Immigration VS Invasion

What we are witnessing is an invasion. Immigration is a controlled process. Yes, there is a big difference. When the European conquerors appeared on the shores of this hemisphere, they were the leading wave of an invasion. The different groups established settlements and started providing infrastructure for more invaders. They looked at a land rich in potential and saw room for expansion and a better future for themselves.

There were cases where the conquerors used force, but in many cases they didn't have to. There were many places that the invaders merely showed up and established presence unopposed.

We have heard the Left bemoan the crimes of the European invasion for years. That was a bad invasion. Even though it wasn't against the law of nations or of the affected peoples. It was a bad invasion.

Now we have another invasion. According to the Left, it's a good invasion. It's an invasion of non-english speaking, non-europeans into the bad culture built by the bad invaders.

They are coming to prosper from the infrastructure and stability that their deficient cultures could not possibly build. They are coming to steal freedom without having to protect it with their lives by service in the Armed Forces. The are coming to gather wealth so they can send it back to fuel the movement of more invaders into this country.

Immigration is where you ask permission to move to a country. Invasion is when you breach the border and say "I'm here whether you like it or not and there's nothing you can do about it." I dare you to go to any country in the world and try the same thing. I've been a lot of places and I guarantee you that it won't go smooth for you.

I think we need to start calling it the "Mexican Invasion" and force the Left to defend their position.

KEEP SHOUTING!

Apparently our loud objections to the "bend over and grab the ankles" rhetoric coming out of DC is having an effect. The sissified GOP "moderates" are snapping into line with the demands of the conservative base. It's incremental, but if we keep the heat on, even McCain won't have room to market his maverick moderation to the major networks.

This IS an election year and don't these boys know it. They tried to bluff the base with some showy "we know better than you do--complex issue' slight of hand, but as soon as they realized it wasn't working they started pulling nice clean J-Turns back to the party line.

We're gonna have a border fence. Three barriers, barbed wire, sensors and alarms.

Keep making noise. They work for us.

Evolution VS Intelligent Design

The Theory of Evolution is simple and easy to understand. It's also convenient to cling to if you don't want to be bothered with the idea of an omnipotent arbiter of good and evil and the associated immutable standards of morality. Those of you that need a worldview adjusted to your existential philosophy and associated deviant behaviors won't care about the following questions. Those of you that think evolution actually makes more sense than intelligent design might want to read on. I once thought evolution made more sense but then I learned something about organic science.

If I remember correctly Darwin's Book is called "The Origin of Species." Here are some hard questions for Evolutionists about the Origin of Species:

Was the first single cell organism an animal or plant?
If it was an animal what did it eat? Animals only eat organic material.
If it was a plant, it would have needed to synthesize it's own food. It would need to bio-originate with a fully functioning photosynthesis capability. Probabability? Zero Point Zero to 20 decimal places.

But for the purpose of exploration, lets just allow that the immaculate bio-origination with a fully functioning photosynthesis actually happened. We now have a living single cell creature. Let's assume it has an extraordinary life span for a single cell creature, say... 200 million years. At the end of 200 million years, how many single cell creatures would there be?

Answer: One. This single cell creature would not be able to reproduce unless it had what we call DNA. DNA strings are the most complex molecular structures known to man. And it would have to bio-originate as one of these critters that splits itself in half to reproduce. Every living creature has DNA. Even viruses. Viruses steal the cells of other creatures to reproduce their DNA.

So this immaculate bio-genesis would also need to include the spontaneous accidental construction of DNA and the instinct/coding to cause reproduction. Probability? Add some more zeros...a lot more zeros.

Maybe more than one of these critters spontaneously bio-genesized. If there were two of them, they'd need to have recombinant DNA to reproduce. They'd also need to be in the same place at the same time and they'd need to have the instinct to reproduce. Add some more zeroes.

But just for the point of argument, lets say it happened just like that. Shazaaam! Right there in the midst of some primordial sea, a spontaneous, bio-genesis of a single-cell plant with fully functional photosythesis, DNA and reproductive instinct/coding. It starts reproducing. It makes more and more of itself. It even evolves into multi-celled plants. They multiply like roaches. They consume carbon dioxide and water and turn it into oxygen. There are no predators. What happens when a life form has no predators? It reproduces until it over tasks the food supply. Plants everywhere. The whole planet is green.

