fan for Trump and his comrades—in the absence of an explanatory story line that explains what most everyone instinctively already knows may well be the most bizarre and brazen but ultimately fumbling episode of treason in the history of of the United States—it is helpful to have this reference chart to see the amazing scope of the scandal. Meanwhile , the United States government and its partners in corporate media are engaged in a sustained propaganda attack against the government and people of Russia. The tactic is an old one and is used precisely because it is so effective. If a nation and its people are disparaged and dehumanized enough its enemies can attack in any number of ways without fear of debate or popular opposition.Zeal to blame Russia for a bad election outcome has spread like contagion among countless self-described progressives, understandably appalled by the imminent Trump presidency. But those who think they’re riding a helpful tiger could find themselves devoured later on.

The "end" of  Amerika  . Fast forward "fiction". 
Rebellious Devin Milford (Kristofferson) is the ex-presidential candidate who doesn't want 1990s America to be Balkanized; Peter Bradford (Robert Urich) is a regional puppet-governor who wants everybody to remain orderly and cooperate with the Soviets. Devin decides to tap into the Natnet TV communications satellite and deliver a rousing keep-America-united message to the whole nation.To get to the communications center, Devin's troops take on the hated occupation forces at the barracks outside their Nebraska town. Devin fights his way to the communications center. The madman barracks commander gets drilled just in the nick of time by his former lover, Althea (Christine Lahti). But, just as Devin is ready to deliver his speech, Peter shows up with his troops. When Devin won't be put off, Peter's right-hand general shoots him dead. Cut to Devin's well-attended funeral. Cut to the conveniently unguarded barracks, where Devin's son Billy is talking to America via Natnet: "My father died because he believed that what he stood for was more important than life. . . . He lived for himself. He lived for his ideals, for the America he loved. He lived for me--and for you."
Ends the book: "Devin Milford . . . left a legacy that his son and his son's children would inherit. A legacy of American spirit that was priceless."



