Snoopy: That he kept changing his story when challenged by members on the audience... As one panel member said "stop with the 'bs'".

Bwild: PR companies. I hear one advert telling us Kellog invented Corn Flakes, when it was an accident!! Luckily he learned how to add vits otherwise the grits wouldn't be good for ya!!

Griffin certainly has to been given some credit to face the fire. The entire audience and all on the panel were against him. I wish we could get some of Obama's people on a show like that and expose them for who they really are.

Artful Dodger: when it was first mentioned that he would appear i was gob smacked that a tv station
i have to pay a licence fee for was allowing him on

but after watching it and esp how the rest of the panel shot him down made him look small made my day

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2009/10/25/the-nasty-nick-show-why-we-needed-it-115875-21771418/

Snoopy: you say "pay a licence fee for" what is the licence for?

we have free to air TV of which there are about 10 channels and then there is paid TV which is about FROM $20 per month and owned by Murdoch I think??? and there are hundreds of channels, but licences I havent heard of.

I remember years and years ago in NZ people had to pay a licence for radio.

Snoopy: I just finished watching the whole thing. He's no idiot that's clear. Not many people could sit there for an hour and take fiery question after fiery question. He did make some points that even some in the audience recognized as legitimate (even if they disagreed with his remedy).

His appearance was necessary as the BNP has gained strength and it's time to put them in the public eye for scrutiny. Only face to face encounters such as Question Time could provide the kind of exposure and tough questioning that was witnessed on the program.

What caught me was the fact that Griffin was talking about some of the very same issues that we face here in the States. The UK had better deal effectively with it's immigration problems or soon enough it will get out of hand and become uncontrollable. Perhaps it's already too late for that. From some reports I've seen, London has some serious problems with some in the Islamic community. Such problems can't long be ignored.

I wonder if Iran has an immigration problem?

Bernice: we pay £142 50p a year for a tv licence which every household must have or get taken to court
this funds the BBC
its very unpopular these days cause simply its outdated

Snoopy: that is a lot of money....I can understand it as being unpopular. your BBC is equal to our ABC, but the Govt pays for that.

Artful Dodger:   Perhaps Iran doesn't have an immigration problem because it has a brutality problem.

Artful Dodger: Then you'd need a near neutral show. According to you that is not possible in the USA. I see Fox news (and friends) complaining about Obama right now about freedom of speech, but where were their complaints when Bush was having protesters escorted to zones where the TV audience would not see them during him going 'walkabout' and trying to have many arrested on bogus charges.

Some may not like the BBC and it's license fee, but it's a neutral company by it's charter. The fee pays for countless free local radio stations as well as TV without advertising. Nothing Murdoch owns can be said to be the same.

As to Griffin.. the only point he had was that the immigration system as such is not doing it's job. Not enough money has been put into the system to deal with the problems that have arisen. I was dismayed that the Labour panellist tried to act all innocent on this. I'd rather have an honest politician say mistakes were made then one say all is fine.

And what problems in London are you talking about re the Islamic community.. My watch of the news has not been as great recently. But I've heard of no big riots.

(V): Some may not like the BBC and it's license fee, but it's a neutral company by it's charter. The fee pays for countless free local radio stations as well as TV without advertising. Nothing Murdoch owns can be said to be the same.

its outdated in this day and age
the BBC should do what the other stations do and allow adverts to make there money

its stupid even ppl who dont have a television installed but have a computer still have to pay it

i did read somewhere but cant find the link now that the government have to wait until 2017 until the BBC charter is up for renewal before they can make any changes

Snoopy: Yes... people can watch TV using TV cards and the likes of BBC iplayer. And I'd rather have the BBC advert free. I hated it when ITV were showing F1 and every 10 minutes or so there were adverts.

The BBC does raise money through sales of it's programs and of merchandise (eg Dr who stuff) and produces programs that media guru's complain that we do not have enough of.

Also the BBC produces things like the World Service, something people around the world have relied on for info for many years. And as such.. the BBC was quite a significant part in the liberation of Europe from the Nazi's via coded messages.

It may not be perfect, but it is a British institution free of the likes of Murdoch and other manipulators of the media and the need to make programs just to raise the price of adverts.

