Porous Membranes
It's been some time, but with effort I am able to recall Mr. Beckleheimer's AP biology class. This class, taken my senior year along with Mrs. Chandler's AP Literature class, marked the high point of my interest in science. One particular memory that stands out is the experiment regarding the transmission of sodium ions across a porous membrane. It was certainly a simple experiment of a basic principle, but it has implications beyond the obvious, or even other areas where diffusion of sodium across a membrane is important, such its role in electrically polarising neurons and permitting the "firing" of the cell.
Another example of diffusion over membranes comes in a political form. In this case, the membrane is the southern United States border. It seems a lot of Mexican ions are diffusing across this membrane as of late. The United States government has been reticent to shore up border security despite the threat of terrorists crossing into the United States with something particularly unpleasant. Some of the more cynical might think that, with better border security, future terrorist attacks would be greatly hampered, and there would be no impetus for greater security powers that the government craves.
But it is not our place to question our betters in government. Instead, we must examine the concrete issue of the pros and cons of unregulated illegal immigration. Some have claimed that the true threat is not al-Qaida but rather the increasingly virulent Mexican drug gangs that actively pursue law enforcement with superior tactics and weapons.
In any case, the immigration issue has become the "elephant in the room" of contemporary American politics. Neither political party supports a crack-down on the border, and it is rarely mentioned in what passes for political discourse nowadays. This is curious, because there is considerable public support for such a measure. However, it seems both parties are ignoring it so that they do not appear "extremist." This attitude is rather silly when the parties are either pushing for Intelligent Design theory to be taught in classrooms or constantly comparing Gitmo to a Gulag.
Why are they ignoring it? Some more cynical types might claim that the parties cannot harm themselves by ignoring the problem, and can pick up the vote of illegals (which is rather substantial) in the process. Again, if there's one thing we've learned from the media, it is that we have no place to question the motivations of our betters in Washington, which are undoubtedly noble.
In any case, it seems that the flow will increase soon. It seems a virtual certainty that hard-left Mexico City Mayor Lopez Obrador will be elected to the Presidency of Mexico next year after he was cleared of a pesky criminal investigation involving abuse of power. He is widely compared to Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and Brasil's Lula da Silva. Although Sr. Chavez is undoubtedly a fine democratic leader completely uninterested in establishing a dictatorship, Lula is another story. Apparently the number of Brazilians entering the United States since Lula's election has increased drastically. According to some, the number of Brazilians entering the US has quadrupled since 2002, which (coincidentally, of course) is the year when Lula was elected on the "I loooove Brasil!" platform from the "Workers' Party". He has attempted to create a South American trade bloc with Cuba and Hugo Chavez to rival the economic juggernaut of El Norte somehow.
Again, some cynical people believe that the cycle of South American politics continues much as it did in the fifties, sixties, and seventies. First, there is a successful government that encourages growth. Eventually, that government is defeated in elections by a hard-left government that opposes los Norteamericanos and said new government tries to create either a regional power bloc or work with another foreign power to overthrow the Gringo domination. Then, either they become enough of a nuisance and are promptly removed by CIA (Allende, anyone?) or they destroy the political and economic structure of the nation with their policies and give an opportunity for the military to take over and rule for a good decade or two. Eventually, the military steps down and a civil government is elected, starting the cycle over again.
If Sr. Obrador, Sr. Chavez, and Sr. da Silva want to get together with Cuba and after a "Weekend at Fidel's" party decide to form a South American regional superpower, who's to stop them? They only have a few years before their respective militaries kill them, so it's important that they have some fun beforehand. However, I propose that the United States should stop playing "protective parent" and let them do as they please. That said, we should close the southern border. The last thing we need is to become a place for people to hide from the consequences of their actions. That way, while we deal profitably with stable allies such as Japan and Australia in the Pacific, we can wave at our Southern friends and watch as their attempt at a regional super-bloc collapses. Perhaps we can make it into one of those popular reality shows, where the audience can thrill to the back-stabbing that invariably follows grand ideas of unification such as this one. If so, said programme will be one of the few types of foreign investment heading into these far-left nations, seeing as how there is no Soviet Union to prop them up, and China prefers not to be too Communist.
Politics aside, here's the result of a fun test I discovered thanks to Professor Massa.
