 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeArticlesDiving DestinationsLearning Scuba DivingMarine LifeMiscellaneousDiscussion GroupsGeneralScuba EquipmentScuba LocationsAustralian ScubaUK ScubaDirectoryScuba Clubs |
Scuba Forum / General / September 2007Peter Hughes message re Galapagos
Any of you get this ?? ------------------------------------ Caution: This email does contain several graphic images of mutilated sharks. This is a special "ocean conservation" email from Peter Hughes Diving to inform you of a very recent change (July 30, 2007) in Ecuador law that now allows the legal sale and exportation of shark fins and products. The practice had been banned in all of Ecuador until July 30th. In short, this change opens the legal door to shark over-fishing and the even more despicable practice of "shark finning" (just cutting off the fins and throwing the body of shark, sometimes still alive, back into the sea to die) in Ecuador. Ecuador, of course, is also home to one of the world's most unique archipelagoes, Charles Darwin's fabled Galapagos Islands. If you have visited the Galapagos, you have already experienced the thriving populations of Hammerheads, Galapagos Sharks, Whale Sharks, and multiple species of rays, just to name a few. If you have not visited the Galapagos, you have certainly heard about it, and for many divers the Galapagos is very near or on the top of their "Must Travel" list. Worldwide, there is almost universal agreement that the Galapagos must be protected for future generations. Above and below water. But the new government decree in Ecuador will prove absolutely devastating to the sharks and marine population of the Galapagos. We have included information below to give you a clearer understanding of the situation, and respectfully ask you to review it and write to us with your opinion. We will share those thoughts and opinions with President Rafael Correa, the government, and media of Ecuador. Once again, we ask for your help to restore a full ban on shark finning and commercial shark fishing in Ecuador, and thank you in advance for your consideration... Thank You and as always... Be Ocean Minded, Peter and Bill Peter Hughes, Peter Hughes Diving, Inc. Bill Gleason, Editor, PHD DivEmail ______________________________ Galapagos and Shark Finning: The Facts Historical: Conservation efforts began in the Galapagos as far back as 1936, and in general have been progressive, if a bit difficult to monitor in a marine park area encompassing more than 50,000 sq. miles, most of it open ocean. Named a UNESCO World Heritage SIte in 1979, the Galapagos instituted stringent conservation measures, including banning the commercial sale of sharks from the waters of the Galapagos. Subsequent efforts include the formation of the Galapagos Marine Reserve in 1998, and the additional designation by UNESCO as a "Natural Heritage Site" in 2001. Despite overall progress, illegal fishing has been observed and reported within the National Park, and continues to this day despite strict regulations against it. Shark Fishing as an industry was banned throughout Ecuador until July 30, 2007. July 30, 2007: The Government of Ecuador, in an apparent effort to assist local fishermen on the mainland of Ecuador, and directly through the office of President Rafael Correa, repealed Decree 2130. Decree 2130 specifically banned the exportation and sale of shark meat and fins from all of Ecuador. With a single stroke of a presidential pen, the sale and exportation of shark meat and fins is now legal from the mainland of Ecuador as long as the fishermen attest the sharks were caught "incidentally" while fishing for other legal species. This is known as "by-catch" in fishing circles. While shark fishing and finning is still banned in the Galapagos, this legal "loop-hole" in Ecuadoran law opens the door to widespread commercial poaching and illegal shark fishing and finning in the waters of the Galapagos Marine Park. Why? For the same reason Willie Sutton used to give when asked why he robbed rob banks ("that's where the money is..."). Galapagos is where the sharks are! And that's where the fishermen are going to go to get them. Recent news reports in one of the largest newspapers in Ecuador and a scientific study published in 2005 by the conservation group WIldaid both report this very, very troubling statistic: " Up to 80% of all sharks and shark fins landed on the mainland of Ecuador come from the waters of the Galapagos Islands" Laws don't mean much to a finned shark, and while the situation in Ecuador "on paper" appears to protect the shark population of the Galapagos (it is still banned as an activity there), the very troubling reality is the fishermen are going to go after the sharks and then land them "legally" for sale and exportation on the mainland of Ecuador. Ecuador has a relatively small navy and a very limited government Fisheries department, so enforcement of any regulations is difficult. With the new legislation, it will be virtually impossible to tell where the sharks (and fins) actually came from, but perfectly legal to sell and export them. That's extremely bad news for the Galapagos. What Can You Do? Please join us in writing to the government of Ecuador to reverse this action immediately. An ocean disaster is waiting to happen, but if we move quickly, you can help us avert it. PLEASE WRITE US AN EMAIL (instructions below), and we'll print them, collate them, and distribute them to President Correa, members of the Ecuadorian government, media, business, and conservation worlds. Just Hit the REPLY button ( phddivemail@waterpath.com), and address the Subject Line of your email to: Attention: President Rafael Correa, Ecuador The email should begin with: Dear President Correa, Please remember to "sign" your email with your name, City, State, and Country. We will delete your email address when we print and distribute the letters as a prevention against SPAM, etc. Your name will appear, but your full email address will not. Please join us in asking President Correa: 1. To immediately re-institute Decree 2130 and make it again illegal to sell and export shark fins and shark products under any conditions. 2. If possible, strengthen all enforcement activities against illegal shark fishing and shark finning, througout ALL of Ecuador, including the Galapagos Islands. Some more thoughts for your email are listed below, but please, WRITE TODAY to keep the shark populations in Ecuador and the Galapagos healthy, and to preserve the unique international treasure that is the Galapagos Islands. Some Tips on Writing To President Rafael Correa and the Government of Ecuador: 1. Ecuador is a sovereign nation, and most of us are not citizens of Ecuador, so please be cordial in requesting President Correa's help to correct this situation NOW before irreversible damage is done. Specifically, re-institute Decree 2130, now. 2. If you have visited the Galapagos, and enjoyed both the wonders of the Galapagos and the warmth of the people of Ecuador, please mention it. The Galapagos Islands are an international treasure and should be protected at any cost. 3. We are urgently requesting President Correa to re-institute the strict laws against shark fishing and the sale and exportation of shark fins in Ecuador. And/or strengthen them even more. Ecuador does not have a large navy or fisheries authority, so policing even strict laws is difficult. There should be no "gray" areas in fishing policy that will encourage illegal activities. 