(V): i think you find your just one of a few these days

the sooner the BBC and the government realise that ppl will not be ripped off any more the better

i could only ever agree to a tv licence in any shape or form when they stop paying the outragous wages to these wanabe stars ie: Johnathon Ross and all the soap stars

cant wait for 2017 to come and have them kick it into touch once and for all

Snoopy:

>  its outdated in this day and age the BBC should do what the other stations do and allow
>  adverts to make there money

It sounds to me like the BBC operates out of public money and for that reason it is free of commercial advertising.  Canada and the US see a lot of BBC programs through both local stations as well as BBC international broadcasts such as the BBC World Service.  Here in Canada we get some of the best BBC programming and those Canadians who watch BBC shows have a very high opinion of them.  The BBC has a reputation for quality, artistry and entertainment.

In Canada we have the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) which initally was modelled after the BBC.  The CBC allows commercial advertising and viewership has reduced over the years as more and more advertising intruded into the programming.  I think the CBC does not have the capital to compete with private broadcasters, so it relies in a mix of government funding and advertising revenue.  In terms of programming quality the CBC suffers from not enough funding for production.  Low funding means lower prodcution values and for that reason it is difficult for them to attract more viewers.

In the United States there is the Public Broadcasting System (PBS).  It broadcasts very high quality television without commercial advertising.  They operate with a mixture of government funding, donations from private foundations and donations from viewers.  While they struggle to maintain the capital needed to operate, they broadcast television programs produced in the US, the UK, Australia, Canada and other countries around the world.  Of the different public systems, I will say that the American PBS is the best although now Canada has a similar channel called the Knowledge Network, which offers similar programming under a similar model.

All I will say is that if BBC programming came full of adverts, then people would probably lose interest soon.  BBC shows are produced and meant to be seen without adverts.  It is different from commercial broadcasters who write scripts in 7-8 minute segments with 2-4 minutes of adverts in between.  If the BBC were to commercialize itself, then its shows would change to a model similar to that of commercial television.  I think the high quality of programming that the BBC is reputed for would go down the drain.

pbs has some great programs......nova,austin city limits, and red green

Bwild:
Made in the USA:  Nova, Nature, Front Line, Independend Lens, Austin City Limits, This Old House, New Yankee Workshop, and many others.
Made in the UK:  Mysteries (Sherlock Holmes, Morse, Inspector Lewis, Midsommer Murders, etc, etc.  Lots of them), commedy (Are You Being Served?, Keeping Up Appearances, The Last of the Summer Wine, Red Dwarf, Monty Python, Jeeves and Wooster, etc, etc.  Lots of them too), theatre (Shakespeare's plays, period pieces from Jane Austen, Charles Dickens, the Bronte Sisters, etc, etc.)
Made in Canada:  The Red Green Show
There is also children's programming, educational programming, art, music, dance, etc.  PBS is 24 hours of the highest quality television you can see anywhere, and not a single ad to be seen.  Without a question PBS is the best anywhere.

Something that makes me curious is how commercial programming runs without ads.  Commercial programming can be good too.  I saw Rome and 24 on DVD.  Rome was great.  It flows perfectly without ads.  24 was so so.  It had this clock coming in to telegraph the ad breaks.  I have never seen CSI without ads.  I imagine that it must flow better without ads.

All I'm saying is Griffin was a stand up guy for agreeing to take the heat in an environment that clearly was him against the rest. He didn't hide under his desk like some do.

Too bad he had to complain about the "fairness" of the forum. Politicians need to learn to take their lumps and not whine about it.

Snoopy: Right.. so while footballers are ripping off people and clubs thanks to 'Sky sports', Murdoch wants to charge for access to Murdoch group websites.. like news.

Please. Jonathan Ross's wages are small compared to some celeb's. And quite frankly with his pulling power why not pay him a big wage. And while others are creaming the UK public... Did you hear about the Halifax via watchdog and their new fee scheme, which in cases can equal to a 100,000+% interest rate per year.

Do you think the ITV big stars just get paid peanuts?

Artful Dodger: Griffin is a racist, hardly a stand up guy.. and quite frankly as some linked to the BNP have committed bombing on civilians or conspiracy to bomb. Well as I said... not all terrorists are Muslim.

(V): Right.. so while footballers are ripping off people and clubs thanks to 'Sky sports', Murdoch wants to charge for access to Murdoch group websites.. like news.

i couldnt care less what footballers get paid
why bring that up
what has it got to do with over paid actors such has Ross

and i OBJECT to my hard earned money going towards giving him a life of luxury

Snoopy: Because they are overpaid athletes. duh!!

One was recently asking for over £140K a WEEK.

Also.. if you don't want your money going to those who live a life of luxury.. Better find some remote island and not consume anything that you don't make. It's part of life every time you shop. Or do you think the Boots bosses earn peanuts??

