The Facts; Lets End The Argument

While looking for source material on the subject, I came across this article from USA Today by Alan Gomez. It is such a well written piece I decided to post it here, it is far better then anything I could write and he says pretty much what I wanted to say.(USA Today, Alan Gomez, July 16, 2015)

HOW VIOLENT ARE UNDOCUMENT IMMIGRANTS?

MIAMI — The war over illegal immigration in this country is too often waged via hyperbole.

Undocumented immigrants who are valedictorians of their high schools classes are held up against those who are members of brutal street gangs. Undocumented immigrants either help local economies flourish or bleed them dry. They're either hard-working, law-abiding members of society simply trying to improve their lot in life, or job-stealing opportunists who are holding Americans back.

After years of covering immigration, I've found only one absolute certainty: the truth always lies somewhere in the middle. And so is the case with the latest battle that started with Donald Trump's reaction to the murder of Kathryn Steinle, allegedly killed by an undocumented immigrant in San Francisco.

Trump, the billionaire Republican presidential hopeful, has used that killing as proof that he has been right all along about undocumented immigrants, that they bring with them a level of criminality far higher than native-born Americans. Immigration advocates have fought back, arguing that this was an isolated instance far from representative of the entire population of 11 million undocumented immigrants.

So who's right? Let's look at their numbers.

Supporters of the Trump theory have been pointing to data from the U.S. Sentencing Commission that found undocumented immigrants account for disturbingly high levels of violent crime. While they represent just 3.5% of the U.S. population, undocumented immigrants represented 7% of federal prison sentences following convictions on charges of sexual abuse, 9% of murders, 12% of assaults and 30% of kidnappings in 2013.

Case closed, right? Far from it.

Only a tiny percentage of the nation’s violent crimes are handled by the federal court system. Yes, undocumented immigrants accounted for 9.2% of federal murder convictions in 2013, but that represents a grand total of eight murder cases. When you consider that the FBI estimates there were 14,196 murders in the U.S. in 2013, those few cases handled by the federal court system don’t quite register as a reliable sample set.

The same goes for the other violent crimes cited in those statistics. Add the fact that undocumented immigrants are far more likely to be caught up in the federal court system because of non-violent immigration violations, and the numbers shouldn't mean much.

But when updated data for 2014 were released last week, largely mirroring the previous year's figures, many pounced on them as proof of rampant crime by undocumented immigrants. Rep. Mo Brooks, R-Ala., cited the data in a column last week, and the numbers received prominent coverage by conservative outlets such as Breitbart.

On the other side, many immigration advocates have been pointing to a report also released last week by the American Immigration Council. That study used different kinds of data that led to the same conclusion, that undocumented immigrants commit violent crimes at a far lower rate than native-born Americans.

First there's the big picture. From 1990 to 2013, the number of undocumented immigrants in the country tripled from 3.5 million to 11.2 million. Yet during that time, violent crime rates dropped 48% nationwide, according to the report. Since undocumented immigrants make up such a small percentage of the population, it's impossible to draw a straight conclusion from those numbers, so let's see what else they've got..

The authors also looked at incarceration rates for males between 18 and 39, since most crimes are committed by males in that age range. Using data from the 2010 Census, the report found that 1.6% of foreign-born males are in jail, compared with 3.3% of the native-born population. Researchers have long questioned the accuracy of Census data for prisoners, since the information they get from inmates is often incomplete, and immigrants could lie out of fear of being deported. But the authors found similar trends going back to 1980, so that helps bolster their case.

Finally, the authors tried to isolate undocumented immigrants through a variety of narrow studies conducted in recent decades. In each case, they found evidence to show that undocumented immigrants were less likely to commit violent crimes than their native-born neighbors.

So where does that leave us?

The reporter in me wishes there was a more definitive way of comparing crime rates for undocumented immigrants and the American-born population. But using the data we have, it seems impossible to responsibly claim that those immigrants are more likely to commit crimes than their American-born neighbors.

Don't trust me? How about the Center for Immigration Studies, which opposes any kind of plan to grant legal status to undocumented immigrants and regularly testifies in Congress against them.

"There's no evidence that immigrants are either more or less likely to commit crimes than anyone else in the population," Janice Kephart, a CIS researcher, said last weekon the PBS NewsHour.

