That was reference to how far you can see, ie figurative.

Under a well regulated system, elected officials would eventually need to be similarly accountable, but we'd give em some time to shape up, by starting with the criminal CEO's first.

Sign of the times. The above is redundant.

.....

ever heard of the concept of the invisible hand?

if somehow nobody was willing to work those jobs (your way of thinking that noone aside from illegals is willing to work them is bullshit anyways) then somehow the wages paid for those jobs will rise. then surprisingly, there will be more people willing to work them.

we might see a slight rise in the end price on certain foods, but in all honesty, the cost of picking and planting is not the primary cost involved in food production. it's the fertilizers, and irrigation that cost the most.

It is NOT bullshit and no, there will never be somebody (romanian, nigerian or whatever, no offence to anybody, I'm referring to the most common nationalities involved in some works in Italy) willing to do such jobs, and no, 99% of us westerns won't pick tomatoes @40°C 18 hours a day, we are too much addicted to our model of life to ever accept a bloody hard work for a couple of $.
That's capitalism, dude, they know that a man escaping from war in Somalia will likely accept to do such job, even for a fist of rice. Who in the world would ever accept that, even for 2000$ a month? (well, at least not now, we'll see in the future, with the evolution of the global crysis).
Noone but them... unfortunately that's the way it works because it's inside the DNA of our western society.

hows the view from that little bubble?
if naturalized workers with a voice took those jobs the cost would rise not just from increased wages and lower productivity but also from having to use ferts safely and follow OSHA safety guidelines during production and transportation. non-migrants would also require hourly pay instead of piece work, overtime, vacation pay, 401k's, bathrooms and rest breaks. not to mention the added costs of health care, daycare, workers comp, drug tests and unemployment insurance.

shit, there's not even close to enough legals in this state with the expert pruning skills needed to handle the vineyard pruning in the off season , let alone to even come close to handling the wine crush at harvest time. even mangers and owners (and their families) help during crush as they can t ever hire enough illegals to do all the work. the wine industry would go belly up in a few short years if they only hired legals.

Should Gallo get a stimulus check when he cant get grapes into bottles anymore?

They will probably be allowed to get H1-Bs to come in and do it all for next to nothing.

apparently quite different from your little bubble.

here in reality, the availability of cheap labor delayed the switch to mechanized harvesting. it's long since time to pick up the slack.

wow, bathroom breaks required? goodie, maybe then we'll stop having e.coli outbreaks on lettuce...

pruning cannot be mechanized. it cant even be done properly by most people.

mechanization is responsible for the sickness we get from our " new food", not lack of port a potties. ( you really think Mexicans pee on their own food and jobs?)

http://www.michaelpollan.com/article.php?id=84

grape pruning is hardly the only crop for which migrant workers are used.

aggregate the workers for crops that can be mechanized into the crops that can't be mechanized, suddenly you can have enough legal workers to fill demand.


i don't really care whether or not there are migrant workers. but your assertion that there aren't domestic workers willing to do the job that illegals do pisses me off.

there's no justification for illegal workers. they must be legal, documented, and most importantly taxed.

Boy could you get the economics any more bass ackwards?
Explain again what exactly is stopping a naturalized citizen from taking the same job as a not-yet-naturalized citizen?

Mechanized robo farms lead to increased sickness rates, raise health care costs and contribute to further unemployment.

Try working 12 hour days in the fields, covered in toxic clouds, for 6-7 days a week this summer and report back in this thread on how you like the pay scale and benefits, 'umkay? We'd still be waiting for bubba and billy bob to be digging out all those holes in the hillside along the avocado highway. (corse without the Chinese illegals to build the railroads and water system there'd be no southern California, or water to grow avocados any ways)

I think that among the reasons that we have poorly paid immigrant workers is that businesses like it that way: if they were allowed to be legal, then they would have enforceable rights, and they would have to be paid at least the minimum wage -- and this would drive up the costs of the businesses that employ them.

As it is now, we have slavery by another name. And blaming the slaves for their slavery is just silly. Follow the money, and follow the power and you will find the major cause.