4. Under the new guidelines, we are all very, very concerned that illegal over fishing and shark finning will be conducted in the waters of the Ecuadorian coast AND the Galapagos. 5. The marine resources of Ecuador and the Galapagos are a national and international resource, and should be handed down to future generations intact. PLEASE FEEL FREE TO FORWARD THIS EMAIL AND ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO WRITE AS WELL. _____________________________ Many of us were part of an international group of concerned divers which forced the Disney Corporation to get out of the "shark finning" business two years ago. Your letters and opinions absolutely convinced Disney to stop serving Shark Fin Soup at its Hong Kong Theme Park. Please, we can do it again in Ecuador with your help. And, thank you so much for your personal time and consideration, Peter and Bill ________________________________ PETER HUGHES DIVING, Inc. 5723 NW 158 Street, Miami Lakes, FL 33014 Ph: 1-800-9-DANCER (800-932-6237), (305) 669-9391, Fax (305) 669-9475 email: dancer@peterhughes.com web site: http://www.peterhughes.com About PHD DiveEMAIL: This is a complimentary news service by Peter Hughes Diving, Inc., sent only "by permission" through the services of WaterPath Electronic Publishing. If you would like to ADD a friend, DELETE, or CHANGE your email address, please hit the REPLY button and include the appropriate word. Or respond to: phddivemail@waterpath.com All email addresses are strictly confidential. ___________________________________________ "Please Be Ocean Minded" Copyright, August, 2007 by Peter Hughes Diving, Inc. and WaterPath Electronic Publishing On Aug 10, 6:07 am, hierophantf...@hotmail.com wrote: > Any of you get this ?? > This is a special "ocean conservation" email from Peter Hughes Diving > to inform you of a very recent change (July 30, 2007) in Ecuador law > that now allows the legal sale and exportation of shark fins and > products. The practice had been banned in all of Ecuador until July > 30th. > Please, we can do it again in Ecuador with your help. > > And, thank you so much for your personal time and consideration, Of course, and I'm doing my part by getting on a plane Tuesday morning headed to the Galapagos in time to catch the very next PH boat to Wolf & Darwin so I can personally lend a hand in warding off shark finners. Is that responsive, or what? Shame on all other rec.scubans for not doing the same. > On Aug 10, 6:07 am, hierophantf...@hotmail.com wrote: > > Any of you get this ?? [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > finners. Is that responsive, or what? Shame on all other rec.scubans > for not doing the same. How about penning up a nice, legal, professional boilerplate letter and posting it here so all of us can use it to professionaly slam the dickhead that allowed this to happen? I can have at least 30 people use it, maybe more. >> On Aug 10, 6:07 am, hierophantf...@hotmail.com wrote: >> > Any of you get this ?? > How about penning up a nice, legal, professional boilerplate letter and > posting it here so all of us can use it to professionaly slam the dickhead > that allowed this to happen? What would Greg know about the laws in Ecuador?! On Aug 11, 6:42 am, "Kula" <eeolson(thapt spam eaters)hawaii.rr.com> wrote: > >> On Aug 10, 6:07 am, hierophantf...@hotmail.com wrote: > >> > Any of you get this ?? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > What would Greg know about the laws in Ecuador?! Actually, I know enough to know that any letter from "concerned Americans" is not going to make a bit of difference. But I'm not as worried about the changes to the shark fin law. In fact, it might help the problem. Currently, there is no doubt that shark finning is occurring there notwithstanding the existing ban on the sale of shark fins. Why? Because people are poor and shark fins can rake in $50 each. That's enough for a dedicated shark finner to make it worth the risk and worth paying a hefty bribe to any law enforcement that might get in the way. When people view laws as unjust, there's less stigma involved with breaking the law, more people willing to risk breaking the law, and more police willing to look the other way when people break the law, especially if their palms are greased. There's no doubt that a law requiring fishermen to throw away dead shark bycatch when otherwise that dead shark would be worth $50 might be viewed as unjust by an impoverished citizenry. By moderating the law to allow sale of bycatch fins, it might appease the people enough to convince them to support enforcement, or at least appease the police enough to enforce the law against the most obvious of the non-bycatch finners. Maybe not, but I try to be an optimist. > But I'm not as worried about the changes to the shark fin law. In > fact, it might help the problem. Currently, there is no doubt that [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > the law against the most obvious of the non-bycatch finners. Maybe > not, but I try to be an optimist. In that light, I know we can count on you to report if it has become out of control or nominal. As long as there is a market for shark fins, rhino horn, bear gall bladder, peyote, heroin, cocaine, marijuana, alcohol and tobacco, there will be a source to feed the market. Legal or not. > > But I'm not as worried about the changes to the shark fin law. In > > fact, it might help the problem. Currently, there is no doubt that [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Legal or not. Yep. As far as I know, restaurants in the U.S. are still allowed to serve shark-fin soup. Unlike heroin or cocaine, we don't even try to ban its consumption. Heck, we're still letting our injuns kill whales. Housecleaning needs to start at home before we can tell other countries how best to serve our demand for contraband. > Yep. As far as I know, restaurants in the U.S. are still allowed to > serve shark-fin soup. Unlike heroin or cocaine, we don't even try to > ban its consumption. Heck, we're still letting our injuns kill > whales. Housecleaning needs to start at home before we can tell other > countries how best to serve our demand for contraband. http://www.awionline.org/oceans/news/shark-finsoup.htm > > Yep. As far as I know, restaurants in the U.S. are still allowed to > > serve shark-fin soup. Unlike heroin or cocaine, we don't even try to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > http://www.awionline.org/oceans/news/shark-finsoup.htm I personally boycott restaurants that serve shark-fin. It doesn't happen that often that I've planned to go to particular restaurant and then changed my mind, since I don't go out for exotic Chinese too much. Here in SoCal, like some other metropoli, we have Heath Dept. letter grades posted on the restaurants. The authentic Chinese restaurants that might be serving shark-fin, and there are some world- class dimsum/seafood palaces in the almost 100% Chinese-populated Monterey