NOTES AND COMMENTS:
(1.1)>>Amerika. suggesting a Russified name for the United States –Described in promotional materials as "the most ambitious American miniseries ever created," Amerika aired for 14½ hours (including commercials) over seven nights (beginning February 8, 1987), and reportedly cost US$40 million to produce. The program was filmed in Toronto, London, and Hamilton, Ontario,[1] as well as various locations in Nebraska – most notably the small town of Tecumseh and Milford, the setting for most of the action of the series. Donald Wrye was the executive producer, director, and sole writer of Amerika, while composer Basil Poledouris was hired to score the miniseries, ultimately recording (with the Hollywood Symphony Orchestra) eight hours of music – the equivalent of four feature films.(1)>>ABC aired a seven-night. As the brainchild of writer-director-producer Donald Wrye, the 14 1/2 hour ABC movie event Amerika marked one of the most expensive and controversial miniseries in the history of prime time television when it bowed over the course of seven nights in February of 1987. Regarded as something of a conservative counterpoint to Nicholas Meyer's The Day After (which screened on ABC, four years prior and allegedly demonstrated leftwing bias - prompting very outspoken criticisms from Republican pundit Ben Stein), this $40 million production imagines a dystopian future set in the late 1990s. When the drama opens in May of 1997, the Russians have effectively won the Cold War by wresting control over the United States, with the backing of a U.N. Peacekeeping Force. Although the initial takeover was not annihilative or even apparently violent, the consequences are overwhelming; a puppet leader holds court in the Oval Office, the American economy has fallen to pieces with Midwesterners lining up for vegetables, and gulag prisons are scattered across the land; meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of refugees have hit the countryside and wander aimlessly. The majority of the action unfurls in a rural Nebraska community, where onetime antiwar protester and presidential candidate Devin Milford (Kris Kristofferson) has just been released from a gulag, and now discovers his family farm being whittled away by the Russians. Meanwhile, his childhood friend Peter Bradford has somehow landed a position in the government hierarchy and finds himself being drawn in more deeply. Across the land, Russian stormtroopers engage in acts of violent intimidation, such as burning farmhouses and brainwashing abductees, while the Russian occupiers systematically maneuver on the political front to bring the once-powerful republic tumbling down. The supporting cast includes Christine Lahti, Wendy Hughes, Sam Neill, Armin Mueller-Stahl and many others; the title, of course, was intended to reflect "America" as modified to a slightly more Russian spelling. (2)>>''The Day After,''.  Another "crazy" film of the cold war times . ABC’s TV movie The Day After runs a mere two hours—edited, clumsily at times, down from a sprawling four. But as a cultural touchstone, whose reputation for leaving an entire generation traumatized and jaded, it’s endured far longer. President Ronald Reagan watched the film several days before its screening, on November 5, 1983. He wrote in his diary that the film was "very effective and left me greatly depressed," and that it changed his mind on the prevailing policy on a "nuclear war". The film was also screened for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. A government advisor who attended the screening, a friend of Meyer's, told him "If you wanted to draw blood, you did it. Those guys sat there like they were turned to stone." Four years later, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty was signed and in Reagan's memoirs he drew a direct line from the film to the signing. Reagan supposedly later sent Meyer a telegram after the summit, saying, "Don't think your movie didn't have any part of this, because it did." However, in a 2010 interview, Meyer said that this telegram was a myth, and that the sentiment stemmed from a friend's letter to Meyer; he suggested the story had origins in editing notes received from the White House during the production, which "...may have been a joke, but it wouldn't surprise me, him being an old Hollywood guy."The film also had impact outside the U.S. In 1987, during the era of Mikhail Gorbachev's glasnost and perestroika reforms, the film was shown on Soviet television. Four years earlier, Georgia Rep. Elliott Levitas and 91 co-sponsors introduced a resolution in the U.S. House of Representatives "[expressing] the sense of the Congress that the American Broadcasting Company, the Department of State, and the U.S. Information Agency should work to have the television movie The Day After aired to the Soviet public. (2.1)>>Peter Bradford (Robert Urich). Peter Bradford (Robert Urich) is Milford`s former roommate, a politician caught up in the occupation, a pragmatist or a collaborator, depending on your perspective. His wife, Amanda (Cindy Pickett), is Devin Milford`s former lover, a woman who grows to hate the occupation and her husband`s role in it. Set down in this community is Col. Andrei Denisov (Sam Neill), a soldier destined to take control of the five-state ``Heartland`` region but a man torn by his own fascination with and love for the America he knew before the occupation.  (2.2)>>Devin Milford  Devin Milford, meanwhile, has had enough of the communists and escapes his exile, traveling the revived underground railroad to Chicago, where he attempts to kidnap his two children, Billy and Caleb. Billy knows how his mother got where she is and wants to know more about his father, whom he hasn`t seen in six years. Caleb, meanwhile, turns Devin into the police. When Devin is arrested, Billy returns to his grandfather and uncle in Milford County.Peter Bradford accepts Denisov`s invitation to share a national political office with Devin`s ex-wife. As a result, Amanda Bradford leaves him. (``You just neglected to tell me that you and the Russians were starting another country?`` she asks.) Devin escapes his captors and disappears into the underground and the stage is set for the final confrontation, a full-scale national revolution to regain control of the country.Will Devin Milford succeed in leading the revolution, or will he be stopped by the communists and his old pal Peter Bradford? Is there a happy ending? Or will ``Amerika`` become a weekly series, much like NBC`s space alien/Nazi allegory, ``V`` was? (Two characters, Devin Milford`s sons, could carry on the fight each week, if it does become a series.) Do the Russians win? Or is the audience, after more than 14 hours, left holding the bag? ABC`s 82-minute condensation doesn`t say. (3)>>Russian Col. Andrei Denisov (Sam Neill). Seeing Sam Neill in this film as Andrei Denisov was the complex one, the enemy and not the enemy, the KGB colonel who harbored a love for America that the Americans themselves had lost. Neill is known for his Damian Omen III portrait as the Anti- Christ . I can see that he never quit the same smirk on his face as in the Omen . Neill's cultural infamy as a character is better played by his Col . Denisov . Who is struggling a thin line with his Soviet bosses , though he tells Peter Bradford -Urich that he can best "preserve" what was left of America since the Soviet occupiers desire to leave , make a America into separate nations  . Neill's character is the only redeeming part of the Soviet occupiers .

Saturday, September 9, 2017

Whose DREAM is it now ? On DACA , other misconceptions .

