Right and Wrong and Free Speech

I came across this today which amazingly continues on the theme of my Right and Wrong post. This is from an article in response to Obama's U.N. Anti-Free Speech resolution; as USA Today stated "the Obama administration has joined a U.N. effort to restrict religious speech." From the John Birch Society, "It has been pretty clear that the Obama administration does not look with particular favor on the second amendment, but it is also becoming increasingly evident that the President is not much of a ‘fan’ of the first one, either...The Obama administration has marked its first foray into the UN human rights establishment by backing calls for limits on freedom of expression."

Apparently, Obama described the measure as a method to stop blasphemy and to protect religion. Yet why, world wide, are people being persecuted for saying "homosexual," being "anti-gay," by classifying disagreement with abortion as "hate speech," etc? These things may show intolerance, but they do not deal with religion or blasphemy.

So what is the common thread running through all these speech prohibitions? The standard being applied is not one of blasphemy.
It is offensiveness.

Thus, what’s happening here is not religious but quintessentially secular. After all, blasphemy is predicated on the idea that external, universal, unchanging laws (God’s laws, the Truth) dictate that certain things really are sacred and that we must respect them, that we must, in a manner of speaking, avoid “offending” God. Yet [they] are only concerned about offending man. And in making “man the measure of all things,” they are guilty of a typical atheist mistake. That is, if there is no Truth (a notion that reduces morality to opinion) who is to say it’s wrong to offend people?

Moreover, making man god and then saying “Thou shalt offend no god” is far scarier than anything Mideastern Imams conjure up. This is because blasphemy prohibitions are actually fairly limited, only pertaining to impious utterances relating to a certain religion. Yet, since the secularists are using that which “offends man” as the yardstick, and since man comprises thousands of groups the world over, there conceivably is no limit to the number of speech prohibitions such a standard could spawn (Selwyn Duke).

Obama says he is stopping blasphemy, but his blasphemy has nothing to do with God. Looking at his war on Fox News, Obama seems to define blasphemy as anything that contradicts him. He has out rightly attacked Fox News, attempting to stop their reporting. The other major news agencies, having watched the circus the last few weeks, have finally banded together with Fox.

Now, I know all the articles I have quoted are extremely conservative. I apologize for that. I actively sought for a balanced perspective on this UN Free Speech discussion. Shockingly, none of the larger media other than Fox have touched this; but it is moving like wild fire on the smaller sites and blogs. And obviously my support for an eternal Right and Wrong only comes from conservatives. As Selwyn Duke put it:

An atheist would say that religionists' reasoning is based on a silly assertion; namely, that the divine exists. I won’t argue that here but will only say that the secularists’ offensiveness-based speech laws are silly regardless of the facts. After all, while secularists’ relativism dictates nothing can be wrong, they claim it’s wrong to offend others. They also claim nothing can be sacred but yet would have us treat certain people’s feelings as sacred.

They just don't make sense...

Right and Wrong and Math

Here are the principle points of People’s Law as practiced by the Anglo-Saxons…[point number three] The laws by which they were governed were considered natural laws given by divine dispensation, and were so well known by the people they did not have to be written down (5000 Year Leap, p 13).

It is interesting how the more I read about the Constitution and early US Government, the more I hear about Natural Law. Our Founders, and the majority of people at the time, believed in Natural Law which, simply and roughly put, is God’s unalterable Law. It is a divine, eternal right and wrong. Today, Natural Law has been erased almost completely. Modern dogma states that there is no way to know absolutes, and it is inappropriate to judge others by your belief. In example, why is homosexuality wrong if there is no eternal law on sexual reproduction? Why is anything wrong, for that matter? Who said cheating, or lying, or stealing, or killing is wrong? If not God then society. You may say, “but I make up part of society, and I really see no reason for those things to be wrong. And why deny physical desire? I want it now. Who came up with abstinence, tolerance, patience? If not God then society; my friends and I say ‘wait no more.’ In the words of Better Than Ezra, ‘If it feels good, do it. If it tastes great, drink’ (Teenager).”

I feel the battle in our society is not whether this or that is right or wrong, but whether there is right or wrong. If there is no wrong, then whatever the majority desires is correct. However, if there is no wrong, there is no right. No right, no good; no good, no bad.

This argument just seems ludicrous to me.