(V): whatever you say must be right
you twist things round to suit yourself has per normal

all im saying is in 2017 if the BBC has to show adverts to survive i be the happiest person in the UK
but you want to bring everything else into the conversation and twist it to make you look good
well i dont have time to argue with you so Good Night

Snoopy: I'm not twisting, I'm just exercising a bit of PERSPECTIVE. An opinion based on the wages some earn. Bankers getting big money bonuses, the energy companies making record profits, etc.

(V): Racist is a cheap term these days. I've seen real racism. What's tossed about these days as racism doesn't even come close. It's just a convenient way of minimizing the opposition. Little more than a cheap shot.

Artful Dodger: You've seen 'real' racism. So have many others and do so today. Just because it ain't burning crosses and segregation don't mean it ain't 'real'. We've witnessed racism here, religionism.. we lived through via the IRA v Loyalists.

Cheap use of 'real' is a politician trick. It's old... and doesn't hack it.

Artful Dodger:

>  What's tossed about these days as racism doesn't even come close.

In our modern era we have watered racism down so much that it doesn't even exist any more.  From now on all human beings are equal and everyone has the same rights and priviledges.  We should throw a big party in the streets and celebrate the end of human inequality!     

Übergeek 바둑이: So many people throw out the "racism" charge for so many non-racist things, when I hear someone throw out that charge I don't take them seriously. Racism is a particular thing. If true racism encompasses all the things that some have imagined, we are all racists. No one is exempt. And the leaders of the pack may just be the Black leaders, according to the definition they use.

I know racism is real and exists today. But not everything can be labeled racism. It's done too easily these days and frankly those that so easily throw out that charge perpetuate the difficulties between the races. Some people want racism to exist so that they have a cause to fight against.

Good to know that I'm not alone in my concern on the overuse of the term racism. It gets too much play today. Some think that the debate is over once you charge someone with being a racist. It's not so. Calling a duck a pig doesn't make it a pig. A duck is a duck. Racism is racism.

Misuse of the terms dishonors real victims of racism. Some have claimed that disagreeing with Obama is racism. The claim is that people who disagree with Obama's policies do so not because of legitimate disagreement, but because they don't want to see a black man succeed. How stupid.

As one blogger put it: "But today, the term racism has been misused and abused to the point where there is a real risk of a complete devaluing of the term. This would be a huge disservice to those who have or are experiencing the impact of true racism."

The blogger referenced Rep. Joe Wilson’s “You lie” outburst and how one senator called the remark racist. One can disagree with a person of color without being a racist. And calling Obama a liar is not racist. This is particularly true because in this instance, Obama was lying. A white lie but a lie all the same. BTW, Maureen Dowd, a NY Times columnist posted an opinion piece that came right out and said that Joe Wilson's comment was all about racism. She needs to read her history book and discover all the things that have been said about past presidents. Wilson's comment was tame next to some others. Even that baffoon Jimmy Carter is throwing out the racism charge. Was there ever a more inept President than Carter? Good thing he's white so I can say he's a buffoon. If he were black, I'd be labeled a racist.

A philosophy professor wrote a book on this very subject: I'm Not a Racist, But...: The Moral Quandary of Race (Paperback)
~ Lawrence Blum

Here's an excerpt from a review.

"From Booklist
The term racism has been so overused that it is in danger of losing its moral significance, according to philosophy professor Blum, who argues for clearer, more precise use of the word and related terminology. Blum examines related concepts and terms --institutional racism, personal racism, racist, racist beliefs--and their interplay as he explores the moral implications of racism on a multiplicity of levels."

It's exactly what I am saying, and I am right. The term racism is so overused that when some hear it (like me) they just shake their head and say, "Here we go again."

Maybe Griffin is a legitimate racist. But just because some pinhead carelessly throws that label at him doesn't make it so. No matter how much any of you protest to the contrary. Maybe what you think is racism is really your own ignorance at play. At least that's how I read it when people are so irresponsible with such a lethal charge. Perhaps those that carelessly level the charge are a bit bigoted themselves. Either that or intellectual cripples.

Artful Dodger:   Where have you seen "real" racism & in what context?

Artful Dodger:

>  Rep. Joe Wilson’s “You lie” outburst and how one senator called the remark racist

This is a tricky one.  Barack Obama (through the White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs) said that he did not believe that Wilson's comment was the result of racism.  Wilson later apologized rather informally to the president.  Democrats wanted him to apologize in the open floor of the House, but Wilson and the Republican caucus refused.  Since Wilson refused to apologize formally in the House of Representatives, he angered many Democrats and that is where the accusation of racism comes from.