That's it

Right yesterday evening I was watching a program on TV: some illegal workers from Morocco worked for some months building a bunch houses, under an Albanian contractor.
They didn't get paid (well, they received a fake cheque from the Albanian) and they knew that they couldn't claim anything because they were illegals. They ended up climbing on a crane, the police came, and they were expelled.
They lost everything, the albanian didn't pay them (wonder which criminal affairs will receive that money instead) and the italian who outsourced the work to the albanian saved a lot of money. Can you wonder how much he should have paid assuming regular workers? Health insurance, a lot of taxes... if you regular worker will ask for a work, he won't ever consider you! You'd cost too much.

Unfortunately that's the way it works.
Money rules everything.

while i was searching for something else....

i found this:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/l ... ces19.html

Flapane, you just described why the Albanians may as well commit crimes.

Too bad, it's still true.

Did anybody change his mind after 2 years and Denver shooting?

There seems to be 3 huge problems with the huge gun murder rate in the USA compared to every other civilised country on this rock we call home.

In no particular order. Also please note that I don't consider these issues to be a problem "on their own", but together these help make the USA "the home of civilised gun crime".

1.) Guns and ammo of all types are far too easily available to almost anyone who wants them.

2.) That widely misinterpreted sentence in the first amendment, giving otherwise sensible and indeed clever Americans "the GOD given right to own as many guns as they want", and as sad as it is to say, some people use this misinterpretation of an otherwise very well constructed legal document (dated 15th December 1791) as a "right to own lots and lots of guns", and ironically this "Amendment" seems to be unamendable due to the vehement and righteous idiots who defend this misinterpretation for their own cause (gun worship).

3.) There is something very wrong and deep seated in the American psyche. There are lots of other civilised countries around the world where there is a high percentage of gun ownership, and yet they don't have anywhere near the (gun) murder rate that the US has.

As I say, each one individually is not a concern if each of the other parts were in order, but as they are all true and all exist today, this helps to cause a great deal of murder, mayhem and misery in the USA that does not affect any other civilised country on the planet anywhere nearly as badly as it does in America. Very sad it is too.

Before anyone points out the obvious flaws that this does not cover "just" gun crime, but all homicides, and yes different countries will surely have a different determination for homicide - however that would be missing the point, the USA murder rate is more than double any other country on this list (bar Finland which has its own problems I am sure), and I know for a fact that most of the countries on this list are deeply ashamed of their own murder rates and are determined to bring them down much further.

Also please note that the "legal" gun ownership of these countries varies hugely from Switzerland that has the highest gun ownership to (possibly) the UK with the lowest (and in the middle of the pack for murder rate), hence why I have listed 3-points and only one of them is gun control.

Embedded is a cut down version of the document that can be found in the link below entitled "homicide statistics 2012". You will see from my cut down version that I have removed most of the world countries to only include "civilised" (I am sure to offend some people, sorry, but it is cut down, have a look at the full blown one for your own country), I have also removed any years that is not covered by all countries that I have selected, so it covers 2001-2009.

http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and- ... icide.html


Andy

Thanks for the document. I thought Finland homicide rate was comparable to US one, but I was wrong.

Hironically, suicide rate has grown up in all "civilised countries" since '08 financial crisis, a kind of problem which has been unknown in Italy in the past years...

It is very interesting to note that point.

Lots of people would assume that in years of hardship (now), the crime rate would increase due to "social unrest" and so on, but you are quite right, having a brief look at those numbers it generally seems that the murder rate has been in decline since 2004/2006 for many countries and noticeably so in many since 2008 (for the ones that have the figures right up until 2011 it is even more noticeable).

I don't want to suggest that the decline has anything whatsoever to do with "the worldwide financial crisis" or not, or whether it has to do with individual governments tackling crime more effectively, or even that more modern scientific techniques for identifying a murderer means that fewer get away with it therefore putting off more people from committing such acts in the first place, but what it does look like is that the murder rate decline is uniform in all "civilised" countries.


