Paul McCartney White House Performance on PBS Options

[smashmouth]

OBB, that is truly scary. Legal hispanics are not a threat. Since they are legally here, they should be free to roam about.

We should be careful what we wish on our neighbors.

[Psykottik]

So.....they can't get one of these biometric terminals here? And shouldn't they have him in "the system" somewhere if he's a legal resident?

[smashmouth]

Does anybody advocate marking every human on the planet with biometrics?

[Truthsayer]

** Without giving too much information here**
Overseas they have a database of known threats. Each individual entering into a facility scans their fingerprint and/or retina scan on a clunky handheld machine. The clunky thing is plugged directly into the database. If the alarm goes off, then tag and bag 'em. They can't be that complicated to use. Ugandans are usually the ones with the machines.

Would it be so difficult to put into use over here as well?

Uhhhh.... are you advocating the use of these biometric chips in human beings???? Or are you advocating the use of these chips in humans in and under certain particular circumstances??????????????

Or whut?????????? Not following you........

[Psykottik]

Not sure where or how we would use them, it's just an idea that I saw in action in Iraq.

And I'm not totally AGAINST marking everyone. It just depends on what technology develops in the near future...

[smashmouth]

The day governments start to mark people with biometrics is the day the entire world will be enslaved.

[Thom Geiger]

The government is not the only one to watch on this. Private business already has a huge head start on the feds when it comes to harvesting DNA from citizens.

Gene patenting has become a huge and highly lucrative business today. It was revealed over a year ago that when some people, a large and growing number, who had various illnesses, genetic traits, defective or mutated genes, genetic resistance to one disease or another, who had blood drawn at hospitals, clinics and doctors' offices, their genetic information, along with their blood, tissue samples, etc. were being patented/sold by gene research and development companies, without the informed consent or knowledge of the individuals involved.
If a company needs a sample of DNA from a male, early 50's, African-American, with sickle cell anemia and diabetes, a company that has bought such a sample of Mr. James Hughes' blood from a hospital in Amory, MS. and received a patent on his DNA sells some of Mr. Hughes' DNA to the company that wants it.
Now for the weird part; if there is something so unique about Mr. Hughes' DNA that other companies want a sample, none of the companies that have already bought a sample can sell any they have, only the company that holds the patent on Mr. Hughes' DNA. If Mr. Hughes decides to sell some of his blood, a company can buy it but they are legally restricted from using it for any DNA uses that would conflict with the business of the company that holds the patent on Mr. Hughes' DNA.

What would you say about this kind of practice Mister? I'd be interested in the libertarian view on it.

Here is one story of gene patenting gone wrong;

Gene Patenting Produces Profits, Not Cures
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harriet-a-wa...p_b_645862.html

Thus industry controls access to its patents via expensive licensing fees, by discouraging rivals from working on diseases covered by its patents, by developing tests that can be widely administered rather than treatments, and by developing many medications for minor but very common disorders.

For example, Hepatitis C, which affects 170 million people, is the single largest cause of liver transplants in the US . The sole effective medication, interferon b and its variants, is rife with side effects and cures only 1 in 5 who take it. Chiron holds the patent on the HCV virus, but has produced no better treatment. Instead, the price of the hepatitis C virus (HCV) test in the UK increased sixfold in 1994, making it too expensive for England's National Health Service because Chiron had stepped in to aggressively protect its patent. It did so by suing the UK firm Murex for patent infringement and preventing Murex from selling its cheaper HCV blood tests. The suit exerted a chilling effect on researchers who wish to work on better HCV treatments. Roger Williams, director of the Institute of Liver Studies at King's College School of Medicine and Dentistry in London warned ''A situation where one company -- Chiron -- can limit the number of companies carrying out research into hepatitis C must inhibit our knowledge of the disease and our efforts to reduce its spread.''

In 1998, the USPTO granted patents on both mutations of the hereditary hemochromatosis (HFE) gene and SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories obtained an exclusive license that caused other researchers to abandon work on HFE due to the prohibitive costs and the specter of a similar suit.

Thom

[smashmouth]

I would like to know what gives any hospital the right to sell personal property such as blood, from another person without his/her permission? It seems to me that a clinic or hospital should use the blood drawn on permission from a patient only for diagnostic purposes?

[Thom Geiger]

Chiron holds the patent on the HCV virus...and preventing Murex from selling its cheaper HCV blood tests. The suit exerted a chilling effect on researchers who wish to work on better HCV treatments.