Abraham Lincoln said, "When I do good, I feel good; when I do bad, I feel bad, and that is my religion." Why did he feel good when he did good or bad when he did bad? Why do you? For that matter, why does charity and service exist in the world at all? Why does the general populous not lie, steal, and kill? It makes no sense for us not to do any and everything we can to get gain. So there has to be something more at play here. Example: if the government stopped punishing murder, that would not suddenly make man, woman, child, willing to go out and kill. Yes, I’m confident the murder rate would soar. But I believe that those increased murders would be primarily committed by the same few who now kill. The majority would still be horrified at the idea of taking life. Why is that so, if there is no absolute right and wrong?

I find solace in mathematics. In math, there are rigid laws set in place that function under all conditions and through all time. As you undoubtedly know, 1 + 1 can only equal 2. It did so six thousand years ago. It does so today. It will tomorrow. Saying there is no absolute right and wrong, no Natural Law, is like saying the natural law of math allows for 1 + 1 to equal 2, 3, 271, or whatever the public majority feels like this certain year. ‘Who are you to say that it equals 2 and all the rest of us are wrong for saying it equals 271?’



This argument is far larger than I care to make at this point; far larger, in truth, than I have yet thought out. But it seems to me that since there is a law that clearly states mathematically that there is a right and there is a wrong, and that law is the foundation of everything in our existence, then it seems odd to ignore its implication in human interaction and ethics. It was the mathematical law that allowed the Egyptians to build the pyramids. It is this same law that today thrusts humans into the void of space. It is this same law that dictates the decoding of DNA and the formation of cells within us. It is the same law that shows when, say, chemicals inhaled from cigarettes reach a certain threshold, a chain reaction occurs within the body. Or that cells die in the absence of oxygen after so much time. It also dictates the formation of planets, the movement of their paths, and the fusion in stars.

The natural law of mathematics is the basis of everything and it empirically points out the validity of absolute rights and wrongs.

Our nation was built upon Natural Law, despite what the prevalent thought de jour may claim. On July 4th, 1776, Congress declared that they were “to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them,” (Declaration of Independence, para 1). Again, who said there is wrong and there is right? Who said that free sex, drugs, and killing babies is wrong? If not God, then who? Our founding fathers knew these things were wrong. Just as the 1776 congress and Lincoln, I surmise that when I do good, I feel good and that Natural Law decrees it; just as 1 + 1 equals 2.

Physical Looks

Before I dive in, I want you to know this topic doesn’t come from any event in my personal life. I am inspired from reading the study called, Young Women’s Dating Behavior: Why Not Date a Nice Guy? Turns out that women lie about what they look for in a partner. They list the attributes that are socially expected, but studying their dating history shows they ignore those attributes and are actually attracted to a totally different list of attributes. Men do it too. For certain reasons it is considered culturally inappropriate for men to state they are very interested in a girl’s looks or shape. So men lie about how important this is. When discussing attraction, we make sure we have a healthy list of personality traits above anything physical.

But looks count— a lot. I’m not going to lie about it. And I refuse to be embarrassed by it.

When I meet a girl, there are many attributes I consider when weighing if I will date her or not. I want to stress that in a detailed analysis ‘looks’ would be broken up into many different characteristics. They would not be my first attributes. There are many more important things to me. That said, looks are important. And for this brief discussion the term ‘looks’ is used as an umbrella embracing all physical attributes.

Now, some of you have already deemed me a jerk. Before the rest of you join those ladies let me explain why looks count.

I’ll start with the most obvious: A good looking girl is pleasant to the eye. Enough said.

Second: Body type. Physical shape denotes whether the girl is active or not. I am a very active guy. I hike, climb, bike, and on and on. I love sports and I love the outdoors. They are a disproportionately large part of my life. Accordingly, I look for a girl who likes these activities so she will enjoy doing the things I do. Body type is a quick way to estimate her level of fitness.

Third: Staying in shape is work. This goes for both sexes: a person who is fit, with toned muscles, has put for the effort to keep his body strong. We all know how easy it is to give up and let ourselves go. As he led his men through World War II, Captain Dick Winters of the 506 PIR made the solid connection that physical fitness is directly tied to mental and emotional fitness. Soldiers who let their physical training slip while in the field let other aspects slip: more important aspects dealing with mental alertness and dedication and perseverance. The same holds true for us. A person who lets himself or herself go because it takes too much effort to keep in shape is quite likely letting other things in their life go that take too much effort. Granted, staying fit is harder for some of us than others. But giving up is a dangerous indicator.