Is Addison Graves Wilson Sr. (aka Joe Wilson) a racist?  In his case we are talking about guilt by association.  Wilson is associated with people who have been accused or were well known for being racist.  Joe Wilson worked as an aide to Senator Strom Thurmond.

Sen. Thurmond was one of the strongest supporters of seggregation and in 1957 he led the biggest fillibuster in US History.  He successfully blocked passing the Civil Rights Act of 1957.  For most of his life Thurmond defended his seggregationist views although later in life he moderated his views on race and even hired an African American aide.  He also fathered an illegitimate son with his African American maid.  It seems that Thurmond started as a hardened seggregationisn in South Carolina, but moderated his position later on.

Joe Wilson is also a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV).  This is an organization of male descendants of soldiers or sailors who served the Confederate States of America during the Civil War.  The SCV's mission is "preserving the history and legacy of Confederate heroes, so future generations can understand the motives that animated the Southern Cause."  Although the SCV has openly opposed the KKK, accusations against its members have surfaced over the years.  Those accusations include racism, revival of seggregation, and white supremacism.

A good question is whether Wilson can be accused of being a racist for having worked for a seggregationist and his being a member of the SCV.  The evidence is circumstantial at best.  Guilt by association is not proof, but it does make people think.  Jimmy Carter and Bill Cosby have called Wilson a racist, while Donna Edwards, an African American congresswoman, disagree.

What worries me about Joe Wilson is his campaign funding.  According to OpenSecrets.org, over his career he has received $251,196 from health professionals, $89,650 from pharmaceutical companies and $68,250 from hospitals and nursing homes.  The Health sector has been his biggest contributor over the years.  There is also a further $117,533 from lobbyist, and who knows who they work for.

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/industries.php?cycle=Career&cid=N00024809&type=I

His track record is not different from other politicians who are influenced by other sectors of the economy.  However, it could explain some of the motivation behind his outburst during Obama's speech.

Übergeek 바둑이: I wonder what the senate pro tempore had to say about all of that? Sen Robert Byrd from W Virginia

I/d bet he wished he "only" belonged to Sons of Confederate Veterans

GTCharlie:

Robert Byrd was a member of the KKK and he opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Of course, in this day and age he has tried (or pretended) to moderate his views.  He became a senator in 1959.  He was born in 1917.  That makes him 92 years old.  Something is very wrong when a man can remain in office for 50 years and into his ripe old age.

Well, senate reform is another topic, and a difficult one because it would involve a major rewriting of the constitution.  Here in Canada it is not much better.  Senators stay there until there are cobwebs on their dried up old bones!

GTCharlie:

The point I tried to make in my post about Joe Wilson is that people have labeled him a racist based on circumstantial evidence, not solid evidence.  Guilt by association is not proof.  Like I pointed at the end, he has received money from the health sector, and so have many other politicians.  I think Joe Wilson's outburst comes from a belief that the health sector as it is today is fine and it does not need change.  Receiving money from the health sector is not corruption but rather a reflection of his beliefs.

Joe Wilson's true mistake was refusing to apologize on the floor of the House.  His outburst was uncalled for, specially in front of the whole country and the whole world.  It showed disrespect for the Presidency and for the House of Representatives.  What would have happened if somebody had yelled "You lie!" when George W. Bush was giving one of his big speeches about the war in Iraq?  As a politician Joe Wilson should have acted less with his heart and more with his mind.  I think Barack Obama understands this and it is why he refused to press the issue.  It was other people who turned the issue into accusations of racism.

Übergeek 바둑이:What, is he 4th in line to be president?... see the thing is.. some stains can't be erased or " I'm sorry 'd" away,, Ted Kennedy is another .. Kennedy should have been a convicted felon , Like PA congressman T Druce, who went to jail and had his career ruined for vehicular homicide and not allowed to hold public office,just like Byrd.. what rankles is on both sides to point fingers at one..like Joe Wilson, yet toady up with another slime ball like Byrd....Ahhh but I stray... sorry!!!

Übergeek 바둑이: I agree,, That outburst was uncalled for, no one in the federal or state or local government should try to insult,diminish or humiliate the President in a public forum like Joe Wilson did. Tip O'Neil would never have done that

Übergeek 바둑이:> Something is very wrong when a man can remain in office for 50 years and into his ripe old age.... Actually something is very wrong when one is a KLEAGLE ( is there such a thing as former or past?)and get into office, let alone have the audacity to run for it

The BNP has it's roots in the National front. It has a policy of excluding people from joining it's party who are not white. And recently has been taken to court over this policy or face legal action by the courts. A number of active or past active BNP members have been prosecuted over conspiracy or actual bombings of non white people.