President Donald J Trump this week . Gutting the DACA Act, putting  an expiration date on the legal protections granted to roughly 800,000 people known as (1)>>"DREAMers," who entered the country illegally as children.  Could become just as difficult .  It's interesting that President Trump tweeted that the Dreamers don't have to worry about being deported , thanks to Nancy Pelosi putting pressure on him while cutting a deal over the Debt Ceiling .  We should also note that DACA did not grant any citizenship, or path to citizenship, or even legal status to Dreamers. It simply protected them from deportation, and allowed them to get work permits and drivers licenses.  For 16 years, advocates for legalizing young immigrants brought here illegally by their parents have tried to pass legislation to shield them from deportation. First of all , people are going crazy over it. Not many know its' background .  Second of all former President Obama never wrote the bill which he is given credit to have enacted .  The Dream Act first of all is not exactly what DACA was originally meant to be . . Here is what one source tells me :
On June 15, 2012, President Barack Obama announced that his administration would stop deporting illegal immigrants who match certain criteria included in the proposed DREAM Act. On August 15, 2012, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services(USCIS) began accepting applications under the Obama administration's new Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. Thousands applied for the new program. Because DACA was designed in large measure to address the immigration status of the same people as the DREAM Act, the two programs are often debated together, with some making little distinction between them and others focusing on the difference between the DREAM Act's legislative approach in contrast to the implementation of DACA through executive action. As of January 2017, 740,000 people have registered through DACA..
I don't want to take the side of Trump on this one  . As MUCH as WE LOVE TO HATE 'EM , Donald Trump threw a foul ball to the much nothing a do Congress . For decades , Congress failed to enact immigration reform. They have kicked the can . Trump's actions though seem worthy of criticism  has to , some how  stir s the issue of immigration policy that is fair for all who want to be American . DACA was not for legal immigration. DACA is for kids whose parents brought them here either legally or illegally and they have lived here ever since, as Americans, speaking English, sharing in our culture.  It’s not clear whether Republican - Democratic lawmakers, who have struggled for years to agree on an immigration reform package and who face a series of other high-stakes deadlines this fall, will be able to score a legislative solution by March. (2)>>And Trump appears to have dramatically upped the stakes, with the White House saying Congress needs to pass “responsible immigration reform" that not only addresses former President Barack Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, but also improves the green card system and establishes a merit-based immigration framework.


Wake up People . DACA was "temporary"  !
So DACA is a "program" , its not exactly any kind of legislation  . The original Dream Act never became a law that passed Congress . The first version of the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act was introduced in 2001. As a result, young undocumented immigrants have since been called Dreamers. Over the last 16 years, numerous versions of the Dream Act have been introduced, all of which would have provided a pathway to legal status for undocumented youth who came to this country as children. Some versions have garnered as many as 48 co-sponsors in the Senate and 152 in the House.Despite bipartisan support for each bill, none have become law. The bill came closest to passage in 2010 when the House of Representatives passed the bill and the Senate came five votes short of the 60 Senators needed to proceed to vote on the bill. Before there was Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, there was Mr. Durbin’s Dream. In 2007, a version of the measure won the support of a majority of senators but fell victim to a bipartisan filibuster that included eight Democrats. Three years later, the bill passed the House but again did not get through the Senate. And in 2013, language allowing dreamers to stay in this country and work or attend school was included in a broader immigration package that passed the Senate with 68 votes — then failed in the House.Frustrated after years of failings,  (3)>>President Barack Obama signed DACA as a temporary order in the hope that Congress would eventually pass the Dream Act and broader immigration changes. But with Republicans in control of both chambers of Congress, the Dream Act stalled once again.