In the world of the immigration debate, that's as definitive as it gets.

Hmmm...so then....people are people, whomever they are? What a novel idea.

Really?

I have been approached by a few people regarding my blog post on Donald Trump. In it, I give examples of how he has flip-flopped from leaning left, then racing to the right, and now sneaking back over towards the left again. My reasoning behind this was to point out what a phony he is by pretending to be ultra conservative when his record reflects otherwise.

I tried very hard while writing the piece not to become angry and start sniping at conservatives. The louder you yell an opposing opinion at someone the more they dig their heels in.  Besides, politics has now become a personal issue for people; criticize their party and you may as well have insulted their mother. Instead of respectfully listening to the other side, or even having a knock down drag out but emerge as friends because “it was only a discussion”, we approach each other like we are mortal enemies, that our very humanity is being questioned by the other person. It used to be that everyone, elected official or common citizen, wanted the same thing; the correct way to make our country a better place. The differences between the parties were in how problems were solved, a difference in priorities, but not this extreme hatred we have for each other right now. My grandfather was a conservative Republican who was also a lobbyist for a major power company yet he and JF Kennedy co-authored several bills together.  There is no way you will see that kind of cooperation in today’s political climate. The Republicans unashamedly said that they would go against the Democrats, even if it is something they too want. This is not governing; this is using the average Joe as a chess piece in their play for power.

The media grabbed this trend and ran with it, fueling flames and creating bad blood using nothing but tone and innuendo at first, and now out and out lies and, even when called on, gain more followers from it because the “out to get us” paranoia is rampant. All of this has created a toxic climate for this country. Friends and family are fighting each other over ideologies with the ferocity of gladiators. What is even  more disheartening  is that we all know of people who lost their relationship with a friend or even a family member  over  ideologies that in reality do not affect them at all. It’s almost as if we are in a civil war right now.

My point  is this; because I wrote a piece on Trump (who embodies everything I despise ) without becoming hysterical, without insulting him, without drinking my own liberal Kool-Aid that makes us as hateful as the conservatives, it  is assumed by some that I would vote for him even though my friends and family should know me well enough to know that would never happen.  I was being civil not only because that is the way of continued sanity, but if you want someone to listen to you and maybe consider assimilating new ideas, you do not yell, belittle or insult them. My intent for that post was to calmly state facts that would illustrate that this man is a phony who is playing to those that adore him. He saw an opening and filled it. He is crafty.

Apparently, if you are not with us(liberals) by being angry all the time over politics you are against us.

Apparently if I do not pop a vein  in anger over the opposition I am with the opposition.

Its looking more and more like civilized discussion is a dying art. I was simply trying to discredit Trump in rational way so no one could come back and call my a hysterical liberal but apparently by doing that I am getting my liberal card revoked.

TURNCOAT TRUMP?

Its no secret I am a liberal. For me, part of being liberal means keeping an open mind, which is why I do not call myself a Democrat, nor am I registered as one. Yes, if the right Republican came along I would vote for her/him (My dirty little secret is I voted for Ronald Regan the first go round). Though it is early in the race, I find myself watching certain people and crossing off others that will obviously not be around to see most of 2016.

One of these to watch  is The Donald. To be clear, I am coming into this race with a clean slate. I never knew much about him before except what he looked like, that he was rich, married several times to European women and had some TV show where he got to say “You’re fired”. That’s it. So when I saw him during the first couple months of his campaign I was appalled and then a bit cynical. How could a man who comes across as a blustering blowhard, a childish name caller, an egomaniac, an instigator, even be considered for the presidency? With the actual election being so far away, the more interesting question was, how did he make it in business with this puerile personality?

The answer is; he didn’t. The Trump we saw in the beginning has mellowed considerably since his bizarre descent on the escalator. We have watched him go from a cartoonish cult of personality to an occasionally reasonable human being for a millisecond, and he is still evolving, much to the dismay of the extreme right and the ultra extreme Tea Party.

