Immigration Misinformation

I had to comment on an article in the local newspaper today. The entire article was written to convey a message that the immigration system badly needs an overhaul. Such overhaul must make it easier and quicker to import workers from other countries.

The core of the argument came from the owner and HR manager of a local software company. They were quoted as griping about the terrible delays in importing programmers from India, because there were no qualified candidates here.

"No qualified candidates" is absolute baloney. Why can't they at least tell the truth, which is they can't find qualified candidates who are US Citizens because the market wages are two or three times what they can pay Indian immigrants.

This is my industry, so they can't fool me. In my little business, where I'm not even hiring, I get resumes from qualified candidates all the time. They're out there, and they're looking for work. But their potential employers are ignoring them while they pull every string possible to import technology workers from India at a fraction of the salary.

For just a moment, let's say there is a lack of available candidates for programmer jobs. This company's offices sit within a hundred yards of three community colleges. It's a ready-made pipeline for entry-level talent that the company can recruit, train, and mold into exactly what they need. Why aren't they taking that route? The simple answer is that the best programmers they recruit and develop will leave within 2 years for better pay elsewhere.

Still feel sorry for them? Still think we need to import people from India to take jobs people in Indiana would love to have?

Ridiculous.

Consequences

There's a bit of irony in the fact that the anti-war left need only look in a mirror to find the answer to their foremost question about why the Muslim world hates the west so.

A review of the cultural norms in North America today can't avoid finding that the results of the progressive ideals of tolerance, diversity, and multiculturalism are, in practice, the opposite. Tolerance has become code for acceptance and even celebration of immoral lifestyles; only the intolerant oppose homosexuality and cohabitation. Diversity doesn't mean respect for other races and ethnic groups, but is a hammer used to bludgeon the white Christian "majority". And multiculturalism celebrates any minority culture while disdaining and attempting to marginalize Judeo-Christian standards as bigoted and oppressive.

Nowhere is this more evident than among the leaders of the anti-war march over the weekend. The likes of Fonda, Robbins, and Penn epitomize the Hollywood anti-traditional hypocrisy. A brief listen to their rhetoric made it clear that they don't care about our soldiers - they hate the military. They don't care about the Iraqi people, because two seconds of reasoned thought about the consequences of an immediate US withdrawal is all that's needed to realize it would precipitate a horrific bloodbath.

Actually, you don't need to listen to them for long to find out their real motivation: A visceral hatred of George W. Bush. I'm fairly convinced that had Bill Clinton taken us into Iraq, their anti-war marches wouldn't be happening. They're not anti-war, they're just anti-Bush.

Interestingly, these people think they are allied with the radical muslims that wish to eradicate our society, when I'd suggest they're likely the first among those to be eliminated should the likes of bin Laden and Ahmadinijad succeed. Because when many muslims hear Americans speak of freedom, they equate that freedom with the hedonistic and narcissistic culture represented and portrayed by Hollywood.

We're told that the schools are to be accepting of all cultures, and should be neutral when it comes to religion. What has resulted is horribly underperforming and often unsafe government schools in which atheism is the official religion. Those who can have fled the public schools for private, parochial, and home schools, to the dismay of those who created the mess but refuse to acknowledge that fact.

The campaign for gay marriage and rabid support of abortion have put people of faith on the defensive. Vilification of religion has cowed or marginalized people of faith, who are the only citizen group for which it is acceptable to treat with contempt.

I do not suggest that some miraculous return of the coutry to our Judeo-Christian roots would immediately resolve the terrorist problem. But I do think that if American icons changed from the likes of Britney Spears and Paris Hilton to people of faith and character like Billy Graham and, say, Tony Dungy, the great majority of the world would have to at least respect us for being a sincere and principled people.

Instead, I'm convinced we are within a generation or two of a new dark age. Liberalism is leading to ignorance, which leads eventually to despotism and anarchy.

Is it a Sin?

In a world where sin gets only a sneer from many, I recently had an interesting discussion about sin. The discussion was interesting in terms of sins large and small, and the question of whether we've lowered the morality bar so far that we might think we're morally clean, when we're really not.

Let's assume we're honestly trying to be good people. We successfully avoid the big ones - we don't murder, steal, covet, have sex outside marriage, etc. But how do we handle the smaller things?

For example,

Is it sinful to work in the yard on Sunday? To work for a retail shop that's open on Sunday? If the shop sells alcohol? To patronize stores on Sunday?