The fourth: personal appearance. This includes make-up, cleanliness, and dress. First, if a girl is clean and dressed nicely it means she is interested in making a good impression. This doesn’t correlate at all with her availability to date. It does, however, give insight into the way she intends to interact with the world (including people she will date). Second, if she takes care of her appearance she most likely pays close attention to other aspects of her life; whether mind, emotions, or goals. A clean body likes to stay clean and tends not to live in filth and chaos. A girl who is willing to spend an hour a day washing and straightening her hair is often willing to spend ten minutes straightening her room or studying.

I think I’ve made my point by now. Yes looks do attract men physically. Perhaps many men never move past my first point: they like to look at and touch pretty girls and that is enough. But more importantly, looks can give a glimpse of who the girl really is: her passions, habits, and hobbies. And that is why looks count for me. They tell me about the girl.

Customer Service

I have just been stabbed in the back by a good friend. Or at least, that is how I feel. Odd, I know. You don’t normally have such emotions for a software company. But Adobe and I have been together for a long time. Back in the 90’s I had the first version of Adobe Premiere the company ever developed. I’ve grown up right along side as it.

My computer was not working well so I finally formatted the drive and reinstalled windows last week. That was trouble enough, but is again running smoothly. I have reloaded my stacks of programs including Adobe Production Suite Premium, CS2. I am back in gear and ready to go.

But no. Something went wrong. CS2 had an error when I loaded After Effects. It loaded half of it and I then had to load the other half on a second attempt. I then activated Adobe CS2. It accepted. I’ve used several programs without problem. But last night I tried After Effects. It would not let me in, saying I “have to personalize my software” giving it my serial number and name. I shrugged, put my serial number in again, and AE rejected it. I’ve tried all variations and work-arounds. I get nowhere. I have discovered that not only can I not use it, I cannot repair, modify, reinstall, or uninstall it. It is in some sort of warped alternate dimension. I deleted it manually and then cleaned my registry. It says it is still loaded and will not let me reinstall. So what now? I format my hard drive and try again? No way.

And this brings us to the title of this journal entry: Customer Service. I figured I would just call Adobe, explain the situation, and get valuable information on how to fix it.

I was wrong.

First, the girl that had the good fortune to answer my call was in India. I have never before had a problem with the concept of outsourcing. Now I do and I'll tell you why. I couldn’t understand her. I had to keep asking her to repeat. Worse still, she couldn’t understand me. She understood most of my English, but the idea of my problem escaped her. We couldn’t communicate. It took five minutes for her to gather my name, serial number, phone number, email, software type. At the end of which I had to clarify again that I had a question and was not just calling in to register.

She did not know the answer and had to ask her manager. Finally, “I’m sorry sir, but we do not support CS2. You must upgrade.”

Silence. I ask: “What do you mean you do not support CS2?”

Silence with some breathing and quiet mumbling.

I continue seeking clarification: “Are you saying ‘not support’ as in Adobe will no longer activate or allow CS2 because it is three years old, or ‘not support’ as in Adobe will just not answer my valid question because they desperately want me to buy their new product?”

With some effort I received, “Adobe will not support CS2. It is no longer active. It will not run.”

“But wait a minute,” I said. “I just told you I installed CS2. I logged it onto the internet and activated the software through Adobe. It works fine. It does run. All except AE. Which means two things: First, that Adobe does still ‘support’ CS2, and second, that I do have a valid problem and need your help.”

Several minutes of quiet jabbering followed. “My manager says you must upgrade.”

I was offended. Adobe was telling me, through this little girl, thanks for spending your $1000 on our software. Now we are forcing you to spend $1599 more on our latest version if you want us to talk to you.

“I think I should call technical support.” I said.

“This, eh, is technical support,” she replied.

And my heart sank as I suddenly realized how hopeless this all was. Oh the problem of outsourcing. She was technical support. She was the last line of help for Adobe issues. She was Indian, young, didn’t speak fluent English; and most of all: I got the distinct impression she had never even used the Adobe software I was having issues with. What a waste of time on two levels: we had failed to communicate on the level of actual language, and second, the level of technical Adobe experience. I had now been on the phone for fifteen minutes seeking enlightenment from a girl who had less experience with the software in question than I had the first day I bought my first copy.