Andy

If the UK moved so that it shared a long border with Mexico, and politicians refused to enforce immigration laws because most immigrants vote for their particular political party, then the UK would have a very high murder rate also.

As far as the misinterpretation of the First Amendment, not sure what is meant by that. There are laws against certain kinds of weapons, but it only takes one (or a few) to kill a lot of people, so not sure limiting the number would fix the problem. I don't think we are going to see Obama say anything about gun control in this election year.

That much is obvious, with Mexico's murder rate about 5 times as much as America's, although you are in a much better position that I am to look further into the details of "where" (proportionally to populous e.g. as a percentage) in the US are the murders committed. I would wholly support your argument as "one" of the reasons if your murder rate statistics are much worse in southern states than northern states - bear in mind Canada's murder rate.



We DO have a massive problem with "legal" and illegal immigrants, and they (as a massive generalisation) commit more crime than the natives do, although I do not know whether this is reflected in the murder rate or not.



I hope that is a joke versus real naivety. You must know the bit that says something along the lines of "right to bear arms" - this in 1791 meant something very different to how it is currently interpreted by "gun worshipers", and those who resist the change of this part of the first amendment to a degree resembling insanity.

EDIT: I am now 19 minutes into "Bowling for Columbine", you get the classic "no one has the right to tell me I cant have it (1 .44 Magnum under his pillow), that is protected under our constitution" blah blah blah about what it really means "to bare arms" in defense of a misinterpretation from 200 years ago.



The laws vary a lot from state to state, and they are pathetic as almost anyone can get almost any gun with the help of loopholes, simply traveling to a different state or the good old fashioned way of buying one illegally. Please note the weapons used in the most recent US massacre. 2x 9mm hand guns, a shotgun and a machine gun. No-one in the UK is allowed to own a 9mm hand gun outside of the locker room in a gun club - they cant take their own 9mm gun home, shotgun licenses are restricted, and all kinds of machine guns are totally banned.



As we have seen in the past, someone can go on a "knife" killing spree, you don't need a gun, but it damned well helps and makes it easy enough that almost anyone can go on a killing spree.

Also please refer to the other 2 points I suggested, and also note Switzerland which has the highest gun ownership in the world.



If he does, then he has done the right thing. If him speaking out about US gun control loses him votes then those voters are plainly stupid.

I am now watching Bowling for Columbine again.

Possibly my biggest single "eye-opener" in the whole film (from memory, only 45-minutes in), was "Marilyn Manson", obviously being far cleverer than those around him (her / it), with such eloquent speech and a wonderful use of the language put the idiot "Bible Thumpers" to shame as to where blame lie.

EDIT: 51:49 seconds (in my copy) you will see a very brief and very brutal selection of reasons as to why Americans have such a love affair with guns vs other countries, and then going on to cover a (selective) American history regarding guns. Sometime I forget what I have learned, re-watching this 10-year old Documentary has re-chilled my bones, and made me feel much safer in my own home (in the UK).

At the end of the film with "Mr Heston", I feel horrible, but I still feel "just" to say that "I am glad he is dead", he was one of the great "sellers" of guns, and he must have at least a trickle of fresh blood running down his gravestone right now.


Andy

You still have not explained exactly how the 2nd amendment has been misinterpreted (except maybe by some gun fanatics). If you listen only to Michael Moore, you will get only a very distorted view of the truth. Moore is a great entertainer, and a great propagandist.

Whether we like it or not, the US Constitution does allow citizens the right to bear arms. Research into the the original intent of those who added that amendment (sometimes called "Founders") shows that they did actually intend that citizens be allowed to have arms as a defense against over-reaching and illegal government encroachment into their lives (specifically based on their experience with the British Government, whom they had just broken away from). There is a lot of documentation of the discussions that took place when this amendment was proposed and placed in the Bill of Rights. The right to bear arms was not just for hunting, but even if it were, hunters usually have more than one gun. What number of guns do you think are allowed by the 2nd amendment of the US constitution? Would each person legally having only one or a few firearms actually reduce crimes committed with guns?