99%+ of the UK population by UK standards consider Nick Griffin and the BNP to be a racist organisation.

Not by American standards, but by UK standards.

Nick Griffin slanders our army chiefs and anyone else that dares to criticise him or his party because he is a weak minded individual who cannot take criticism.

Ferris Bueller: I cant answer for others...but let me share an experience I managed to live thru.
try being in 5th grade in a 98% black school the day ML king was assasinated.
as you can see from my picture...I'm not black.
2 monthes of living hell.
I had friends who would tip me off as to where the high school kids where waiting to beat up the white kids, and I would take my younger brothers out of their classes early to try and sneak out another exit, and run like hell 7 blocks to our home. sometimes we made it...most of the time we didnt.

every time I hear a black person yell "racist" , I think about those days.
its my opinion that only a racist would call another racist. the fact that that mentality is on their mind is proof it takes one to know one.

Übergeek 바둑이:   There's some more on my "South Carolina brother" Joe Wilson.  When Strom's black maid went public about the child, he called her a "liar" also despite the fact that the Thurmond family acknowledged it.  He then went off on a diatribe about how unpatriotic she was.

(V):   What do u consider the differences between American standards of racism & British ones?

Ferris Bueller:

This episode in Senator Thurmond's life is interesting to me.  I can imagine that he was conflicted about it through most of his life.

From what I read (the Internet is not always reliable) Storm Thurmond had an illegitimate daughter with Carrie Butler in 1925.  At the time Carrie Butler (an African-American woman) was working as a maid in the Thurmond family home.  Storm Thurmond was 22 and Carrie Butler was 16.  Their daughter, Essie Mae Washington-Williams, was supported by Thurmond through much of her life.  Thurmond paid for her college education and in 1946 she graduated in business from South Carolina State University.  Later she went on to get a master's degree in education and became a teacher in Califormia in the 1960's.

Thurmond fiercely campaigned for seggragation and against the Civil Rights Act of 1957.  When his daughter approached him about it, he apparently brushed off her complaints.  I think he must have been conflicted about it for much of his life.  If one believes Senator Thurmond's family claims, he loved his daughter and cared for and supported her.  She was born when he was very young, before he became a politician.

I would not be surprised if his support of seggregation came as a result of his own sense of shame over having had a relationship with an African American woman, and wanting to maintain some sense of the master-slave mentality.  Before slavery was abolished it was not uncommon for owners of slaves to father children with their African female slaves.  In the culture of slavery such relationships were considered unacceptable, but they happened nevertheless.

Thurmond did moderate his views later in life.  I think that once the Civil Rights Act was passed, he did not need to maintain the same dogged fight for seggregation, or some pretense of it.

After Senator Thurmond died in 2003 his daughter publicly revealed her parentage.  His daughter claimed that she did not reveal it during his lifetime because it was not of any advantage to her or to her father and that she had kept silent out of love and respect for her father.  At first those who supported Thurmond spoke out against her.  Joe Wilson was one of them.  He said that he doubted that she was telling the truth and that she was trying to diminish Senator Thrumond's legacy.  After Thrumond's family acknowledged the truth, Wilson was forced to publicly apologize.

To me, if there is a reason why racism and seggregation are bad, it is a story like this.  The fact that a father and a daughter had to spend their entire lives away from each other, merely exchanging money.  All because of skin color.  It is one of the destructive things that racism does.  It divides human beings and turns them into something they should never be.

I don't know if Joe Wilson is a racist, but when it comes to other people family life, it is better to be silent.  If wilson made a mistake here, it was to pass judgement blindly.  I wonder if his objection would have been the same if Thurmond's daughter had been Caucasian.

Joe Wilson actually called him a liar about the fact that no illegal immigrants would get free health care, but one wonders if the status of legal vs illegal will be changed. If a huge lot of illegals get declared "legal", then the president can't be a liar

GTCharlie:

I found an interesting document on illegal immigration in the US:

The Impact of Unauthorized Immigrants on the Budgets of State and Local Governments

It was prepared by the Congressional Budget Office.