It's likely that the plants would consume all the carbon dioxide until they choked themselves to a level of balance. There are none of the little microbes and fungi that compost plants down into rich topsoil, the only reduction would be solar decay and combustion started by lightning, volcano or meteor. Maybe that would happen often enough to keep a supply of CO2 to keep the plants growing.

Suddenly at some point, a plant mutates and stops consuming carbon dioxide and begins to burn oxigen and feed on plants. Or suddenly a plant gives birth to an animal. I like science fiction, and that one sounds like science fiction to me. A plant giving birth to an animal. What are the odds on that one? Add some more zeroes.

These are just the questions that come off the top of my head. We need to remember that Chucky Darwin didn't know about DNA. He didn't have electron microscopes or a reasonable understanding of photosynthesis. In fact, organic chemistry was in the dark ages.

But there's another direction to start from: What if there was an original lifeform that didn't need photosynthesis and DNA. It needed nothing but sunlight, rocks to eat and water to absorb. It can reproduce itself and make it's own food. Sounds like a pretty hardy critter. Can live in the most austere of environments. Actually, it sounds like a weed. OK, cool... where is it now? It was prolific then but none of them survived. It could live then but not now. Now there's too many sources of nutrients to eat. But eventually it developed photosynthesis even though it didn't need it and it developed DNA even though it didn't need it either. Cool - it just invents two complex chemical processes for no reason. and then after a while it get tired of that and changes itself into an animal. Sounds pretty far-fetched to me.

Mr Darwin has sold you a bridge that goes most of the way from the present to the origin of life and then ends abruptly just before the other side. You can believe in it if you want. But it will require you abandon hard science and make a leap of faith. It requires an energetic leap of faith.

The requirement for a leap of faith means the theory of evolution becomes a religion when examined under 21st Century Science. Intelligent Design answers all these questions while Mr. Darwin stands speechless.

Watcher of Weasels Sumission

As you may or may not already be aware, members of the Watcher's Council hold a vote every week on what they consider to be the most link-worthy pieces of writing around... per the Watcher's instructions, I am submitting one of my own posts for consideration in the upcoming nominations process.

Here is the most recent winning council post, here is the most recent winning non-council post, here is the list of results for the latest vote, and here is the initial posting of all the nominees that were voted on.

Miles Per Gallon

I have a good memory. For instance, I can remember what size engine was in my 1967 Chevy Malibu. It was a 307 cubic inch V-8. It had a sticker on the air cleaner that said, 200HP. I also remember that it usually delivered 18-20 Miles per gallon. When us disaffected youth would talk about gas mileage, we thought that was pretty good.
I remember working on construction sites in those days. Buildings weren't insulated and airtight like they are now. They leaked a lot of energy. Back when propane was 20 cents per gallon, no one cared.
My current car has about 60% the displacement of the Chevy but 98% of the horsepower. It gets 28-32 Miles per gallon. It's engineered completely differently.
Houses are built differently too. Much lower energy transfer.

What's the point of this? When prices go up, innovators react and compensate. New technologies mitigate supply-demand imbalances to stabilize markets.

Leave the oil companies alone. Their profit margins are small compared to Microsoft. It's not their fault that prices are high. If they had their way, they'd be drilling everywhere they could and building new refineries. It's the leftist kook environmentalists (who all seem to be real quiet right now) that have insisted on the policies that have caused these high prices.

You want cheap gas? Drill for oil and build refineries. Don't want greenhouse gases? Build nuclear power? Afraid of radioactivity? Invest in wind turbines? Don't want wind turbines to spoil the view (from the Kennedy Compound on Martha's Vineyard)? Invest in solar electric. Not enough sun to generate power where you live? Move. Don't want to move? Then stop whining about high fuel prices. You've run out of options. Tidal power is too costly and is unpredictable in effectiveness. Hydroelectric affects fish spawning. Biodiesel can't dent the demand yet. Ethanol is a lossy process. It uses energy to distill the ethanol.

As previously posted, if you want to make a difference, use less. Barring that, the only other option would be to go to some third-world hellhole, kick their ass and take the gas.


Hoo-Hah!