How can a company get and hold a patent on any disease? That's ignorant. And the fact that the patents stop companies from developing and marketing their own tests for the disease or even a more effective medication? Somebody's needle is stuck on stupid.

Thom

[Friendly Citizen]

FC, Come on, I said I give you credit for being intelligent (which is not the same as being educated, so don't confuse the two), so give others the same courtesy. I said it's a serious concern for national security agencies because it's not a matter of IF extremists and terrorists will fall in with the human traffic coming from Mexico, it's WHEN will they do it. It's not a question of IF the Earth will be hit by a large asteroid or meteor in the future, scientists know it's a matter of WHEN.

Another issue I have with lax border security and non-existent immigration laws is that we had, at one time (and I think is still the current policy) a type of quota from each country. What sticks in my craw is one country, who's natural geography has it sharing a border with the US, is able to flood their own citizens across our borders without following proper procedure, while people wanting and trying to emigrate to the US legally have to file papers, be approved and sometimes wait months or years to get here. That includes people from countries far more impoverished than Mexico; Sub-Saharan Africa, Haiti, the Asian Rim, Bosnia, former Soviet states destroyed by years of warfare. But millions can come across the border from one country without so much as going through the same process that their own country requires its own immigrants to follow. Those people who come here legally from other countries pay taxes, and I'm not talking sales and usage taxes, but income taxes when they work. Many have served in the US Armed Forces. Both of those I respect. I don't respect any person, whether it's at at a Walmart checkout, a ticket booth at a concert or the US immigration process, who cuts into line.

Another problem I have with undocumented people in this country illegally is that if they are arrested for a serious criminal offense, THEY ARE STILL A CITIZEN OF ANOTHER COUNTRY AND HAVE TO BE AFFORDED ACCESS TO AN EMBASSEY AND OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVES OF THEIR OWN COUNTRY. Illegal "immigrants" who crossed the border from Mexico are doing this more and more. Their own country can delay or prevent criminal prosecution and/or file protest for the release of their citizen, who can then come back into the US illegally again.

Criminals are the first group to exploit a system that's broken, that's hog-tied by political correctness. In order to have criminals, somebody has to be the target, the victim, the mark, the one who loses something and who suffers. How many times has our lax border security let wanted criminals through to go back and forth between the US and their native countries? Criminal gangs crossing the Mexico border are targeting people from Mexico who are here illegally for extortion and kidnapping.

Last, I read from several sources that there's a big push in NYC by Bloomberg and the city government, along with some other local governments around the country, to pass local laws to allow undocumented people to vote in local elections. That is one of the most egregious problems with the current social trend there is, but I think it's going to happen and nothing can stop it. Once that barrier has been broken, I don't see how local governments won't become havens for mayors, council members, etc. who are as undocumented as the people who elect them. Mississippi already has a broken system ripe for exploitation by undocumented voters and, because of political correctness, we can't even get a handle on our voter ID problem.

[Anyone remember the Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh in the 70s and 80s? Antelope Oregon learned the hard way-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajneeshpuram,_Oregon;

In 1983, a lawsuit was filed by the State of Oregon to invalidate the city's incorporation, and many attempts to expand the city further were legally blocked, prompting followers to attempt to build in nearby Antelope, which was briefly named Rajneesh when sufficient numbers of Rajneeshees registered to vote there and won a referendum on the subject.

People have been forcibly brought to or come to this country for centuries, as slaves, as indentured servants, locked in the holds of ships as steerage. They stood in line, filled out forms, filed papers, shown and carried documents. They came either not by choice, or to live here and accept this country as their home, to be a citizen. Their descendants have learned the language, gone to public schools, paid taxes, fought, bled and died in uniform, followed the laws, held up their hands, swore an oath and became citizens with the rest of the children and grandchildren of legal immigrants, slaves and indentured servants. They didn't come here or choose to stay here to just to make money to take back home, then come back in to make more and go back, then come back again and on and on, not sharing the load with this country's legal immigrants and citizens. I, personally, think it's an offense to the work and dedication of people who worked and died to be a part of this country, not treat it like an ATM machine.

I wonder if the Mexican president has to show documents when he flies into the US? Are heads of state exempt from a country's border security laws? Does Obama have to show his passport when he travels to Mexico? I'm curious.

Thom

Thom,

Like I said, you get no argument from me on 90% of what you say. The immigration issue is just another example of how our nationally elected officials are gridlocked on important matters. Neither party will commit itself to solving the problem of illegal immigration. The Democrats are courting the Hispanic vote. The Republicans want the cheap labor. Nothing gets done. So what's to tell?