The DACA & DREAM ACT a real path to immigration "reform".
Hundreds of thousands of law-abiding people from around the world are waiting patiently for their backlogged visa and green-card applications to be reviewed. Imagine their frustration. Why don’t their dreams come first? The American system of immigration is needed to be reformed , it like the Department of Veterans Affairs need a overhaul . Getting into this country is a slow process , its vary expensive , less inviting . Nancy Pelosi called on House Republicans to help her “safeguard our young DREAMers from the senseless cruelty of deportation and shield families from separation and heartbreak.” Never has this Bay Area elitist called on House Republicans to join her in shielding native-born and law-abiding immigrant families from the senseless and preventable violence committed by criminals in this country illegally who’ve caused immeasurable heartbreak for decades in her overrun California sanctuary. In 2014 , The Washington Post put some conclusions forth on our immigration policy  the dark side of the Dreamers act { see full article here -http://wapo.st/2xWf08p ) DACA  has improved the lives of undocumented young people and their families and has also had a positive impact on the economy generally. (4)>>Multiple studies from across the political spectrum have demonstrated that ending DACA would the cost the U.S. economy hundreds of billions of dollars.  Still, it’s primarily a matter of fairness and humanity. That the benefits of DACA be utilized to help those who want to enter the nation LEGALLY .  These young people have been here all their lives. They are, in every way, American kids. The BIG question is why for so long the parents of the Dreamers did not become / try to become US citizens through a amnesty program ?.  Our outdated immigration policies create enormous legal barriers and make becoming legal impossible for many undocumented immigrants.  This goes to the grain of immigration reform .  Now it falls to Congress to keep DACA in place until legislators can pass a DREAM Act or immigration reform bill that ensures that these hardworking young people { anyone who wishes to immigrate legally }  can continue to pursue their aspirations and contribute to America’s future.


DACA considerations to note :
There are many, interlocking/interleaving reasons. Some are:Rewarding people who committed a crime introduces a moral hazard.For every person who gets citizenship for their children under DREAM act, there are (literally) tens of thousands, if not millions, out there, who - seeing the end result - will want to do the same for THEIR descendants.Yes, in a narrow technical sense, the children didn't commit the crime. But, the child getting a citizenship is a reward to the parents just as much as to the child.Rewarding people who committed a crime destroys the country's fabric in general.People see that some people commit a crime and instead of punishment, get rewarded. And those who are more sociopathic on average will take that as a nudge that crime is not such a bad idea.Rule of law is one of the main things distinguishing civilization from barbarism. Throw that out, and you erode the civilization significantly.Speaking of "fairness" - amnesty is patently unfair to many other people - both the legal immigrants; as well as those who chose not to break the US law and thus didn't illegally immigrate.As with many other marginal measures on polarizing political divide topics, it's seen as problematic by one side to allow another side ANY victory, no matter how small or sensible. This has several reasons:It moves the Overton windowIt up-moralizes the opposition side and demoralizes your sideIt gives the opposite side momentum, in general, in all facets of political life (fundraising, morale, participation, enthusiasm, perception).There is a long and sordid history of breaking promises on compromises, especially on the side that is pro-amnesty/pro-illegals. This is true both in general political life on various topics, and even on the immigration topic (the last large amnesty was done by Reagan, under the promised compromise to fix border security. The latter not just didn't happen, but got worse).Some measures are way too broad as far as how many people are affected.E.g. DACA's Wikipedia page says "At the program's start, the Pew Research Center estimated that up to 1.7 million people might be eligible". That's just at the start.Some measures (DACA extension) raise constitutional/separation of powers concern.Mostly over executive branch's actions that "should" be done by legislative.Tactical political calculations.For a host of reasons, most people who would become citizens under the amnesty are largely likely to vote "Democrat" (I don't have the poll ready to prove it, but it has almost nothing to do with the parties' respective stances on immigration, by the way).As such, it's self-defeating for many Republicans to support any amnesty, since it decreases their political power, even if they aren't opposed to amnesty for reasons listed above.For the sake of completeness, there are accusations that some do it out of racism. Given the weight of accusation, the onus is on the Dream act proponents to prove that - for example by showing that the opposition to the act disappears if it's restricted to non-latino (or also non-asian) illegals.