Park/San Gabriel area near here, are lucky to get B ratings. I don't frequent restaurants that get docked over 10 points since that usually means some serious violations, not just a few nitpicks. Therefore, the shark-fin restaurants are already boycotted for other reasons. But I do recall looking at an online menu one time when planning where to eat on a domestic vacation, I forget where, and upon noticing that they served shark fin, I decided to find a different restaurant. Now if the other 300,000,000 or so Americans could do the same thing, we'd put these shark-fin consumers out of business. Since that ain't likely to happen, congressional action is probably the best way to handle this, except that a lot of congressmen would feel pressure from Chinese-American groups to vote against a federal ban. My local rep, David Dreier, is a Republican, someone who doesn't care about anything else other than keeping our troops in Iraq and our Mexicans in Mexico. He'd be absolutely no help on an environmental issue. Maybe one of you who live in a progressive area like Western Washington could write your Democratic congressman and urge a federal ban? > But I do recall looking at an online menu one time when planning where > to eat on a domestic vacation, I forget where, and upon noticing that > they served shark fin, I decided to find a different restaurant. Now > if the other 300,000,000 or so Americans could do the same thing, we'd > put these shark-fin consumers out of business. Unfortunately, I think the population you need to address would be the Asian-Americans who would seek out establishments that serve, then order and eat shark fin soup. I have never seen such a thing on any menu, nor would I patronize any establishment that did, and if I did encounter such a place, you can bet I would bitch to US Fish and Wildlife, all my congress and representative types, the Governor, the Health Department and post the name of the shithole here. I would also contact a bud of mine who is the environmental reporter for one of the larger local papers and get the name of the restaurant put in the paper. In this part of the state, with Evergreen College and the enormous hippie populations of Olympia and Seattle, there would likely be an arson/lynching/candle-light vigil/peace-march situation develop. Not to mention the Tribal influence. As far as congressmen go, unlike you, I see no huge difference between the parties, they are all whores. Your chosen brothel seems to be capable of some sleight of hand that makes you think they are voting differently or doing more to end the war in Iraq (and now deny starting it), but the truth is quite different. Speaking of which, when are you Californians going to put Feinstein's feet to the fire for making Randy Cunningham (who is in prison) look like an amateur when it comes to defense department influence peddling and war profiteering? Something you said about cleaning houses... > Unfortunately, I think the population you need to address would be the > Asian-Americans who would seek out establishments that serve, then order and [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Seattle, there would likely be an arson/lynching/candle-light > vigil/peace-march situation develop. Not to mention the Tribal influence. Good luck. I'm sure there's plenty in the I District of Seattle. No one, not even the hippiest Seattlite or Bellinghammer, holds a candle-light vigil for the killers portrayed in Jaws, Jaws II, and Jaws 3D. Here's one example at 714 S. King St., just a few blocks from where the Mariners and Seahawks play their games. http://www.fourseasrestaurant.com/rsoups.htm $40 a bowl. Let me know the response you get. It's an old business. Here's a 1944 Time Magazine article: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,774958,00.html > As far as congressmen go, unlike you, I see no huge difference between the > parties, they are all whores. Your chosen brothel seems to be capable of > some sleight of hand that makes you think they are voting differently or > doing more to end the war in Iraq (and now deny starting it), but the truth > is quite different. There's a big difference in how they protect the environment. Check the "report cards" issued by the many environmental groups if you don't believe me. > Speaking of which, when are you Californians going to put Feinstein's feet > to the fire for making Randy Cunningham (who is in prison) look like an > amateur when it comes to defense department influence peddling and war > profiteering? It's not a California issue, it's a federal issue if there is one. Like I said before, get Bush to appoint one of his US attorneys to investigate. That's his job. > Something you said about cleaning houses... Speaking of Western Washington and banning certain animal products, here's an amusing article regarding another animal ban: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070811/ap_on_fe_st/odd_goat_sex;_ylt=AhQZiVMoLaQBBR WE.3zxw3QuQE4F > Good luck. I'm sure there's plenty in the I District of Seattle. > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,774958,00.html Two e-mails just went out, and soon as I get done here, I am sending to my reps. I'll post the drizzling nothing from my democrat reps here. > > As far as congressmen go, unlike you, I see no huge difference between the > > parties, they are all whores. Your chosen brothel seems to be capable of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the "report cards" issued by the many environmental groups if you > don't believe me. That not what you said, and it doesnt address any single question or issue. > > Speaking of which, when are you Californians going to put Feinstein's feet > > to the fire for making Randy Cunningham (who is in prison) look like an [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Like I said before, get Bush to appoint one of his US attorneys to > investigate. That's his job. Nice dodge. Doesnt bother you a bit, since she is a gun-grabbing, lying, stealing, democrat. > > Something you said about cleaning houses... Another non-answer. > Speaking of Western Washington and banning certain animal products, > here's an amusing article regarding another animal ban: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070811/ap_on_fe_st/odd_goat_sex;_ylt=AhQZiVMoLaQBBR WE.3zxw3QuQE4F Hey, if you are interested, I am sure he could show you the ropes... > "Greg Mossman" <moss...@qnet.com> wrote in message > Doesnt bother you a bit, since she is a gun-grabbing, lying, stealing, > democrat. Then you'd think the Bush Administration would go after her like they went after Cunningham. They could at least have the FBI raid her office like they did Jefferson's. Or maybe you just have your facts wrong. > > "Greg Mossman" <moss...@qnet.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > office like they did Jefferson's. Or maybe you just have your facts > wrong. Which facts would those be? Why did she resign her post? > > > "Greg Mossman" <moss...@qnet.