Another example of diffusion over membranes comes in a political form. In this case, the membrane is the southern United States border. It seems a lot of Mexican ions are diffusing across this membrane as of late. The United States government has been reticent to shore up border security despite the threat of terrorists crossing into the United States with something particularly unpleasant. Some of the more cynical might think that, with better border security, future terrorist attacks would be greatly hampered, and there would be no impetus for greater security powers that the government craves.
But it is not our place to question our betters in government. Instead, we must examine the concrete issue of the pros and cons of unregulated illegal immigration. Some have claimed that the true threat is not al-Qaida but rather the increasingly virulent Mexican drug gangs that actively pursue law enforcement with superior tactics and weapons.
In any case, the immigration issue has become the "elephant in the room" of contemporary American politics. Neither political party supports a crack-down on the border, and it is rarely mentioned in what passes for political discourse nowadays. This is curious, because there is considerable public support for such a measure. However, it seems both parties are ignoring it so that they do not appear "extremist." This attitude is rather silly when the parties are either pushing for Intelligent Design theory to be taught in classrooms or constantly comparing Gitmo to a Gulag.
Why are they ignoring it? Some more cynical types might claim that the parties cannot harm themselves by ignoring the problem, and can pick up the vote of illegals (which is rather substantial) in the process. Again, if there's one thing we've learned from the media, it is that we have no place to question the motivations of our betters in Washington, which are undoubtedly noble.
In any case, it seems that the flow will increase soon. It seems a virtual certainty that hard-left Mexico City Mayor Lopez Obrador will be elected to the Presidency of Mexico next year after he was cleared of a pesky criminal investigation involving abuse of power. He is widely compared to Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and Brasil's Lula da Silva. Although Sr. Chavez is undoubtedly a fine democratic leader completely uninterested in establishing a dictatorship, Lula is another story. Apparently the number of Brazilians entering the United States since Lula's election has increased drastically. According to some, the number of Brazilians entering the US has quadrupled since 2002, which (coincidentally, of course) is the year when Lula was elected on the "I loooove Brasil!" platform from the "Workers' Party". He has attempted to create a South American trade bloc with Cuba and Hugo Chavez to rival the economic juggernaut of El Norte somehow.
Again, some cynical people believe that the cycle of South American politics continues much as it did in the fifties, sixties, and seventies. First, there is a successful government that encourages growth. Eventually, that government is defeated in elections by a hard-left government that opposes los Norteamericanos and said new government tries to create either a regional power bloc or work with another foreign power to overthrow the Gringo domination. Then, either they become enough of a nuisance and are promptly removed by CIA (Allende, anyone?) or they destroy the political and economic structure of the nation with their policies and give an opportunity for the military to take over and rule for a good decade or two. Eventually, the military steps down and a civil government is elected, starting the cycle over again.
If Sr. Obrador, Sr. Chavez, and Sr. da Silva want to get together with Cuba and after a "Weekend at Fidel's" party decide to form a South American regional superpower, who's to stop them? They only have a few years before their respective militaries kill them, so it's important that they have some fun beforehand. However, I propose that the United States should stop playing "protective parent" and let them do as they please. That said, we should close the southern border. The last thing we need is to become a place for people to hide from the consequences of their actions. That way, while we deal profitably with stable allies such as Japan and Australia in the Pacific, we can wave at our Southern friends and watch as their attempt at a regional super-bloc collapses. Perhaps we can make it into one of those popular reality shows, where the audience can thrill to the back-stabbing that invariably follows grand ideas of unification such as this one. If so, said programme will be one of the few types of foreign investment heading into these far-left nations, seeing as how there is no Soviet Union to prop them up, and China prefers not to be too Communist.
Politics aside, here's the result of a fun test I discovered thanks to Professor Massa.
| Der Resistance Achtung! You are 0% brainwashworthy, 27% antitolerant, and 47% blindly patriotic |
| Welcome to the Resistance (Der Widerstand)! You believe in freedom, justice, equality, and your country, and you can't be converted to the the dark side. Breakdown: Your Blind Patriotism levels are borderline unhealthy, but you show such a love of people from everywhere and a natural resistance to brainwashing, you would probably focus your energy to fight Fuehrer with furor, so to speak. Conclusion: Born and raised in Germany in the early 1930's, you would have taken up ARMS against the oppressors. Or even your friends' oppressors. Congratulations! Less than 5% of all test takers earn a spot in Der Resistance! |
 |
My test tracked 3 variables How you compared to other people your age and gender:
|
| Link: The Would You Have Been a Nazi Test written by jason_bateman on Ok Cupid |
posted by The Admiral at 6:52 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home