If it's stealing to take office supplies home from your employer for personal use, is it sinful if you happen to have a pen from the office in your pocket and use it at home just because it's handy?

Suppose you're in a shop looking for something specific, but the shop is out of stock. An employee at the shop hands you a partially used and open packet of what you want, telling you, "No charge, just take it". Suppose the value of what you were given at the shop was less than a dollar. Are you stealing from the shop?

Suppose you make a purchase in a store, and some time after you think the store clerk may have made a mistake and given you more change than you were due. If you don't immediately go back to the store to return the change, are you a thief?

If you don't tithe (give 10% of your income to God's work), is it a sin? If you do tithe, but grumble about it every time you write the check, is it a sin? If you give your money to worthy Christian causes but shut off funding to your own church because you disagree with something there, are you sinning?

If you voice your disagreement in your church over what you believe is improper behavior by the church's leadership, are you guilty of fomenting disunity and harming the congregation?

If you buy an expensive car, a vacation home, a boat, etc., is it sinful to indulge yourself when the money could have been spent doing God's work? Can it be fairly said that it's sinful simply to desire such luxuries?

If you hand cash to a panhandler on the street, knowing it will be used for alcohol or drugs, are you mistreating the panhandler? If you pass by and do nothing, is it better or worse than handing over the cash?

Is it a sin to do consulting and training for casinos? To work for one full-time?

Even if you are innocent, it it a sin to spend a lot of time with people who are currently, actively, and unapologetically living a sinful lifestyle?

If someone asks you to lie to another, even if it's meant to protect the other from the truth, should you lie, tell the truth, or keep silent?

You can probably make up your own list. The fundamental question boils down to, how can someone sincerely trying to live a good life and set a good example do so in a culture that despises good?

Hiatus Over for Now

There hasn't been time to post, so I've been on a sort of hiatus for awhile. This week's been spent in Vegas, where at least the sun shines every day.

I've nothing to say about politics for now because my isolated voice from the wilderness doesn't count. I'm trying to avoid television news, because nearly all of it makes me so angry it almost wrecks my day. Insanity is epidemic, ground zero being Washington, so I've decided to go into quarantine for awhile for my own good.

The Super Bowl is the matchup I could hardly dare hope for, but really happened. My two favorite NFL teams are playing each other. I'd rather soak up the enjoyment of this rare occasion than subject myself to depressing stupidity elsewhere.

Speaking of which, I'm sort of wondering if Las Vegas, Nevada may be the home of the stupidest people anywhere? Not meaning to be unkind, and I'm sure there are plenty of highly intelligent individuals residing in Sin City, but why does it seem that nearly everyone I meet here is about as intelligent as a ficus plant?

And for those who think Vegas is fun, I don't really see it. To me, sitting around playing cards or pushing buttons on slot machines is more like torture. A show might be fun, if the good ones didn't all cost a small fortune. There are lots of attractive women here, but there's nothing relevant to me except that now and then I see one and think, "there's an attractive woman". I can do the same thing watching television. Besides, if I actually talk to one, the attractiveness sort of declines as the ditzy airhead materializes.

Next week is officially Administration Week. That means cleaning up the office, closing the books on 2006, meeting with the accountant, signing a new lease on the office, and generally getting the decks cleared for the new year. It's the 'cleaning up the office' part that's going to take the most discipline - I've avoided that job so long I'm almost afraid to tackle it.

I'm ready for the long flight home tomorrow. And hoping to get the upgrade that makes it a comfortable trip.

Marriage Passe

Or at least according to recent reporting that says 51% of women are living without a husband. Apparently there was some pretty questionable statistical fudging used to get to that 51% number - such as counting girls down to age 15 and married women who weren't living under the same roof with their husbands at the moment for one reason or another. But the fudging is another topic.

The fact remains that marriage is in trouble. Part of the gay marriage argument is that it's pretty cheap among heteros anyway, so why lock them out? Sounds like the old "two wrongs don't make a right" sort of argument to me. I think gay marriage isn't about gay people wanting to marry each other. It's really about gay people wanting the government and employer benefits of marriage, treated equal to hetero couples in consideration of adoption, and undermining churches still trying to hold on to basic moral values. But that's another topic.