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Why did she resign her post? To take another post, interior appropriations instead of military appropriations. If you don't believe me, get Bush to have Gonzalez and the "Justice" Dept. ask her under oath. Unlike people who worked for Bush, Feinstein can't ignore a subpoena from a U.S. Attorney to appear in front of a grand jury. She'll have to testify and if she lies, you can get her for obstruction of justice like Fitzgerald did to Libby. Do you think Bush will pardon Feinstein? Of course if the facts aren't there, Bush will end up with even more egg on his face. Maybe that's why they're leaving Feinstein be. > > > > "Greg Mossman" <moss...@qnet.com> wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > > > Why did she resign her post? More bullshit. > "Greg Mossman" <moss...@qnet.com> wrote in message > More bullshit. Your standard reply when you lack the intellect to respond directly to my posts. All I'm doing is parroting the standard reply that Dennis gave when we complained about the illegal tactics used by Republicans to get Bush into the White House. He always replied (paraphrasing): if you think the law was broken, make a complaint. Of course the people who would handle such a complaint would have been Bush himself or the Republican Congress or the same Republican-appointed Supreme Court majority that put Bush in office in the first place, but those conveniences never stopped Dennis. And I'm sure you were me-tooing Dennis, if not in an archived post (I haven't bothered to look), then in your heart. Now, when I make the same suggestion, even though with Bush still in the White House there's actually a chance that he would jump to do something about a allegedly wrong-doing Democratic Senator, you dismiss the suggestion as bullshit. Sounds a bit hypocritical to me, but what do I know? > > "Greg Mossman" <moss...@qnet.com> wrote in message > > > More bullshit. > > Your standard reply when you lack the intellect to respond directly to > my posts. I respond to your posts when they have a shred of honesty or directly answer the issues. When they are filled with your typical obfuscation and bullshit, I call it what it is. I try not to step in dogshit too. > > > "Greg Mossman" <moss...@qnet.com> wrote in message > > > > More bullshit. > > > Your standard reply when you lack the intellect to respond directly to > > my posts. > I try not to step in dogshit too. I wouldn't leave my dog sh.t laying around where people can step on it in the first place. So you admit you're a hypocrite? > > > > "Greg Mossman" <moss...@qnet.com> wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I wouldn't leave my dog sh.t laying around where people can step on it > in the first place. Didn't say you would, and that wasn't the point. > So you admit you're a hypocrite? I admit nothing to you. You are a willing liar trying to put words in my mouth and take the spotlight off your obvious bigotry and bullshit. I am not the one willing to exploit illegal immigrants, thumb my nose at the laws I don't like, and ignore the Constitution and Bill of Rights. You, sir, are the very definition of hypocrite. > I am not the one willing to exploit illegal immigrants, thumb my nose at the > laws I don't like, and ignore the Constitution and Bill of Rights. So like I asked before, you've never thumbed your nose at a law you didn't like and say, driven over the speed limit, or smoked a joint? Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. > You, sir, are the very definition of hypocrite. You are a demonstrated liar unless you actually answer that you've never ever thumbed your nose at a law you didn't like. And if you do answer that, then you're really a liar. > I would bitch to US Fish and Wildlife, all my congress and > representative types, the Governor, the Health Department and post the name > of the shithole here. Done, done, done and done. > I would also contact a bud of mine who is the > environmental reporter for one of the larger local papers and get the name > of the restaurant put in the paper. Done. How about you gather up the names of the LA restaurants that serve shark fin soup and do the same? > > I would bitch to US Fish and Wildlife, all my congress and > > representative types, the Governor, the Health Department and post the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > How about you gather up the names of the LA restaurants that serve shark fin > soup and do the same? Because I don't waste my time? When any of your efforts pan out, let me know the results, and then I'll decide if it's worth it. Since I doubt your efforts will lead to anything, I'll go back to wasting my time in other ways. > My local rep, David Dreier, is a Republican, someone who doesn't > care about anything else other than keeping our troops in Iraq and our > Mexicans in Mexico. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2003832818_dems12.html They aren't "our" Mexicans. They are Mexico's Mexicans. Legally immigrating people from all nations are welcome, illegals and the people who exploit them are not. I have to admit, I really didn't understand the Republicans, Bush and their rush to amnesty with the failed bills. But, it was brilliant. He gave the Democrats everything they *said* they wanted, but they wouldn't sign off on it because it would have made Bush look good. He knew that and played them like a fiddle, not to mention the huge outcry from voters on both sides of the party isle against amnesty for 12 million criminals. Now the INS, ICE and local and state LEO's are going to be given the ability to round up illegal aliens and deport them, and the employers who exploit them are going to be facing heavy fines and jail time; no longer can they consider the penalties a minor inconvenience and a part of business expense. Last weekend one of my buds was here who is a state trooper. I asked him what percentage of the people he arrests for DUI, possession, assault, and DV, and his answer was about 60%. My son is head chef at a restaurant where the owners recently decide that the best way to increase profits was to fire all the white kitchen help and hire illegal Mexicans. I'd rather have to pay $2 more for a head of lettuce than keep absorbing the cost of supporting Mexico's corrupt government, the drugs, gangs the destruction of America's health care and welfare system, and the loss of jobs to Americans and legal immigrants, and the rest of the bullshit that comes with cheap lettuce. -- My Assault Weapon isn't illegal, it's undocumented. > I'd rather have to pay $2 more for a head of lettuce than keep absorbing the > cost of supporting Mexico's corrupt government, the drugs, gangs the > destruction of America's health care and welfare system, and the loss of > jobs to Americans and legal immigrants, and the rest of the bullshit that > comes with cheap lettuce. It will be a lot more than $2 more per head. "The industry group, which represents 75 percent of U.S. farmers, estimates at least half the nation's 1 million farm workers do not have valid Social Security numbers. Losing them would devastate the industry, particularly fruit and vegetable growers, which rely heavily on manual labor, farmers said." Or we'll simply find it cheaper to import all the lettuce from Mexico, thus increasing our already incredibly high trade deficit and sending all the money to Mexico that would otherwise be income for U.S. farm owners and spent in the U.S. > > I'd rather