I agree that China wins hands down when it comes to local pollution. They are the pollution leaders in heavy metals, POPs, and inorganic toxins of all sorts. They are poisoning themselves in their quest to become a world power but it seems that they are willing to accept the risk. As nasty as these pollutants are they really don't migrate on a global scale. Local pollution of Chinese ground water, soil or air does not cause appreciable direct harm outside Asia.

My comment was restricted only to global pollutants(GH gasses, elemental mercury, etc.)which is why I chose that particular metric. The reasoning is that, assuming an equivalent standard of living, the greater the population the greater the emission of a given pollutant. It may be unwise(stupid, naive, insane) to use total population as the only factor for comparison but it should taken into account.

While I do not deny that China is responsible for a significant portion of global pollution they are far from the largest per capita. The U.S. is now the second largest polluter with a population in the neighborhood of 300-400 million. China has a population of over 1 billion but their pollution output of most pollutants only just exceeds that of the U.S. Pretty much every western nation is a larger per capita emitter than China(Google it), some by a very large margin.

I am not trying to stir up trouble with my comments but I do feel that if we are going to get a handle on the management of various global pollutants the population size must be taken into account. To use CO2 as an example; if China were to emit only 1/4 the amount of the U.S. per capita they would still fall just behind the total U.S. output.

350 million x 1 pollution unit = 350 million units for the U.S.
1 billion x 1/4 pollution unit = 250 million pollution units for China.

You mean double-penetrate my Kin?

Respect for books(and electronics) is something that must be taught. Since young children are fantastic at mimicry the best way to teach them is by example. Read with them, flip the pages, encourage them to treat the book gently. If they want to throw something give them a ball. If they want to hit something give them a pot and a wooden spoon. If the child insists on treating the book badly then take it away and don't give it back until they finish crying. If you teach respect for books then your electronics are (mostly) safe as well.

It is the job of a parent to inhibit destructive behavior in their children. If an iPad or Kindle is introduced to them properly then there is little risk. Children have no concept of money but they do recognize value. If the device is seen as valuable to the child then it is not as likely to be destroyed.

See if you can corroborate this experiment:
If you give a young child a bucket of quarters and put them near a fountain I guarantee every single quarter will be thrown or dumped into the fountain. Give them something they like(candy, favorite toy) and it is extremely unlikely(not zero) they will throw this object away no matter how little its monetary value.

The space industry today reminds me a great deal of the early automobile industry. When the auto industry was in its infancy each vehicle was essentially a custom designed and hand built object. The vehicles may have been beautiful works of art and craftsmanship but they were out of reach for all but the very wealthy. Ford revolutionized the industry by making a vehicle that worked well(enough), could be made at low cost and had interchangeable pats. The Model-T was not as fancy and perhaps not as reliable as the bespoke autos of the time but it was functional.

The rigors of space are known conditions at this point and there are many proven systems that have already been developed. What we need are standardized hardware and communication protocols based on what we already know. If mass production could be applied to space exploration we could have hundreds or thousands of probes throughout our solar system.

Just think! We could have something like a game console...IN SPACE!

Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

All joking aside, an immigration policy of the type you suggest, that opened the door to anyone that wanted to earn their way and follow the laws, would be a huge benefit to the U.S. I am a first generation American on my father's side and third generation on my mother's. Each family arrived with almost nothing and worked hard to earn enough to provide their family with a comfortable life. They tried(and were mostly successful) in passing those values along to their kids. Though not universal, this desire to work hard seems to be especially common among recent immigrant families.

With the passage of this law Arizona has sparked an international incident with Mexico and pointed out the failings of Congress. Congress has total legislative authority over immigration policy. Since they make the rules it falls on them to fix this mess. My guess(and hope) is that the risk of Congress looking foolish or inept at home and abroad will encourage them to make immigration reform a top priority.

I did not intend to call you out in my comment but I have seen lot of selective quotations from the Constitution that seem to bend and twist it to say something it does not. My only hope was to try and keep things in context.

I think Moofie was commenting on a another poster's wish that the Constitution should only apply to citizens. I don't get the sense he was trying to claim that non-citizens shared all the rights enjoyed by citizens. As you pointed out this is definitely not the case. For instance, only a citizen can vote or hold public office and only a citizen is required to serve on a jury.

When it comes to securing protections the Constitution is clear in its application to all people under its jurisdiction, citizen or not(with very limited exceptions). In passing this law Arizona is setting itself up, perhaps purposefully, for some serious legal battles. In asserting authority on immigration matters they are opening themselves up to a Federal challenge. By compelling and empowering police to demand a person prove he has a legitimate reason to be in the country, Arizona opens itself up to civil rights scrutiny. Due to the scope of this law the state must demonstrate that the need for order is balanced with the protection of individual liberties.

I agree that immigration is a very serious concern for the nation and especially for the border states. There is near universal consensus that something needs to be done but there is a great deal of disagreement over what and how. Personally, I am uncomfortable with the idea of being required prove my citizenship. This is probably because I am a stubborn ass and hate being told what to do.

There are a number of components of this bill I do like and would likely be useful in solving the problem. Section 6 lists the penalties businesses face for knowingly hiring or subcontracting unauthorized aliens. I do not see anything in this section that seems unreasonable or controversial. Business owners may see it differently but they must be part of the solution. Since people are drawn here to work it makes sense that encouraging business to play by the rules will solve much of the illegal problem on its own. I think this is also where Arizona has the most authority as it has a great deal of influence in regulating the business in the state.