  1. What the LAW really says :

    how can it be such people are considered "illegal" even though their presence here is no fault of their own? What "crime" did they commit?
    They're "illegal" in the sense that they don't (prior to any amnesty being granted) have any lawful right to reside in the USA, but they are residing in the USA. "Legal" and "not legal" aren't matters of "fault", they're matters of legal definition. To slightly misapply criminal terminology, there is no mens rea for "not having legal status to reside in the US", it's a strict-liability thing.Anyway, it's not the case that everything illegal is "criminal". Especially in US terminology, where "criminal" is often reserved to mean "felonious", therefore excluding "misdemeanour" crimes.I'm not a lawyer, but for example one relevant law might be 8 U.S. Code § 1227 (a) (1) (A) "Any alien who at the time of entry or adjustment of status was within one or more of the classes of aliens inadmissible by the law existing at such time is deportable". This alone doesn't assert that they've committed a crime. That whole section of USC is about people who have no legal grounds to remain in the USA, since they legally can be deported. These people who never had residency or who had a time-limited residency which has expired, are often informally referred to as "illegals" regardless of whether they've committed any criminal offence that can be prosecuted.In addition, they may actively have committed crimes once they reached the age of criminal responsibility, and/or once they reached the age of adulthood, and continued to reside in the USA without having legal status to do so. AFAIK it's not an offence merely to reside in the USA without status, so many or most "illegals" are not criminals in that sense, but a diligent prosecutor might be able to establish in particular cases that someone has "harbored" other illegal aliens or whatever. There could, I suppose, be offences related to employment or tax: it's certainly possible for an undocumented immigrant to pay tax, and many do, but many don't. So it would not be correct to assume than an "illegal" necessarily is a criminal.So far as the law is concerned, deporting a person who has no legal status to reside is not punishment, at least no more than evicting someone from private land where they have no right to live would be "punishment". Deportation is not considered a criminal matter. So, those who oppose DACA do not agree that, when someone does not have right to reside in the USA, "the least that can be done" is to let them stay in the country. They think the least that can be done is to deport them or ignore them, and any more is a kindness that they choose not to extend.Of course you are quite correct that many Dreamers have no practical ability to live productively anywhere else. But those who want them deported, or at least who believe that the state should reserve the right to deport them, do not necessarily feel that compassion towards non-US citizens is their highest moral imperative or political priority. Some proportion of them might feel that a person with no right to reside in the USA, is morally obliged to leave the USA at the first opportunity, regardless of their prospects in their country of nationality. However, that's not the legal situation.


NOTES AND COMMENTS:

(1)>>"DREAMers,"  Right now the Left is having a meltdown over Trump's ridding of DACA , but here is what "we" are not being told . According to Wiki-pedia , The DREAM Act (acronym for Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act) is an American legislative proposal for a multi-phase process for qualifying alien minors in the United States that would first grant conditional residency and, upon meeting further qualifications, permanent residency.The bill was first introduced in the Senate on August 1, 2001, SB-129 by United States Senators Dick Durbin (D- Illinois) and Orrin Hatch (R- Utah), and has since been reintroduced several times  but has failed to pass.  Why is it SO CONTROVERSIAL  , here is a illustration . One key point to remember is that someone is in Daca because their parents did an illegal act in the first place. Their entire status here is based on an an illegal act done by their parent. They jumped the line of immigration, without any consequences. Giving amnesty to them is rewarding a crime Imagine someone robs a house, pushes out its original owner and take over it. His son lives here for his whole life. Is good mannered, faithful, does a decent job and is loved in the society . But that still means that his entire lifestyle and the money that supports it comes from a crime.Meanwhile the original owner and his son have to live in poverty and hardship. His son is not the ideal citizen, he has to fight for living. But this life wouldn't have been theirs if the original crime wouldn't have been committed.The original crime, unfairly swapped the lives of the two families. The original criminal parent lived in poverty and hardship and took over someone else's property and money to prosper his own life.  (2)>>And Trump appears to have dramatically upped the stakes. In announcing the end of President Barack Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, Attorney General Jeff Sessions asserted that the 2012 action “contributed” to the massive influx of unaccompanied minors from Central America that peaked in 2014.The president’s written statement on ending DACA echoed this claim — that it “helped spur a humanitarian crisis” involving the Central American children. The statement then tried to tie that crisis to violence by MS-13, or Mara Salvatrucha, a Central American gang that has been operating in the United States since the 1980s. A White House fact sheet was slightly more nuanced: “Partly because of DACA, the United States saw a surge in illegal immigration by minors in 2013-2014, because they hoped to take advantage of the program.” (3)>>President Barack Obama signed DACA as a temporary order . Essentially, Obama was ordering a program of “prosecutorial discretion” that would not target for deportation undocumented aliens who meet these qualifications. When Obama announced the program, he said it was intended as a temporary action — and not a pathway to citizenship — because Congress had failed to pass legislation accomplishing the same goals.  "The main reason the migrants had crossed into the United States was “to take advantage of the ‘new’ U.S. law that grants a free pass or permit” from the government, referred to in their home countries as “permisos,” the memo stated."  Of Course the Trump administration linked the Dreamers with a surge in crime . The president’s written statement on ending DACA echoed this claim — that it “helped spur a humanitarian crisis” involving the Central American children. The statement then tried to tie that crisis to violence by MS-13, or Mara Salvatrucha, a Central American gang that has been operating in the United States since the 1980s. A White House fact sheet was slightly more nuanced: “Partly because of DACA, the United States saw a surge in illegal immigration by minors in 2013-2014, because they hoped to take advantage of the program.”  (4)>>Multiple studies from across the political spectrum have demonstrated that ending DACA would the cost the U.S. economy hundreds of billions of dollars. The United States could lose up to 700,000 jobs and suffer billions of dollars in lost economic output . The report examines the potential economic consequences of cancelling the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program, or DACA. Under DACA, undocumented immigrants who arrived in the United States as minors are eligible to apply for a renewable work permit protecting them from deportation. Approximately 800,000 people, sometimes called "dreamers," have benefitted from DACA, according to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.An average of 30,000 workers could lose their jobs every month if DACA were repealed or permit renewals were held up, the report found. It also estimated that the loss of those workers could cost the country $460.3 billion in economic output over the next decade, with Medicare and Social Security contributions dropping by $24.6 billion.