Recently, I have seen him doing talk shows and sounding rational. No shouting, name calling, interrupting, smirking…he even looks like he is listening to the person across from him. The biggest surprise was when I heard a bit of compassion come out of his mouth. This got me wondering again; Who is this man? Obviously he cannot be the crazy guy we saw in the beginning or he would never have made so many “good deals” in his professional life. So I did some digging and was shocked to find out some things, things that make a lot more sense for a person well liked in the business community.*

Here is a brief comparison of the pre and post candidacy of Donald Trump.

·        In 1999 he stated he was very pro-choice. "I hate the concept of abortion," he said. "I hate it. I hate everything it stands for. ... but I just believe in choice.” Then in January of this year during an interview with Bloomberg, Trump said, "I'm pro-life and I have been pro-life." He said he believed there should be exceptions in cases of rape, incest or the life of the mother. (Which for me is a whole other can of worms that I will tackle later)At the conservative CPAC conference in February, he stated, “I am now pro-life; after years of being pro-choice.”

Trump had a history of misogynistic remarks long before his infamous spat with Megyn Kelly of Fox News, yet not only had he said so himself prior to the Kelly exchange, but Michael Cohen, Trump's general counsel/VP at Trump's organization said that, while Trump's companies employ 57% men and 43% women, "There are more female executives at The Trump Organization than there are male." Certainly this is easy enough to prove or disprove and Cohen has offered to make the data available so there is credibility here.

·        In his book “The America We Deserve” Trump wrote that he generally opposed gun control but supported a ban on assault weapons and a longer waiting period. At the 2015 NRA-ILA Leadership Forum, Trump said if he became president, "the 2nd Amendment will be totally protected." He said he does "not support expanding background checks" and said current background checks "don't work."

·        On Larry King’s show in 1999 Trump said he was "very liberal when it comes to health care" and that he believes in "universal healthcare,” and yet he called Obamacare "a disaster called the big lie" during his announcement to run, adding that the deductibles were so high they were virtually useless.

·        Trump changed his party from Republican to Independent in 1999, and switched again to Democrat in 2001.  Has been a registered Republican since 2009.

·        
1990; “We’re losing badly (sic) the war on drugs. You have to legalize drugs to win that war. You have to take the profit away from these drug czars.” (This is one issue he has not waivered on, but is included to illustrate a liberal viewpoint).

·        In 1999, Trump suggested the government collect $5.7 trillion in new revenue by levying a one-time tax on all individuals and trusts worth more than $10 million. With that revenue, Trump hoped that the federal government could cut taxes on the middle class and save Social Security. Yes, Donald Trump called for a 14/25% tax on America's richest people.

If you think this is all ancient history, let’s look at what he has said in the last few months, things in addition to the above:

·        He believes affirmative action to be a good thing and you should not be able to fire someone because of their sexual orientation.

·        With the exception of abortion, he would fund Planned Parenthood.

·        He is against a flat tax.

·        He favors a ban on all assault weapons.

·        He does not “fully believe” in supply side economics.

·        Germany should take the lead in the Ukraine.

·        He wants to stay out of wars that do not present a "direct threat" to the U.S.

Then we come to Hillary Clinton. It has been widely publicized that the Clinton’s attended Trump’s wedding in 2005 (technically Bill did not show up until the reception, but Hillary had a front row seat).  Either Trump or his son donated to Clinton in 2002, 2005, 2006 and 2007, plus he's donated at least $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation. Yet on NBC he called Clinton "the worst secretary of state in the history of our nation" and said she would be "a terrible president."**  Meanwhile, Bill Clinton told Jon Stewart that Trump has been "uncommonly nice to Hillary and me."

So what is the explanation for this man’s duel persona?

For the conspiracy minded, Rep. Carlos Curbelo of Florida has fodder. "I think there's a small possibility that this gentleman is a phantom candidate," Curbelo told Miami radio host Roberto Tejera in July. "Mr. Trump has a close friendship with Bill and Hillary Clinton. They were at his last wedding. He has contributed to the Clintons' foundation. He has contributed to Mrs. Clinton's Senate campaigns. All of this is very suspicious." He believes Trump to be a “candidate recruited by the left to create this entire political circus.” 

I personally have a couple ideas (and would love to hear from Dear Reader). One is that Trump has known from the beginning he could not win but is such an attention whore that he wanted to have a bit of fun. Once he realized he was a viable candidate, he has begun to take this more seriously and is slowly dropping the buffoon act.