How different this experience could have been had I called Adobe for help, been answered by a young girl in Seattle who spoke English as her first and natural language, and who had years of experience playing and working with Adobe products. How different indeed.

I said calmly, “So instead of tech support answering my technical problem with the legitimate software I already purchased from you, you are telling me to go out and buy your new $1599 software instead of helping me?”

“Yes.”

Silence. Then more jabbering that continued for five more minutes. I realized she must be conversing with her cube mates and manager. After twenty minutes on the call, with no solution, she hung up on me.

Now that is what I call customer service.

Self Worth

During sacrament meeting last Sunday I pondered what has worth? I spend my life worrying about my time, now forced to devote it to ARUP. Or how I need more money. How am I going to make ends meet? I also want to buy more and more cool gadgets. I love gadgets. They make me feel more masculine or something. I don’t know, but I have rooms full of them.

Is any of this of worth? Do my possessions add to my worth? Does making more money than you add to my worth? No. It is of no importance. It is all illusory fluff that distracts me from the one and only thing that has any importance whatsoever: myself. What matters is how I perform my job, earn my money, and grow personally. “There's nothing of any importance in life - except how well you do your work. Nothing. Only that. Whatever else you are will come from that. It is the only measure of human value” (p.99, Atlas Shrugged).

It suddenly appeared odd to me how desperately I cling to all those other modes of worth. I cling to my physical possessions. I cling to my habits. Charles Du Bos advises “to be able at any moment to sacrifice what we are for what we could become.”

Am I too caught up in my accumulated ‘worth’ to now see the way to what I can become? I think that is worth thinking about. What do you think?

Save our Parks - Turn off the TV

Have you visited a national park lately?

"The iconic American family vacation to a national park, after 50 years of rising popularity, is now in steady decline. From 1987 to 2007, per capita visits to national parks shrank by 23 percent" (Scientific American hereafter mentioned as Sci Am).

I only went to one last year. Why didn't I go to more? Well, personally, work. I wouldn't let myself take the time off. What is your excuse?

"Surprisingly, we discovered that 97.5 percent of the decline in national park visits could be explained by just four factors: the rising price of gasoline and the increasing amount of time people spend plying the Web, playing video games and watching movies. Although correlation is not causation, the relationship was strong."

The last three of those four factors, web, video games, and movies, really blend into one. That one I call 'life.' Sci Am "coined the term 'videophilia' to describe 'the new human tendency to focus on sedentary activities involving electronic media.'" The problem appears to be: less people coming to parks, less funding. Less ardent support for environmental protection.

As Sci Am puts it, "Nature: use it or lose it."

Well, I'm going to go watch a rerun of Seinfeld.

Proud to be an American

I sat down this morning with a bowl of Fruity Cheerios and the Saturday paper and was greeted by the following stories:

Man killed in Wal-Mart stampede
"A Wal-Mart worker was killed Friday when "out-of-control" shoppers desperate for bargains broke down the doors...other workers were trampled as they tried to rescue the man...at least four other people were taken to the hospital including a woman who was eight months pregnant."

When the police tried to make the people leave after the man's death and as the ambulances were showing up, "people were yelling, 'I've been on line since yesterday morning.' 'They kept shopping.'"

2 men shot to death in California toy store
"' I think the obvious question everyone has is who takes loaded weapons into a Toy's "R" Us?'"

As I finished my Fruity Cheerios and drank down the leftover sugary, purple colored milk, I asked myself, "Is this my America? Are we proud of ourselves?"

Obama and the Media

In May I did a quick study of political coverage in all the main news sources I follow. I had a hunch. Everything I read or heard seemed to be about Obama or Clinton. Clinton has since dropped out.

Some of the sources I tallied, for an idea, were BBC World News, CNN Politics, KSL, MSNBC, NPR, Washington Post, Yahoo, etc.

What I found was that since March 2007, Obama had cornered 30 percent of all political stories. John McCain had only 22 percent. That may not seem like much, but the difference over one year is quite large. It equates to more than 1000 stories about Obama than McCain. Counting Hillary, the Democratic party received 61 percent of the news. The Republicans, less than 39 percent.

Glenn Beck stated for CNN today, "According to the Tyndall Report, a service that monitors the three network news broadcasts, ABC, NBC, and CBS have spent a total of 114 of their national airtime minutes covering Obama since June. They've spent 48 minutes on his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain." So Obama is getting over double the airtime.