Sunday, September 3, 2017

A "Slight" case of Global Warming / Climate Change.

A "Slight" case of Global Warming / Climate Change.

Gore can't be all wrong I admit.
 This week we all saw the ravages of Hurricane Harvey blast its way along the costs of Texas and Louisiana . President Trump took to Twitter with an “oh, gosh” tweet: “Wow - Now experts are calling #Harvey a once in 500 year flood! We have an all out effort going, and going well!”-- as a climate change "denier" he seems to have woken up as a national crisis unfolded . The problem is not that President Trump does not realize that Harvey is huge; a number of his tweets on the storm have contained the word “Wow,” and he called it “epic” and “historic,” adding that “Texas can handle anything!   Another right wing personality also started to "reflect" that something is really off the wall is Glenn Beck who spent an entire last few days lamenting Harvey's outcome in dollars : So you know, this is going to affect the entire country,” Glenn said of the storm on radio Wednesday. Glenn Beck as I
Beck's book was a rebuttal
to Al Gore's book .  It
may need a update now .
remember viscously attacked Al Gore , in 2006 Beck went on (1)>>a rant about
 film An Inconvenient Truth, about former Vice President Al Gore's campaign to raise awareness of global warming, to the Nazis. Beck dismissed many of the conclusions drawn from the documentary, stating, "When you take a little bit of truth and then you mix it with untruth, or your theory, that's where you get people to believe. ... It's like Hitler. Hitler said a little bit of truth, and then he mixed in 'and it's the Jews' fault.' " . Today it's 2017 , Glenn Beck seems to be recanting the decades worth of illogic as he took a air plane fly over  , like President Trump to view the disaster area . Glenn Beck seems to be worried about the price of oil going straight up , he laments  
“The lower the cost of oil, the better our system runs,” Glenn said. The great thing about climate change is that everything proves it: cold weather, lack of hurricanes, too many hurricanes, warm weather, rainy weather. Too much of it could be STRANGE .  Too less of it could be STRANGER ! You'll have people saying  (1.2)>>" ah the strange weather ..." . Yes, the weather has been vary off beat since a long time . I could guess that the build up of Green house gases like Carbon Dioxide and Methane . Of course, we'd then have to acknowledge that there are things about climate change and its causes we really don't know. And assuming there are things we might have done to mitigate climate change. However to note to any meteorologist the force of the hurricanes has been greater according to the The Saffir–Simpson hurricane wind scale (SSHWS),currently runs from Category 1 through Category 5, and Category 5 is classified as 157-plus mph. But how far above 157 mph could the winds go while still being considered Category 5 wind speeds? Katrina and Harvey were both "gigantic storms", both were as large as the Caribbean sea by volume .  We have another hurricane on its way . It's name is Irma , right now there are projected {predicted}  landfalls . (2)>>I looked at the chart , it seems as many models point that its heading to Florida . In this case we are heading for trouble . To deny any kind of weather change is now like beating your head to the wall . A little repentance is needed .