According to the document, there are between 11.5 and 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States.  Of those approximately 6 to 7 million entered legally and then overstayed their visitor or work visas.  90% of illegal immigrants live in six states:  California, Florida, Texas, New York, New Jersey and Illinois.  Recently there is a trend for the illegal immigrant population to spread into other states.  In most states illegal immigrants make up a very small fraction of the population except in California where they make up 8% of the total population.  Approximately 1.8 million illegal immigrants are children under the age of 18.

There are 7.2 million illegal immigrants employed in the agricultural, construction and service industries.  Illegal immigrants have a lower unemployment rate than the rest of the population.  In 2007 illegal immigrant men experienced a 4.6% unemployment rate as opposed to 6.5% of the rest of the population.  Among women unemployment for illegals was 5.2% as opposed to 8.2% for women in the rest of the population.

The IRS estimates that approximately 6 million illegal immigrants file income tax returns each year.  Other researchers estimate that between 50 and 75% of illegal immigrants pay federal, state and local taxes.  The Social Security Admonistration (SSA) estimates that about half of all ilegal immigrants pay social security taxes.

"Researchers from the Urban Institute, the Migration Policy Institute, the Pew Hispanic Center, and the Center for Immigration Studies have assumed a 55 percent compliance rate for income, Social Security, and Medicare taxes."

"the Center for Comparative Immigration Studies at the University of California at San Diego conducted a survey of unauthorized immigrants and found that, in 2006, 75 percent had taxes withheld from their paychecks, filed tax
returns, or both."

This was an eye opener for me.  I used to think that most illegals payed little or no taxes.

In 1982 the Supreme Court ruled that it was illegal for any state to esclude children from receiving an education based on the childern's immigration status.  As a result most of the children of illegal immigrants receive an education.  In 2006 there were approximately 53 million schoolchildren in the US.  Approximately 4% of those children are illegal immigrants.  This has increased the budgetary stress on the educational system.

Illegal immigrants are less likely to have health insurance and they are more likely to rely on emergency room and public clinic services.  Since federal laws require some health services to be provided regardless of ability to pay or immigration status, many illegal immigrants receive healthcare services without being able to compensate for them.  (This is no surprise and a big part of the current healthcare debate is due to this.)

"According to a report commissioned by the United States/Mexico Border Counties Coalition, in 2000, county governments that share a border with Mexico incurred almost $190 million in costs for providing uncompensated care to unauthorized immigrants; that figure represented about one-quarter of all uncompensated health costs incurred by those governments in that year."

That means that about 25% of uncompensated healthcare is due to illegal immigrants.  (I thought it would be a higher percentage.  Nevertheless, 25% is a lot.)

Some studies estimate that immigrants cost more than they contribute to the tax system; for example:

"Recent estimates indicate that annual costs for unauthorized immigrants in Colorado were between $217 million and $225 million for education, Medicaid, and corrections.42 By comparison, taxes collected from unauthorized immigrants at both the state and local levels amounted to an estimated $159 million to $194 million annually."

"Another report—prepared by the state comptroller of Texas—estimated that, in 2006, the state collected $424 million more in revenue from unauthorized immigrants than it spent to provide education, health care, and law enforcement activities for that population. However, the state estimated that local governments incurred $1.4 billion in uncompensated costs for health care and law enforcement."

Overall, it seems to me that healthcare and education of illegal immigrants cost a lot, more than is offset by the taxes paid by illegal immigrants.  If only 50% of illegal immigrants are paying taxes, then the solution is to liberalize policy so that those people pay their fair share along with everybody else.  a good question is, would it be politcally possible to do so?  I think that the American public would not accept the legalization of 12 million immigrants so easily.

Übergeek 바둑이: what ever dude, that's not my debate, as a Brazilian friend said to me.."i was on the outside looking in,, trying to take care of my family'... and i would do as i had to also.. He was a street urchin who fought a hard deal.. he worked for Textron Lycoming.. I met him at Fidae '92

I was just sayin what joe was doing

Ferris Bueller:

I was trying to get Sen. Thurmond's psychology.  On the one hand he was openly against the Civil Rights Act, and on the other he had a daughter with an African American woman.  It is a deep contradiction in the man because he cared for his daughter (if we believe what his family has said).  Thurmond had the distinction of being the only senator to serve in the Senate at the age of 100.  He saw the entire 20th century unfold.

I see him (and the likes of Sen. Robert Byrd) as a transition in American politics from the racist politics of seggregation to our modern era.  Those men spanned two eras in politics from before to after the civil rights movements.  After this "old guard" in the senate leaves office then we will see some changes in the way laws and government are conducted.  These "old warriors" have a lot of political clout and are very influential.  Something interesting will be who replaces them and what changes in government take place.