The story accompanying these managing statistics used them as some sort of evidence that feminism has taken over. Basically, that women have decided that they don't need men in their lives, and are now liberated in big numbers to demonstrate the fact. Maybe some women don't need men (I'd have to say I don't need women with that sort of attitude either), but I would strongly and passionately state that their children do! (Need fathers, that is). But that's another topic.

What the story really leads me to is the fact that this information, fudged as it is, represents something tragic, not something to be celebrated.

Behind the numbers, there is no doubt about the tragic impact this has on children, and by extension, the society. Take out the 15 to 21 year old unmarried girls, the huge numbers of widows, and you still have way too many poor unmarried mothers raising children certain to become poor unmarried mothers themselves.

The reporters telling us about this topic want to pretend it's about the liberation of women to pursue self-actualization and fantastic careers without the oppressive restriction of some jerk husband. What they conveniently leave out of the story is the relatively tiny population that can be reasonably identified in this utopian category.

What's really happening is this: Single women shacked up with a guy who may or may not hang around when the baby (or babies) arrive. Or women that don't let the guys move in but still have 2 or 3 or 4 or more babies that are housed, fed, and raised by taxpayers. I can't ever run for office, because I'd be publicly crucified for daring to "judge" people like this.

Don't misunderstand - I'm not just judging women. The men who shack up with them, get them pregnant, then won't take responsibility for their own kids deserve just as much judgement. As a businessman, if I were interviewing a man who tells me without prompting that he's currently living with his girlfriend, I would not hire him. Here's why - if the guy is willing to move in with a woman while keeping the door wide open to bolt as soon as he gets bored or something doesn't go quite right (say she gets pregnant, for example), then how can I trust him to show any commitment or strong ethical practices as a representative of my company?

I've heard it in person from young, supposedly intelligent people:

Marriage is an anachronism.

We have such a great relationship, why ruin it by getting married?

We don't need to be married to have love and commitment for each other.

Sound familiar?

Know what happens to kids raised by single mothers? I do. Especially boys - how can a boy ever learn how to be a man if there isn't a "real" man present as a father figure?

A few months ago I was working with a client where they needed some help setting up their employee benefits. I spent several hours reviewing the employees and their company-provided benefits - you know, health insurance and life insurance and so on. I was astounded at what I saw.

Most of the men were married, especially those in skilled and management positions. Most of the women were single. Almost all the single women over 25 had children. A large majority of married men and women had children with different last names. And it was not unusual to see 3 or more different last names among the children.

Were the unmarried women with children liberated career women? No. Almost none of them. The single women with kids had the lower-level jobs. Because they have to leave work at 3:30 every day to pick up the kids from school. Overtime is impossible. If a meeting goes past 3:30, they just have to miss it. If something goes wrong and needs to be addressed at the end of the day, somebody else has to do it, because she has to go home and take care of the kids. They can't afford day care, unless they're lucky enough to have a grandparent in town. They barely made it through high school, and college is an old, dead dream given up long ago.

Of course I didn't meet but a few of them at that company, but many I did meet had boyfriends. Some live-in, others not. Think they consider themselves liberated? Interested in a bet on how they'd answer if you asked them how liberated they feel? What do you think they'd say if you asked them whether they needed a man?

Most importantly, how do you think their children are doing? What's the chance their kids, especially their daughters, will go to college?

See, it's not cause for celebration. It's a tragedy. It's an outrage. All sold every day by nearly everything we see on TV. Isn't everybody on TV shacking up or having sex with any hottie that shows up? And despite all that, isn't it interesting that the characters never get pregnant or catch a disease? Even if a baby comes along, somehow it doesn't in any way change the lifestyle of the TV mom, does it?

It's a gigantic lie. If I were a public figure, I'd be crucified for holding the mirror up to the lie. But isn't it time somebody did?

Crazy

The craziness goes on.

Only 30 years ago if you told the average adult these things would be happening now, they'd have called you crazy.

Terrorism strikes here at home, we respond by going to war, then when we get tired of fighting, want to say "never mind" and quit. Then again, I suppose that did happen in a little war in Vietnam. For everyone comparing this war to Vietnam and saying we should retreat just like we did there, they seem to have forgotten how many people died after we quit. To a seeming majority, it doesn't matter if a couple million Iraqis, then millions more across the rest of the middle east, die as a direct result of our retreat.

Gays want to get married. (Legally, that is. Nobody's stopping them from making a marriage-like promise in whatever ceremony they like on their own.) And are taken seriously.