have to pay $2 more for a head of lettuce than keep absorbing the > > cost of supporting Mexico's corrupt government, the drugs, gangs the > > destruction of America's health care and welfare system, and the loss of > > jobs to Americans and legal immigrants, and the rest of the bullshit that > > comes with cheap lettuce. > It will be a lot more than $2 more per head. Another dodge. It isnt just about lettuce, but you knew that. > "The industry group, which represents 75 percent of U.S. farmers, > estimates at least half the nation's 1 million farm workers do not > have valid Social Security numbers. Losing them would devastate the > industry, particularly fruit and vegetable growers, which rely heavily > on manual labor, farmers said." Guess they would have to pay a decent wage, taxes, workmans comp, unemployment and social security like every other legal business person in the US. I have less than no sympathy for anyone who exploits illegal immigrant labor. > Or we'll simply find it cheaper to import all the lettuce from Mexico, > thus increasing our already incredibly high trade deficit and sending > all the money to Mexico that would otherwise be income for U.S. farm > owners and spent in the U.S. No mention of the fact that the single greatest souce of incoming money for Mexico is the billions sent home by illegal immigrants here. > Another dodge. It isnt just about lettuce, but you knew that. Of course not. It's about all our produce, our meat and poultry, our eggs and dairy. It's about the dishwasher who cleans your salad plate at the restaurant. The construction guys who build the restaurant and the store that sells the lettuce, and the warehouse guys at the lettuce distributor. It goes all the way up the chain, which is why that lettuce isn't just going cost you $2 more. > Guess they would have to pay a decent wage, taxes, workmans comp, > unemployment and social security like every other legal business person in > the US. And where do you think that money comes from? What's a decent wage to convince a lazy white American to pick strawberries or asparagus in 120-degree heat? > I have less than no sympathy for anyone who exploits illegal immigrant > labor. Anyone who eats practically anything in the U.S. exploits illegal immigrant labor. Unless you know exactly where your veggies and meats come from, there's a good chance an illegal handled them at some point in the process. > No mention of the fact that the single greatest souce of incoming money for > Mexico is the billions sent home by illegal immigrants here. They spend plenty here as well, not to mention the withholding taxes and social security taxes that they pay and which they don't get back because they don't file tax returns and will never be eligible to collect social security benefits. And the people that employ them also spend money here and pay plenty of taxes. If you send all the business to Mexico, you send all the money to Mexico. The facts are clear: there is a definite net economic benefit to America from the current illegal immigrant situation. Otherwise, in a market economy, it wouldn't be tolerated as it is. We'll see how far Bush gets. > > Another dodge. It isnt just about lettuce, but you knew that. > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > market economy, it wouldn't be tolerated as it is. We'll see how far > Bush gets. Un-f.cking real. Your bigotry and ignorance are simply boundless. The meat we eat comes from several local cattle ranches that neither hire nor exploit illegal immigrants. No wetbacks at the butcher shop either. Our vegetables come from Hunter farms, and family farms in the Skok valley, that neither hire nor exploit illegal immigrants. Because you holier-than-thou city pussies cant live without exploiting poor people and illegal aliens doesn't mean that the rest of the nation has to, nor does it mean you have even a toe, let a lone a foot, in reality. You are wrong, as usual, but no expects you to ever admit that or give a straight answer to anything, ever. Aint your style. > > Anyone who eats practically anything in the U.S. exploits illegal > > immigrant labor. Unless you know exactly where your veggies and meats > > come from, there's a good chance an illegal handled them at some point > > in the process. > > The facts are clear: there is a definite net economic benefit to > > America from the current illegal immigrant situation. Otherwise, in a > > market economy, it wouldn't be tolerated as it is. We'll see how far > > Bush gets. > The meat we eat comes from several local cattle ranches that neither hire > nor exploit illegal immigrants. No wetbacks at the butcher shop either. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > people and illegal aliens doesn't mean that the rest of the nation has to, > nor does it mean you have even a toe, let a lone a foot, in reality. The nation runs on us "holier-than-thou" city people. Without us, you'd be a farming country like Afghanistan. See how far that gets you. > You are wrong, as usual, but no expects you to ever admit that or give a > straight answer to anything, ever. I'm not wrong at all. I prefaced my claim with "unless you know exactly where your veggies and meats come from". Maybe you do. Good for you. You're in the vast minority of the U.S. population on that count. Most people buy their veggies and meats at the supermarket where it's practically guaranteed they'll be exploiting illegal labor somewhere in the supply chain. That you can point out a single contradictory anecdote doesn't render my generalization untrue for the vast majority of people in the U.S. >From the Seattle Times: "Of the 54 workers laboring in this sun-baked field, perhaps 12 are in the United States legally, estimates foreman Juan Hernandez. "Are we going to put all the white people out there with a bucket on their hip?" asks Hernandez, who came here legally in 1975, starting as an asparagus cutter. "I don't think so." "While the law doesn't allow it, U.S. immigration practices and economic realities have all but guaranteed it: Undocumented workers, an estimated 6 million of them, are a mainstay of industries across the United States. "And in Washington, where agriculture remains the dominant industry and a top employer, undocumented Mexicans comprise up to 70 percent of seasonal farmworkers. Their low-wage labor allows the state's $1.2 billion tree-fruit industry to compete on the international market and gives Americans the lowest food prices in the world." http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/mexico/stories/mex1b.html > > > Anyone who eats practically anything in the U.S. exploits illegal > > > immigrant labor. Unless you know exactly where your veggies and meats [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > you'd be a farming country like Afghanistan. See how far that gets > you. We were a farming country to begin with. You greedy, lazy city folks ruined that with big corporate farms running the little family farms underground so you could justify your greed and laziness. > > You are wrong, as usual, but no expects you to ever admit that or give a > > straight answer to anything, ever. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > where it's practically guaranteed they'll be exploiting illegal labor > somewhere in the supply chain. That would be the millstone around your neck, and you want to hang it on everyone else like the good little socialist you are. Pimp yourself and your family, leave mine out of it. > That you can point out a single contradictory anecdote doesn't render > my generalization untrue for the vast majority of people in the U.S. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > their hip?" asks Hernandez, who came here legally in 1975, starting as > an asparagus cutter. "I don't think so." What a bigot. Only Mexicans can pick asparagus? Even though he came here *legally*. And legal immigrants arent the problem. They pay taxes, workmans comp, unemployment. > "While the law doesn't allow it, U.S. immigration practices and > economic realities have all but guaranteed it: Undocumented workers, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > billion tree-fruit industry to compete on the international market and > gives Americans the lowest food prices in the world." > http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/mexico/stories/mex1b.html Because people like you depend upon the exploitation of poor people and illegal immigrant labor for your wealth and food doesn't make the practice legal, right or moral. Sorry you cant see that simple fact or are willing to sell your soul for a few cheap apples. > We were a farming country to begin with. And before that, we were cavemen stalking our own prey with spears. What's your point? > You greedy, lazy city folks ruined that with big corporate farms running the > little family farms underground so you could justify your greed and > laziness. Little family farms, like little anything, are too inefficient to supply the masses at a cost they can afford. Also, people around the country desire regional seasonal products, which creates a demand for migrant labor. Not everyone American is cut out to be a migrant laborer by choice. > That would be the millstone around your neck, and you want to hang it on > everyone else like the good little socialist you are. I'm not hanging anything, just pointing out obvious facts. And that's just domestic consumption. We also export a lot of produce, like Washington apples, that are produced with domestic labor. How many apples will we be able to sell to Japan if it costs us twice as much to produce them here? So not only will our trade deficit be worsened by having to import cheap produce from Mexico, but we'll be losing our export revenues as well. That's f.cking the country from both ends, something Republicans do well. I wish they'd stick to doing interns like the esteemed Bill Clinton and leave the country alone. > > "Are we going to put all the white people out there with a bucket on > > their hip?" asks Hernandez, who came here legally in 1975, starting as > > an asparagus cutter. "I don't think so." > > What a bigot. Only Mexicans can pick asparagus? Yep. It's demonstrated fact. How many white people do you know that pick asparagus? > Even though he came here *legally*. And still has no problem with those who don't because he's being practical. > And legal immigrants arent the problem. They pay taxes, workmans comp, > unemployment. As do the illegals who provide fake ID and SSN to get hired. They're part of the payroll just like anyone else, except that unlike the legals, they have no chance of ever reaping the benefits, so the surplus goes back to the benefit of the American people. I just got a notice from SSA about two employees of one of my companies. This is the sort of notice that we're supposedly not allowed to ignore any more. One of the employees stopped working for us a while ago and the other one I'll definitely look into before Bush sends someone to knock at my door. She's sort of the assistant manager, has been working for us for over 8 years, and I really thought she was legal, so it would be a shame to have to let her go. > Because people like you depend upon the exploitation of poor people and > illegal immigrant labor for your wealth and food doesn't make the practice > legal, right or moral. There's a lot of overlooked illegality and immorality going on in our society. It's immoral that kids in our country don't get adequate health care because their parents can't afford health insurance. It's immoral that our senior citizens can't buy cheaper drugs from Canada. Plenty of people drive drunk, speed, smoke pot and do harder drugs, jaywalk, and cheat on their taxes and the government does barely anything about it. At least by looking the other way with illegal labor, the country gets a definite proven economic benefit out of it. What economic benefit does the country as a whole get from practically allowing drunk drivers to drive drunk, othen than a boon to the liquor and hospitality industries? (Yeah, I know it's illegal to drive drunk and a few people get DUIs and there are a few checkpoints, but that's not doing anything about the problem like what Bush proposes to do with illegal immigrants - a correlative action against drunk driving would be requiring breathalyzers at all places that serve booze to any driver that wants their keys back, or requiring breathalyzers in the cars, mandatory one- year prison term for violators, that sort of thing) > Sorry you cant see that simple fact or are willing to sell your soul for a > few cheap apples. I can afford the apples better than most. I'm hardly concerned about the economic effect on my food budget. It's just that I can see the simple fact that's it's going to affect a lot of other people besides me, many of whom have kids to feed on a much tighter budget. Already food costs are overwhelming to many people. If poor people can't afford to eat after you kick out all the Mexicans, the government will have to make up the difference in food stamps or else spend a lot of money disposing of all the dead bodies. Either way, they'll be taxing me and the rest of us who pay taxes to pay for it. So not only will we have to spend more money at the grocery store, but our taxes will go up. For the average middle-class family with kids that are just getting by, where's the difference going to come from? Should they get a third job on top of their second, sell one of the kids for scientific experiments, or just sell a lot of their blood (what else are kids good for!) at a bloodbank, which do you recommend? > Little family farms, like little anything, are too inefficient to > supply the masses at a cost they can afford. Also, people around the > country desire regional seasonal products, which creates a demand for > migrant labor. Not everyone American is cut out to be a migrant > laborer by choice. You dishonestly and purposefully keep leaving out the "illegal immigrant" part of this equation. And migrant labor isnt the only labor available. It's the only *exploitable* labor available. Tell us, ever see JR Simplots house? I have. > > That would be the millstone around your neck, and you want to hang it on > > everyone else like the good little socialist you are. > > I'm not hanging anything, just pointing out obvious facts. What you point out arent facts, they are your highly biased opinions, driven by a desperation to always been seen as