I rarely go political. I’m going to do so today, against my better judgment.
Illegal Immigration is justified Civil Disobedience on a massive scale.
A few points:
1. I refuse to use PC terms like “undocumented worker” or simply “migrant” (or “immigrant”); that robs it if the true power of what is happening. Yes – it’s illegal – and that’s the whole point. Civil Disobedience isn’t really civil disobedience if it isn’t breaking a law.
2. Opposition and a desire to enforce the borders is not, in my mind, usually racist. It’s a disagreement. Some people value keeping the law, and while I disagree in this one instance, I despise the constant accusations of racism that occur when this debate happens. Yes, there is racism, and I’ve seen it (I have relatives who hate Mexicans merely because of their darker skin and different language), but the accusation of racism is too casually thrown about.
3. Read this article (warning – some bad language) which only scratches the surface of what is wrong with current immigration law. I am not necessarily a totally 100% open border advocate, but our current immigration laws and policies are evil and deserve to be ignored.
I think that’s good for now. We’ll see what the rest of all y’all have to say.
[I saw that some permabloggers at BCC were posting their AML reviews, so I figured I could follow their lead and post my AML reviews here].
Title: A History of Utah Radicalism: Startling, Socialistic, and Decidedly Revolutionary.
Authors: John S. McCormick and John R. Sillito
Publisher: Utah State University Press Continue reading
I feel that sufficient time has passed since Geoff pointed out the interesting Mormon bits in the first Sherlock Holmes tale, A Study in Scarlet (interestingly, the first time I ever read that story, it was in an abridged version that cut out the Mormon bits. I didn’t find out about the Mormon chapters until college). Anyway, There is one other Sherlock Holmes tale featuring Mormons.
Except that there’s no Sherlock Holmes (but Watson is there). And it’s the same tale (sort of). Read on to find out more: Continue reading
So, my last post attracted this exchange in the comments:
John M. asked:
(It has been a long time. I started writing this post well over a year ago, and then I took a hiatus from the ‘Nacle. I guess finishing this is as good a way as any to return).
[One meta note: If you have made arguments similar to the ones I use in the examples here, realize I am not singling you out - others have made similar arguments. Also, in the end, I'm trying to help you, not attack you.]
Wikipedia defines “enthymeme” as
“an informally stated syllogism (a three-part deductive argument) with an unstated assumption that must be true for the premises to lead to the conclusion. In an enthymeme, part of the argument is missing because it is assumed. In a broader usage, the term “enthymeme” is sometimes used to describe an incomplete argument of forms other than the syllogism. For Aristotle, who defined it in his Rhetoric, an enthymeme was a “rhetorical syllogism” which was based on probable opinions, thus distinguishing it from a scientific syllogism.”
The Oxford English Dictionary says and enthymeme is “An argument based on merely probable grounds; a rhetorical argument as distinguished from a demonstrative one.” or “A syllogism in which one premise is suppressed.” (If you don’t know what a syllogism is, go read up on it at Wikipedia).