CO2 level going as high . Additional summary .
As Glenn Beck mentioned in 2005 about the C02 levels rising . It presents some rather scientific analysis  of it . Scientists have pointed out since the dawn of the Industrial age C02 levels have risen . Since the 1880s . Burning  coal , wood  are major green house contributors. Now here is the question how much C02 in the atmosphere could become lethal to life ? In 2016 a report was published that showed that atmospheric oxygen levels have fallen by 0.7 percent over the past 800,000 years. The scientists concluded that oxygen sinks — processes that removed oxygen from the air — were about 1.7 percent larger than oxygen sources during this time.Although a drop in atmospheric oxygen levels might sound alarming, the decrease the researchers found "is trivial in regard to ecosystems," The rise of C02 levels could effect plants . As much we are told that plants produce oxygen by taking in C02 , the model of this means that we have to put more plants back in the ecosystem.Example stop cutting , burning rain forests . If we reduce plants we reduce oxygen . Any life forms : Human & Animal that exhale C02 could also contribute to the rising levels of C02 . So we have to balance the ecosystem . BUT there could be a even frighting reversal of warming . Lowering the levels of Co2 , increasing levels of oxygen may have just the opposite effect . That's what happened 800,000 years ago as the Earth went through its many ice ages . Since Earth own air is 78.09 % Nitrogen,  this gas has been associated with global warming / cooling , if you take away all the C02 , Earth would be much colder . If the air contained more than 78% Nitrogen, then (subject to evolution adapting) it might be too inert to support respiration in carbon-based life.  Likewise if it contained less, the oxygen percentage might be too high to allow the air to be safe for the body, as well as creating an atmosphere in which the world around us could burn up uncontrollably with every naked flame. Putting Earth into a deep freeze  would better .
For Global Cooling buffs , I recommend this web site . Great charts and data for the extreme.   http://www.climatecooling.org/


NOTES AND COMMENTS : 
(1)>>a rant about film . Glenn Beck , a Mormon { honestly again , Mormons are really good people . I have  Mormon friends , but at times its been hard to be apologetic to Beck's rants over the years }  took to blast away back in 2015 his most odious , foul mouthed rant I ever heard . He said 'SCREW GLOBAL WARMING' ! . Honestly I like Beck , but since 2015 he has soften his tone . BUT  Conservative thinking: has become blind to reality , They don't talk about guns after a mass shooting, don't talk about climate change during a huge natural disaster. Where climate change plays a part is not the occurrence of the storm but the intensity. The storms have been getting more and more severe. Glenn Beck in 2005 made an astounding statements here is what he said :  BECK: So, if you look at this chart, you will see the CO2, and it mirrors the temperature. Now, what I find interesting about this chart is CO2 seems to naturally go up by itself. Hmmm, I don't remember those 200,000-year-old cars; I think Henry Ford wasn't around yet. I don't know if Fred Flintstone actually did have a car, but apparently, according to this chart, somebody was driving around in a car or an airplane. Maybe it was Al Gore giving the frickin speech at Stone Age colleges. I'm not sure, but it definitely correlates.Now, what happened where this thing falls apart -- and it won't for most people who go to this movie -- is he then projects what's coming. Again, it's the projection that's the problem. See, when you take a little bit of truth and then you mix it with untruth, or your theory, that's where you get people to believe. You know? It's like Hitler. Hitler said a little bit of truth, and then he mixed in "and it's the Jews' fault." That's where things get a little troublesome, and that's exactly what's happening. Now, if Al Gore's projection is right about the CO2 level going as high as he says it will, then the temperature here on planet Earth will be about 400,000 degrees. We'll be the sun; we'll be the frickin sun. But that's a huge "if." { Beck flying over Texas , note remarks : https://www.facebook.com/GlennBeck/videos/10155682630738188/ } 
(1.2)>>" ah the strange weather ..." .It must have been the hottest weekend I ever experienced . California , parts of the Southwest , Washington, Oregon  broiling over . It was adrenally called a "heatwave" by weather reports on television . For a person like me with no air conditioning its horrible .Global record temperatures being broken every year = no climate change. Stronger than ever weather events = no climate change. 55F temperatures one morning in during August = definitive proof that there's no climate change. While I am sweating away here ............(2)>>I looked at the chart. To better illustrate here is a video I found https://goo.gl/fPH64S . It shows Irma's path straight to Florida . In this case both these hurricanes are fueling the surge of warm air that has been pushed toward the southwest . Again next week , possible .