being right, which you are not. > And that's just domestic consumption. We also export a lot of > produce, like Washington apples, that are produced with domestic [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Yep. It's demonstrated fact. How many white people do you know that > pick asparagus? Next time I am at Hunter Farms buying fresh asparagus, I will ask. > > Even though he came here *legally*. > > And still has no problem with those who don't because he's being > practical. So he and you get to decide which laws to obey and which not? Cool, we'll remember that when you start in with more bullshit gun laws. > > And legal immigrants arent the problem. They pay taxes, workmans comp, > > unemployment. > > As do the illegals who provide fake ID and SSN to get hired. Horseshit. > They're > part of the payroll just like anyone else, except that unlike the > legals, they have no chance of ever reaping the benefits, so the > surplus goes back to the benefit of the American people. You mean bebefits like free medical care? Welfare? The billions spent on the crime they bring? > I just got a notice from SSA about two employees of one of my > companies. This is the sort of notice that we're supposedly not [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > manager, has been working for us for over 8 years, and I really > thought she was legal, so it would be a shame to have to let her go. Why? She lied to you and she broke the law. > > Because people like you depend upon the exploitation of poor people and > > illegal immigrant labor for your wealth and food doesn't make the practice > > legal, right or moral. > > There's a lot of overlooked illegality and immorality going on in our > society. So you get to choses which ones you embrace, how nice. Most of us dont think we have that luxury. > It's immoral that kids in our country don't get adequate > health care because their parents can't afford health insurance. Thanks to the billions spent on illegal immigrants. > It's > immoral that our senior citizens can't buy cheaper drugs from Canada. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > allowing drunk drivers to drive drunk, othen than a boon to the liquor > and hospitality industries? More bullshit to justify an unjustifiable position, more obfuscation and running from the issue being debated. As is your MO. > (Yeah, I know it's illegal to drive drunk and a few people get DUIs > and there are a few checkpoints, but that's not doing anything about [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > their keys back, or requiring breathalyzers in the cars, mandatory one- > year prison term for violators, that sort of thing) By the way, blaming Bush for your politics is not only transparently stupid, but reprehensibly dishonest. And it isnt just Bush, it is the will of the overwhelming *majority* of the American people, which is why the bill didnt pass. None of your vaunted democrats wanted to risk losing their precisous power during an election year by bucking the truckloads of mail from their constituents that were burying their offices. Fortunately for all of us, this is a democracy, and you and your bullshit are the minority. Cowards and liars, all. For isntance; While during the election year your party is regurgitating the words you want to hear, in reality they shanking all of you at the same time; http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?con gress=110&session=1&vote=00309 > > Sorry you cant see that simple fact or are willing to sell your soul for a > > few cheap apples. <chop the BS> It is also illuminating how you wrap yourself in the blanket of caring for the poor people you have no problem exploiting. > > Little family farms, like little anything, are too inefficient to > > supply the masses at a cost they can afford. Also, people around the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > It's the only *exploitable* labor available. Seasonal harvests require mobile labor, i.e. migrant labor. It doesn't matter whether they're white or brown or green. What matters is that they're willing to move around to follow the crops. Most farm towns don't have local populations large enough to pick a bumper crop. Migrant laborers have been used since man developed agriculture. The fact is, though, that today practically the only ones willing to pick up and leave home to move around the state or country picking crops are illegals. > Tell us, ever see JR Simplots house? > > I have. I've seen the Playboy Mansion. What's your point? > What you point out arent facts, they are your highly biased opinions, driven > by a desperation to always been seen as being right, which you are not. I point out fact. If you disagree with any of the facts I post, please prove them wrong or at least tell me what you disagree with so I can provide the backup. Otherwise you're simply blowing smoke, but so thinly that no one else here has any trouble seeing through it. I have a good reputation here of backing up my facts with cites to reputable sources. That you ignore the facts and the sources is your problem, but I'm anything but dishonest about the claims I make. > > Yep. It's demonstrated fact. How many white people do you know that > > pick asparagus? > > Next time I am at Hunter Farms buying fresh asparagus, I will ask. Please do. According to their website, Hunter Farms brings their asparagus in from eastern Washington. It's not locally produced. http://www.hunter-farms.com/produce.html So you might want to ask them where they purchase their asparagus and how that farm manages to pick their asparagus without using migrant labor, and if they do use migrant labor, which of course they do, how they manage to ensure that none of their workers are illegal. I'd like to hear their response, after you're done providing all the responses from all those you swear are so concerned about shark-fin soup in Seattle. > > > Even though he came here *legally*. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Cool, we'll remember that when you start in with more bullshit gun laws. I'll remember that the next time I see a cop speeding in traffic with the rest of us. > > As do the illegals who provide fake ID and SSN to get hired. > > Horseshit. ? Do you really believe the human resources departments of these major corporations aren't deducting payroll taxes from their employees? Because that would get them in trouble with the IRS. INS might be a joke, but the IRS is serious when it comes to payroll taxes. Of course you have no clue, so you're just spouting off more smoke. Blow it somewhere else. > You mean bebefits like free medical care? Welfare? > > The billions spent on the crime they bring? Cite? > > I just got a notice from SSA about two employees of one of my > > companies. This is the sort of notice that we're supposedly not [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Why? She lied to you and she broke the law. If she did, then I will. It's certainly conceivable that SSA made a mistake, which is why they instruct the employer in big bold capital letters not to terminate an employee upon receiving the notice. All I'm supposed to do is verify her ID. In the meantime, she continues to have payroll taxes and social security taxes withheld