Who is the media's baby?

I find it odd, though, that the media has so happily fawned around Obama, the same media that attacks big business and complains frequently about an interfering federal government. The irony being that Obama is funded solely by big business and promises to give the federal government more control of our daily lives.

"He's [Obama] been on the cover of U.S. News and World Report, GQ, Rolling Stone, US Weekly (twice), Time and Newsweek (a combined 12 times) and will soon be on the cover of Men's Vogue for the second time. To be fair, Men's Vogue also did an in-depth story on John McCain but, strangely, a photo of McCain didn't make their cover.

"Why the disparity? According to Men's Vogue deputy editor Ned Martel, there's a simple explanation: Obama 'is what is called in the magazine world an "interest driver." ' Translation: Obama sells magazines."

Of course. It all comes down to ratings and money. The media, in general, doesn't care about Obama. He is simply their new cash cow and they are milking him for all he's worth. What bothers me is that by doing so, they are avoiding many other important issues. I know very little about McCain because what little I find in the media is a cowering shadow of the many news stories on Obama. I know when and how Obama exercises, I know his favorite drinks; all thanks to the in depth media coverage. But with McCain, I barely even know his entire platform. To find it, I have to actively search for it.

"We've become a country that continually chooses the sizzle over the steak. McCain may not get my vote, but he gets my admiration for at least offering some substance and new ideas when he speaks. Obama, meanwhile, is like the rock star who's realized that he can just scream unintelligible words into the microphone between songs, and the entire stadium will still scream. When your fans already love you, there's no reason to risk it by offering anything that might be controversial. Remember the Dixie Chicks?

"As candidates, Barack Obama and John McCain are ironically a lot like the way the media treats them: Obama is the glitzy magazine cover that screams for people to buy the issue, and McCain is the fact-filled article buried inside that makes you glad you did."

For the full article, see http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/23/beck.obama.media/index.html?eref=rss_mostpopular

And did you know Ralph Nader is running for President? I didn't. I found that he received .3 percent of political news coverage. That is 36 stories in the last year to Obama's 4000. In these same news sources I found Jesus Christ in 222 stories, or 1.7 percent of the political news. So He is getting better coverage, and at this rate, I'd say has a better chance of becoming the next President than Ralph Nader.

Ralph, buddy, you've got to get your message out there better.
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=3827127

A FrontRunner Review

This was written back in May when they had three days of free riding.

I rode FrontRunner today, the new commuter train running from Salt Lake City to Ogden. I figured, why not? I wanted to ride it just for fun and to see the Wasatch by train while it was free. Apparently everyone else had this same idea; the train was packed.

But I am getting ahead of myself. First I must describe the daunting Farmington station. I parked as close as I could and still had to ask directions to the station from fellow commuters in order not to get lost in the seemingly endless ocean of cars. That is awesome. If only they really could keep this many cars off the road daily. Then, looming far above me in the distance I spied what I thought was an observation platform letting people get a birds-eye view of trains as they passed. It turned out to be a crosswalk bridge. Before I could think of any jokes about its enormity, my train pulled in to the station. Ah, the unavoidable last second dash to the train.

I ran up the two plus stories of stairs and started across the crosswalk. This thing was enormous. I quickly realized I had no chance of crossing, descending, and catching my train. That was fine. The schedule said a train arrived every ten minutes.

The schedule lied.

Back on the ground I was forced to ask: why did they put the massive bridge riders are forced to summit to cross to the station completely opposite from the platform crosswalk at the very end of the station? The government’s way to tackle American obesity?

I walked and walked and walked. Finally I crossed. Perfect. It had been ten minutes. Just in time for the next train. Boy, to take the Frontrunner you really have to plan ahead.

I took a seat and waited. And I waited more. Then I read. Then I grew worried about just how much time this was taking.

A cry of joy rose from the crowd on the platform. The train was arriving. The train is beautiful and very nice on the inside too. Perhaps my admiration is a result of riding Italian trains with soot and graffiti covered windows. How long will Frontrunner last until it matches its Italian cousins?

The train was full. I found an open seat on the top floor (yippy!) and was awarded with a stunning view of the mountains, and of the freeway traffic zipping past us. On my return trip it was traffic on residential back streets passing us. Isn’t that only 25 mph?

