Musing of one thinking about the guy who checked in to an upscale hotel on the East Coast, went to his room, opened a folder marked local attractions and found a copy of an IRS instructions for line-dancing...

I think Congress is going at the border thing the wrong way.  They are providing a line of defense and when that happens the opponent will look for ways to get over, under, around, or through it.  What they need to do is provide a strong disincentive so that people won't want to come in the first place.  An example would be no public assistance of any kind to those who cannot show legal residence.  A second disincentive would be to provide that children born here of parents here illegally would not be legal US citizens (this is consonant with what the Supreme Court said way back in 1893).  I think that once would-be illegal immigrants learn of such disincentives, they would not be inclined to get into the US.  I do believe that the border defense should be set up anyway because some people are bound to try entry in the hope of some kind of gain. 

I'm not familiar with the details of the immigration bill currently in the US Senate.  But it seems to be concerned with legalizing the status of people already here rather than preventing more from coming in. 

Musing of one wondering what really happened to the young Roman who tried to arrange a tryst with Caesar's wife and was caught red-handed...

The other day, as old folks often do, I got into a reminiscent mode.  When I was a kid going to school, I had a part-time job at a service station.  When a customer pulled up to the gas pumps, two of us would go out to service the car (there were 4 of us altogether).  While one was putting gasoline in the tank, the other would lift the hood (which in those days was hinged at the top) and check the oil, water and battery.  Once he had done that, he would proceed to check the tires, while the one who had been filling the tank was washing all the windows.  Anything to keep the customer or perhaps secure a repeat customer.  These operations of course took a few minutes.  I began to wonder what it would look like if the same procedure were being followed today.  The line of cars waiting to get to the gas pumps would probably be 9 miles long. 

I also had a part-time job in another service station.  One of its customers was the playwright Zoe Akin who had a European limousine (I think it was a Hispano Suiza) and a very finicky chauffeur.  If one drop of gasoline was spilled on the finish of the car, he went high order.  He also stood over us as we checked the oil, water, and tires to make sure we were doing a proper job. 

Not long after I went to work at that station, I noticed there was an office identified as a tire sales office.  I noticed that women were always running in and out of that one office, which was run by one guy.  Eventually, I deduced that the guy was a bookie and sometime later, he disappeared and one of the other guys said he thought Jim had gone to Canada.  So I assumed he had incurred the wrath of the mob and took off to save his skin. 

Thanks to all of those who have made comments.

As to the size of government, I think it's interesting at least from an empirical standpoint that most of the large governments are those of poor nations.  Perhaps a better criterion would be the size of government relative to the population.  On the other hand, who knows? 

Musing of one thinking about the atheist who absent-mindedly wandered into a church, encountered a priest, and tried to sell him a box of nothing...

All of the scandal going on in the Federal Government reminds me of some remarks I made about the nature of government not long after I established this blog.  I said in effect, that government is not a separate being but rather (paraphrasing Chief Justice Marshall) "...an artificial being, invisible, intangible..."  It's affairs are conducted by fallible human beings who are no smarter than the rest of us.  It follows that government should be as small as possible and that it's employees should always bear in mind that they are servants of the people, not rulers.  This position has about as much chance of prevailing as one who tried to shoot down a drone with a BB gun. 

Apropos of nothing, the other morning, one of my caregivers and I were sitting at the breakfast table and somehow the conversation turned to handkerchiefs.  She wondered what we did with them in my younger days.  So I told her.  When a guy went out on a date, unless they were going to participate in a sport, such as tennis, he wore a suit.  And in the breast pocket of that suit, he usually carried an extra handkerchief.  This was for the use of his date if she needed it.  The girl usually carried her own dainty handkerchief in her purse along with her mad money and cosmetics.  (Kleenex existed at the time but apparently was not widely used.)  If she needed the handkerchief, he would offer it to her and she could use it for the rest of the evening.  She would take the handkerchief home, wash and iron it, and return it to him at the next opportunity.  If she was interested in the guy, the return of the handkerchief might be accompanied by some encouraging hints; if not, there would just be a routine thank you. 

Somehow my caregiver, a young woman, found this screamingly funny.  And so I'm happy that even though I'm not a comedian, I was able to amuse a member of the younger generation.