Another thought; Perhaps he planned it like this all along. Begin by catering to the most radical on the right and slowly transform into someone moderates can support, meanwhile keeping his most outrageous ideas (Mexico paying for a boarder wall) alive to string along the hard core conservatives.

Whatever his reasons or motivations are, it is of utmost importance that every voter know all the facts and history of each candidate. If Donald Trump truly is liberal then the conservatives need to know this before they vote him into office and find they got a raw deal, though from a selfish standpoint I can think of nothing more satisfying.

* Jeb Bush is on the scent too, having made a video that highlights old and recent Democratic-leaning statements by Donald Trump. The video, dubbed "The Real Donald Trump," includes clips of Trump saying he is "very pro-choice" and that "in many cases I probably identify more as a Democrat."

** People magazine said that the guest list included former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani and media and entertainment personalities like Katie Couric, Matt Lauer, Simon Cowell, Regis Philbin, Kelly Ripa, Star Jones and Barbara Walters.

Sources: Reuters, Washington Post, Bloomberg, New York Times, MSNBC, Chicago Tribune, Politifact, Daily Mail, Miami Herald, Mother Jones.

WELCOME TO THE NEW AND IMPROVED LOUNGE

As The Lounge's readership grows, so grows The Lounge. Hope you like the new look; sophisticated but not too serious. Even more, I hope you enjoy the content.

Planned Parenthood Under Attack Again

Here we go again.    

             

The opportunity to possibly dismantle Planned Parenthood (PP) has raised its misguided head once again. In my half century on this planet I don’t think I have gone 2 years in a row without the radical religious trying to eliminate an organization that, statistically, saves more “lives” then it harms. I use quotes around “lives” because it still has not been scientifically determined exactly when a mass of tissue becomes a human life and no, potential doesn’t count, otherwise squirrels would be stashing whole trees away for the winter. 

Once science can determine exactly when life begins, I am sure we will have an agreed up time frame for abortion, because at that point it will be murder, no debate. But we all know that is not going to happen because making that determination is impossible. Most people do agree, however, that once a fetus can survive outside the womb, abortion is probably not the most humane thing to do. It has been agreed upon in the medical community that at 24-26 weeks the fetus becomes self-sustainable. As of this writing, 3 states allow abortion after 26 weeks and 9 states plus The District have no limits. This is not ideal and I have spoken to many liberal, pro-choice advocates that have said this is unacceptable. We are pro- CHOICE not pro-ABORTION so we do understand limits…reasonable, medically based limits.

Instead of throwing the proverbial baby out with the bath water, lets continue to work on improving these laws,  because statistics have shown, time and again, that legal abortion saves lives. If a 16 year old girl gets pregnant and is dependent on her pro-life parents, she is going to find a way to terminate that pregnancy.  Whether through a “back alley” abortion, or drinking some bogus concoction, or by using the DIY coat hanger method, she is gravely endangering her own life. Logic tells us that if an abortion is going to take place, why not do it in a safe manner so the woman does not die with the tissue, which will die whether the abortion performed is legal or not. So now, pro-lifers, you have 2 dead  “lives”; the “baby” and the “mother”. I am not making this up. This is what has happened time and again, as abortion has alternately become legal and illegal. 

These pro-lifers are not looking at the big picture, not looking at lives saved and lost, they are moralizing. I especially target the ones who think somehow it is acceptable to abort in the case of rape or incest. I did not realize that “babies” conceived under these circumstances were no considered lives…or are you really saying “Rape and incest are not your fault, therefore you may abort. But rutting in the back of a car with a boyfriend is a sin so you shall pay the price and keep that child”. Try to argue this point with someone who thinks this and do not allow them to quote the bible or cite religious beliefs. They haven’t a leg to stand on.

Which brings me to our latest dilemma, the secret taping of the PP luncheon where discussion of selling fetal tissue for profit is titillating pro-life groups. They got us now!