for the good of the American people. If she is illegal, she'll never see any of it, which is why your horseshit comment above is, well, horseshit. > > There's a lot of overlooked illegality and immorality going on in our > > society. > > So you get to choses which ones you embrace, how nice. > > Most of us dont think we have that luxury. So you've never driven after one too many, brought or shot your guns where you weren't supposed to, smoked dope, jaywalked, sped, or done anything else remotely illegal? Now that's some big horseshit. Maybe Dennis is truly that clean but I don't believe it about you for a moment. > > It's immoral that kids in our country don't get adequate > > health care because their parents can't afford health insurance. > > Thanks to the billions spent on illegal immigrants. Thanks to the hundreds of billions spent in Iraq? Nah. We obviously have the money. We just prefer to spend it on more important things, like big corporate tax breaks for the giant corporate farmers who employ most of the illegals, giant corporate tax breaks for the oil companies which jack up the pump prices while reaping billions of profits, and corrupt Ted Stevens' bridge to nowhere. > More bullshit to justify an unjustifiable position, more obfuscation and > running from the issue being debated. Just putting the issue being debated into some sense of perspective. You say the law is being broken. I say, so what, lots of laws are being broken. You say it's immoral. I say, so what, lots of things that governments do or put up with are immoral. You say it costs us too much. I say, so what, lots of things cost too much. The difference is that this particular issue provides a definite economic benefit to the U.S. There's no proven economic benefit from millions of children without adequate health care. There's no proven economic benefit from the hundreds of billions we're spending in Iraq. But there is a definite proven economic benefit from illegal immigrant labor. > > (Yeah, I know it's illegal to drive drunk and a few people get DUIs > > and there are a few checkpoints, but that's not doing anything about [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > power during an election year by bucking the truckloads of mail from their > constituents that were burying their offices. The Democrats were happy with the status quo. As am I. It's the Republicans that want to rock the boat, to try to stir up dirt. But if that's all Republicans can do is stomp their feet and make a mess, that's OK. It's harmless. > Fortunately for all of us, this is a democracy, and you and your bullshit > are the minority. > > Cowards and liars, all. Me and my bullshit are in the firm 70%+ of the population that disapproves of Bush and all he stands for. > It is also illuminating how you wrap yourself in the blanket of caring for > the poor people you have no problem exploiting. So your way, with poor Americans starving because they no longer can afford to buy food, and with poor Mexicans starving because they can't find work in the U.S., is preferable how? > > > Anyone who eats practically anything in the U.S. exploits illegal > > > immigrant labor. Unless you know exactly where your veggies and meats [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Our vegetables come from Hunter farms, and family farms in the Skok valley, > > that neither hire nor exploit illegal immigrants. No veggies in the winter for Scott and family, I guess. Oh, maybe they are canning everything and eating winter squash as long into the season as they can. (snip)> > "And in Washington, where agriculture remains the dominant industry > and a top employer, undocumented Mexicans comprise up to 70 percent of > seasonal farmworkers. Their low-wage labor allows the state's $1.2 > billion tree-fruit industry to compete on the international market and > gives Americans the lowest food prices in the world." I'm sure the article didn't mean that Hunter Farms or Skok would do such a thing! (snip) Oops, sorry gang. I hadn't realized this was such an old thread. "Move along folks, nothing to see here." > > > > Anyone who eats practically anything in the U.S. exploits illegal > > > > immigrant labor. Unless you know exactly where your veggies and meats [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > (snip) http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/08/11/MN9PRGIMM.DTL > http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/08/11/MN9PRG... >From your article: "No state stands to feel the effects more than California, which has more illegal immigrants - an estimated 2.5 million - than any other state. California farmers are expected to be among the hardest hit with their heavy reliance on Mexican field hands, the vast majority of whom are undocumented. But service businesses will be heavily affected too, from hotels and restaurants to cleaning services and nursing homes. "California Sen. Dianne Feinstein predicted a "catastrophe" in the state's $32 billion agriculture industry as the new rules become effective with the fall harvest." "Business groups pointed out that a significant fraction of no-match letters - including 11 percent for the work-authorized foreign born - are in error because of name changes and clerical mistakes, and could cause trouble for legal workers. Immigrant rights groups said the rule could drive millions of illegal immigrants who are now paying taxes underground and drive businesses who depend on them to relocate overseas." Like I've been saying. Figures that Bush would try to cause yet another catastrophe before he leaves office. Does he sit around the Oval Office just dreaming up ways to screw the country even harder? > http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/08/11/MN9PRGIMM.DTL Things will change, but it won't have any major effect... If they want to get rid of the underground economy, they'll get rid of the concept of income based taxes and go to a national consumption based tax... Basically, you don't pay a tax until you spend it on something... Tax breaks for various types of purchases might be made tax free to promote certain activies (home ownership, etc)... We already have the system in place to collect sales taxes which consist of different amounts for the state, country, and city, so it would be a minor issue to add to it the ability to collect a national tax on top of that... Even the people in the underground econony who do not currently pay taxes would end up having to pay taxes with this solution... http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/08/11/MN9PRGIMM.DTL > Things will change, but it won't have any major effect... If they want > to get rid of the underground economy, they'll get rid of the concept [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Even the people in the underground econony who do not currently pay > taxes would end up having to pay taxes with this solution... Google Fair Tax and Neil Boortz. Of course the filthy rich a.sholes are screaming bloody murder because they wont be able to hide behind the tax shelters they enjoy now, and of course, wrap themselves in the blanket of acting like they care what it would do to the less fortunate. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.