I rode from Farmington to Ogden, a distance of roughly 20 miles as the train crawls, in an hour and a half. Round trip was over three hours. Not too impressive. But that will improve with time. The trains both direction are sharing one track and so continually stop to let the oncoming train pass. This seems like a bad idea, but hopefully UTA will quickly get the coordination and timing down so the long pauses in the middle of nowhere disappear. One passenger told me, “Well, this is to be expected.” Why is it expected? Can’t you have trains timed correctly or use separate tracks or is that expecting too much? I know that may double the cost of track, but here on the Wasatch front there are between three and four tracks now down side by side. The entire time I was on Frontrunner only one Union Pacific freight train passed on their two or three tracks. I can only assume UTA failed to negotiate successfully with Union Pacific for coordinated use of their lines. Maybe some research on this topic could be enlightening.

Once again, I have cause to compare to the wonderful Italian trains that don’t stop randomly, and are regularly on time. I know that is not fair. To truly compare the two systems, lets give UTA millions of dollars more, and another 20 years to get its feet established and head on straight.

But it is hard not to compare…

Ilegal Immigration and Xenophobia

This is a quick thought I had reading the May 17^th, 2008 Aljazeera news PCBC(politically correct bull crap):

“Spain’s deputy prime minister [Fernandez de la Vega] has criticized the detention of about 400 foreigners in Italy in a crackdown on street crime and illegal immigration, saying it encouraged racism and xenophobia” (ALjazeera.net, Saturday, May 17 2008)(Italics added).

Italy’s Roberto Maroni, interior minister, insists that “the crackdown was on criminals, not foreigners.”

Spain’s DPM said the action exalts “violence, racism, and xenophobia.”

How does the police actually getting up off their rears, stepping outside of the cafes, and protecting people result in exalting violence? What kind of messed up place is Europe? That is a rhetorical question. Those of us who have lived in Europe know the contradictory laws and expectations the police and military have to put up with in the EU.

Now, what I am about to say may shock and anger some people, especially De la Vega of Spain. And it may class me as a racist xenophobe. But, most of the illegal immigrants that Italy is cracking down on, believe it or not, are not Italian. I know, I know. This may come as a shock. That is why I warned you. Illegal immigrants in Italy tend to be from, gosh, some other country. So I guess Italy is racist. How dare they round up criminals who happen to be foreigners? They should let them do whatever they feel like, why, because they are foreigners.

The BBC News brought up the point again in their Wednesday, May 28, 2008 article “Italy Condemned for ‘Racism Wave.’” Turns out Amnesty International “is extremely alarmed by what it calls a ‘climate of discrimination in Italy’”( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7423165.stm). The Italians this week have passed (finally) a new law giving Police the power to arrest and detain illegals and also more power to deport them (Finally!). Amnesty International is outraged that these new laws “target, above all, immigrants.” Above all? I am pretty sure these laws only target immigrants. As I already stated, to be an illegal immigrant in Italy, you have to be from some other country.

Italy cites the rising crime as the motivation for these new laws. As Maroni stated, the “crack down was on criminals” not just foreigners in general. The street crime is a delicate issue. I lived in Italy for two years, and have gone back and visited as well. I have seen a shooting, several robberies, a mugging, and been threatened at knife point. First off, can you start to see why Italy is concerned about street crime? When a foreign visitor, such as I, has had so many pleasant encounters in their otherwise beautiful country? Second, guess how many Italians were the perpetrators in these situations? You are right. Not even one. Each and every time I witnessed something ‘go down’ on the street it was perpetrated by a person from some other country. How do I know? Well, the perpetrators were the wrong color, height, build, and couldn’t speak Italian. That gives it away, don’t you think?

While Italians do mill around the streets even late at night, riot against the police every chance they get, and occasional kill people at soccer games, I have yet to meet one who isn’t friendly, if not a little sarcastic. And other than being asked for a cigarette, they have never tried to take anything from me or harm me.

I know, I know. This makes me a racist xenophobe. Sorry. I guess we should just let anybody and everybody in that wants, and leave them to do whatever they want. Whether they decide to get a job or to kill, steal, lie…They are foreigners. They don’t know better. And making them obey the laws of the country they have sneaked into isn’t fair when they aren’t even legal members of that country. Isn’t that what Amnesty International is saying?