There are, of course, weapons that were not envisioned in 1791. One cannot not own a tank, a bomb, or a nuclear weapon. Some assault weapons have been baned by states and the Federal government. But the vast majority of guns that are involved in US crimes are not the kind could be banned without a pretty clear violation of the 2nd amendment. Government can and does require that one go through a background check, and that convicted criminals not be allowed to buy guns, etc. Reasonable controls and restrictions can be enacted, but it is unlikely that gun sales can be banned (as in the UK) unless the US Constitution is changed. Maybe we should ban gun sales to students enrolled in a PhD program?

Once you have a country that has had guns legally (and in many cases illegally) for 220 years (and actually long before that), they are not so easy to get rid of. If the constitution were to be changed, then it would likely be the case that only criminals and the police would have guns (criminals are not going to turn in their guns), and crime would be totally out of control. In many parts of the rural US, it was historically the case that there was not sufficient police resources to provide law enforcement protection, and having gun in your house was the only way to protect yourself. Even today, one reads about home invasions by criminals, even in populated areas.

Regarding Mexico, one the most obscene things is the recent "Fast and Furious" program run by the Obama Administration. In theory, the US government was supposed to sell (as an under-cover operation) arms illegally to known Mexican drug cartel members along the US-Mexican border (but in the US), and then the US (working with the Mexican government) would trace them back to the drug lords so they could be charged with the illegal firearms purchase. However, even though the Mexican government stopped cooperating with the program, the Obama administration continued to sell the arms. One such firearm was used to kill a US Federal Law Enforcement Agency member, and Eric Holder (US Attorney General) has been trying to cover up the details of this fiasco (which is why he was held in contempt by the US Congress). Bush once tried a similar program, but shut it down once they realized that the Mexican government was not cooperating.

As unfortunate as the recent event in Colorado was, statistically it is insignificant compared to the number of people killed by dunk/drugged drivers in the US each year, or the number of people killed by incompetent doctors and other health care workers.

Personally, I avoid all movies and products associated with standing in long lines to be the first to see the premier or get the latest version. This kind of thing is often associated with cult worship and other crazies, and I get queasy even watching such movies or buying such products.

That brings me back to some months ago, when I stayed for a period in a residencial neighborhood in Des Moines, IA.
While we were driving, I suddenly noticed that I forgot my wallet, so we drove back to the house.
The owner just turned the knob, opened his slim wood door, and we went inside. I was like
Can you explain me why it's safer to own a gun against home invasions than just locking your door (even at night when you're inside), putting grates on the ground lvl windows, installing an alarm, and using a thick metal door pretty much like the vast majority does on the other side of the pond?
What if there was a thief trying to break in the house instead of me? What if there were a baby and a mum inside? I guess they would have been safer with a solid door rather then with a gun.
We should consider that the Constitution has been written over two centuries ago, those were definitely *harder* times, no doubt that 100% of us would have agreed on having a firearm.
Don't get me wrong, I like your country under much aspects, I'll be there again in just 4 days, but there are certain things that I just don't get, and this zillionth mass homicide should help us understanding that if homicide rate is 4/5 times higer than in other countries, then there's something wrong.

Regarding the Denver-Incident:

A american guy was shown on german tv stating that were not enough guns in Denver! If more people in the cinema would have had a gun, they could have easily killed the attacker with their own weapons, resulting in far less victims.

As long as people all over the world think along these lines, nothing ever will change, i'm afraid.

People who do "home invasions" are not deterred by locks, bars, etc. I am not talking about your average burglary, I am talking about where they are intent on taking over the home with the people inside.

Blaming the homicide rate on guns is not accurate IMO. The makeup of US society, with the legacy of slavery in the US, the free-flow of illegal Mexican immigrations, etc, distorts the numbers. The homicide rate in the US varies significantly depending on where one is located.