Not quite.  We are not talking about some weird Frankenstein fantasy the far right seems to have, we are talking about a legal situation, where the patient consents to donate the tissue removed from their bodies to medical research, no different than checking the box on your driver’s license allowing your body parts to be used to, at the least, further research into life saving cures and at most, directly saving an actual life.  Harvard researchers, among many others, are excited about the advances in curing or even preventing Parkinson’s Disease using fetal tissue, and drug companies rely on fetal tissue for drug testing,  stating that reactions and effects of experimental drugs (from cancer to diabetes, heart disease) on fetal tissue mimics those reaction on people, eliminating dangerous trials on actual standing, sentient beings.

Here is a list, almost sixteen years old, of the benefits of fetal tissue use in medicine.  I found no other comprehensive list that was more up to date and time restrictions prevent me from researching all of the progress made in the last sixteen years since this was compiled, yet even old information is encouraging:

From The American Society of Cell Biology:

• ·          Following evidence that the expression of a specific protein in the fetal thymus may be related to the development of Type I (juvenile) diabetes, fetal tissue transplantation is being evaluated as a possible treatment.
• 
  
• ·          Fetal nerve tissue has been used in experimental treatments of spinal cord injury, holding promise of a possible repair for cord damage in certain types of paralysis.

• ·          In 1998, Dr. John Gerhart derived human pluripotent stem cells from fetal gonadal tissue destined to form germ cells. When grown in culture, these cells resemble other types of pluripotent stem cells in that they can develop into cells of other tissue types. This research represents a major breakthrough in stem cell research that may lead to treatments of a variety of devastating diseases.

There is plenty more info on the internet if you have time for the research.

My points are these: Abortions will happen. Women are resourceful and sometimes desperate in these situations and will find a way to terminate their pregnancy, more than likely endangering their own health in the process, and even unknowingly risking death. See table below.

As for the outcry against fetal tissue research because of this video, the facts are that PP does not profit from this practice and that women are willfully donating their tissue to medical research, something that is not only legal, but should be praised and, frankly, could save your grandchild’s life at some future point. From FactCheck.org, a highly respected site by both political parties:

Four experts in the field of human tissue procurement told us the price range discussed in the video-$30 to $100 per patient-represents a reasonable fee. “There’s no way there is a profit at that price,” says Sherilyn J. Sawyer, the director of Harvard University and Brigham and Women’s Hospital’s “biorepository”

This recently edited and released, yet 2 year old video has caused a huge uproar, which is not difficult regarding this issue anyway. Once researched, it has been found that this video was edited from a 2 hour full version. In this video, it was stated by Deborah Nucatola, the senior director of medical services at Planned Parenthood, “Affiliates are not looking to make money by doing this. They’re looking to serve their patients and just make it not impact their bottom line.”

Nucatola also says, “No one’s going to see this as a money making thing.” And at another point she says,” Our goal, like I said, is to give patients the option without impacting our bottom line. The messaging (sic) is this should not be seen as a new revenue stream, because that’s not what it is.”

Another complaint has been the “casual” tone of the discussion, that it seemed heartless and cold to discuss “baby parts” like this. Having worked several years in the medical profession, I can tell you that what doctors, nurses and surgeons say out of earshot of patients would curl your hair. It is not done out of callousness, it is simply a part of life. Every situation loses its shock value after extensive exposure, and we should be positive about that, otherwise a promising med student that faints at their first autopsy would not be able to become a heart surgeon and save countless lives in the future.

We must understand that Planned Parenthood is not a baby-killing facility, but a much needed and depended on women’s health center. Abortion is only a small part of what they do in the big picture.

-80% of PP clients receive services to prevent unintended pregnancy and prevent approximately 516,000 unintended pregnancies annually.

-PP provides nearly 400,000 Pap tests and nearly 500,000 breast exams annually.

-Provides nearly 4.5 million tests and treatments for sexually transmitted infections, including 70,000

  HIV tests annually

-THREE PERCENT of all Planned Parenthood services are abortions.

-Annually provides educational programs and outreach to 1.5 million people.

And finally, though a macabre point, what would the pro-lifers have us DO with fetal tissue? This issue, this non-issue, is not going to make abortion illegal. Do they expect doctors to hold burial services for aborted fetal tissue? If it doesn’t go to research, if its not used to help the living, it is going in the biohazard bin and will be incinerated. Do not kid yourselves; the local pastor will not be saying a few words and then erecting headstones.  Again, these are not people. If we knew for certain aborted tissue was a person then abortion would be murder and therefore illegal, period.