Nevertheless, even if it would be best if guns were not a part of American society, there is no way to turn back the clock and start over again. In America, people take laws and the constitution seriously and not as something that can be explained away as being "200+ years old". There are pluses and minuses to this adherence to the Constitution. On the plus side, something like Mussolini or Hitler is not possible in the US due to other parts of the Bill of Rights, but we also have to live with the right to bear arms. There is a procedure to change the US Constitution, and it cannot be changed by simply saying it is too old of document to have any meaning today as it did when it was written, as I am sure that Mussolini and Hitler would have argued when they declared themselves dictators.

What about is there was a security guard or police officer in the theater with a gun? As silly as it may seem to you, in locations where people are allowed (with proper registration and license) to carry firearms in their car, people are much less likely to be killed during a car high-jacking, simply because it is too risky for the hijackers if there is reasonable chance that the owner has a gun.

It "might" be best to do away with all guns the US, but that is not possible under the US Constitution and because of our history. The right to bear arms (and separately) the right to raise state militias, was specifically instituted to protect citizens against their own government from encroaching on their rights under the Constitution. That is why no German blood has ever been spilled on US soil to rid the world of a horrible dictator, the personification of evil itself. It is not just a coincidence that it never happened and will never happen, but has indeed happened the other way around.

The guard should have started shooting in a dark, crowded theatre? It just doesn't work.

I believe that the perpetrator was on the stage, or at least at the front of the theater near the screen. I am not saying that no one would have been killed, but the death toll would have been significantly reduced, or maybe it would not have been attempted at all if the perpetrator knew their were armed guards in the theater. The problem is that people in the US are too cheap to pay for security.

As you have rightly corrected me, the Second Amendment gave the "right to bear arms" otherwise known as the "right to form militia" / better know today as "an irregular army", that is a long way from every person in America has the right to own a gun - but not be part of a militia. The words "right to bear arms" dates back to 1330 and it means military, or to fight. Considering the pretty small time period from independence to the Second Amendment it is hardly a surprise to see that America has granted its people the "legal" right to for militia to defend itself / its people.

The very obvious misinterpretation (by many people) cannot simply be put down to a mistranslation of what "arms" meant back in the late 1700's, it is a deliberate misinterpretation by those who simply want to own guns, yet many don't go hunting, don't belong to a "militia", they are often cited as a "self defense weapon".



You missed "machine guns" in your list. And as far as "some" assault weapons being banned by "some" states is totally insane as there are loopholes that simply allow a different manufacturer to make an otherwise identical machine gun to one that is banned, the one with a different manufacturer is NOT banned - crazy.



And we all know just how well that works. The US constitution should be changed and it would have been a long time ago if it were not for political gain/loss.



The UK managed it and guns have been owned in the UK before America was discovered. The average person in the UK does not need to own a gun, the vast majority of our police do NOT carry guns, they don't even have bullet proof vests, just stab-proof vests. The majority of criminals do not carry guns, this almost totally destroys the classic "arms race" between criminals, the police and the average person on the street. If the UK can do it, why cant the USA.?

A great deal of the gun crime in the UK happens in city's, generally by criminal gangs (often drug related) and never using legally obtained guns - note that hand guns are banned. Most of these types of murders are the ones that people read and then smile - one drug toting criminal shooting another, however innocent people often get caught in the cross fire. Beyond that, there are the usual domestic cases and the occasional rampage - most of these types involve legally owned guns.



That is an insane thing to do, and sounds very much like the CIA arming and training people to do their dirty work for them - sometime it comes back to bite you in the arse.



Insignificant in strictly numerical terms, but that is the same here in the UK. However in the last 46 years the number of road deaths has dropped dramatically by the following reasons (excluding general car safety), drink driving is almost banned, 1-pint and you are illegal, seat-belts are compulsory and not wearing one is illegal, speed limits on roads were introduced, better road signs, pedestrian crossings with lights and so on.

The number of people killed via car accidents is like the murder rate, much lower in the UK than the US. Come on America, sort yourself out.

Anyway back on topic.

m0002a, you have not said anything about my third point.


Andy