Our taxes are to be increased to kill human embryos for experimentation because some have convinced most Americans that there might be miraculous cures in doing so. (Even though there's been nothing even close to success in lots of such experimentation so far)

The borders are open and illegal immigrants are streaming through in higher numbers than ever. And the national leaders tell us this is a good thing, and even tell us we're too lazy so these illegals are necessary. The insanity extends to a conviction of border agents for wounding a drug smuggler to a large prison term, while the drug smuggler (who's not a US citizen) goes free.

An entire political party, supported now by over half the population, openly espouses Socialist and Marxist doctrines. Most of their supporters don't even know what Marxism is. Or what life is like for the average citizen in those regimes.

God has been banished from society. The citizenry has been told, in no uncertain terms, to keep their religious faith to themselves. Schools teach atheism and eastern mysticism and even Islam, but can't even mention Christianity or Judaism. And most people of faith have accepted it with little complaint.

Companies have finished moving their plants out of the country, and are now moving foreign workers into the country to take the jobs of native-born Americans at a fraction of the pay. And most people go along.

There's something called "Political Correctness", which by definition is avoiding any speech or writing that might be taken as insulting by a particular group of minority ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation. Even if such speech is not intended to insult said group; if one or two members of the group finds it offensive, the offender is persecuted mercilessly. But it's quite acceptable to actually be insulting and vulgar and even abusive toward white Christians.

The country has divided itself into two distinct groups, now labeled Blue and Red. And the color codes are opposite what you would think - Red is attached to conservatives. The Blues appear to have won, with full support of nearly all broadcast media. Which happens to be the only media seen by the majority of Americans.

The most dangerous enemies of the US are building nuclear weapons, and our leaders wring their hands but do nothing.

It's history repeating itself. Our great civilization is crumbling under the weight of its own ignorance and decadence. And when disaster strikes, most will be clueless as to its cause.

Go Colts!

Can't ask for better than another shot at the Patriots, this time at home.

I have to travel on Sunday. Hope I get where I'm going before the game starts.

This is fun.

Fighting Cynicism

I'm becoming a terrible cynic. I used to believe that people were mostly sincere, even though they often use poor judgement.

For example, I think the average Liberal is driven to their left-wing views and beliefs because their lives are driven by emotion. Conversely, a Conservative discounts the emotional in favor of cold hard logical fact. I generally think it's a good thing as long as the two sort of balance each other.

But now I'm rapidly approaching the decision that national leaders on both sides care little about either logic or emotion, but are focused solely on power. The power of their political party and of themselves individually.

Democrats would fling open the doors to outside marauders if it means they can get more power for themselves, even if it's temporary. Republicans would likewise permit other marauders to damage their country's population in return for their own power and wealth.

Last night was an illustration. The President went on television to announce what is really a modest troop level increase to support a new strategy developed to pacify Baghdad. Then Dick Durbin came on to tell us we should just bail out and leave Iraq to settle it's own problems.

I'm tired of hearing all about how we're "losing" in Iraq, or how the Democrats think if we "win" in Iraq, that's somehow bad for them politically. Heaven forbid Bush actually succeeds.

Here's my radical idea: We already won the war in Iraq. We defeated Saddam's troops, removed his government, and helped install a new democratically-elected government. All military objectives met, and rather spectacularly at that. We're only still there to help the new government get on their feet, because if we don't, Iraq will become a province of Iran. If anybody thinks that won't lead to a major explosion in terrorism, along with a continued expansion of Iranian power in the region, they live in a fantasy world.

Ironically, the President just did everything the Democrats have been hammering him to do for the past 3 years. He fired Rumsfeld. He commissioned an "Iraq Study Group" to give him recommendations. He met with all the generals in the field. He talked with Democrat and Republican leaders. He even publicly admitted to past mistakes. Then he made a decision, and says he has the Iraqi government on board with that decision. Did he get credit for doing everything the democrats asked? Did anyone actually believe he would ever get any credit from them for anything at all? Get real.

Will it work? I don't know. But I also don't think all the congressional blowhards on both sides know either. He's the Commander in Chief. Wars can't be fought by committees. It's the President's job to decide and implement strategy, and the generals' job to implement the strategy. Just let them do it.

Next year we're voting for a new president anyway. Whether Bush succeeds or fails in this new strategy will probably have an impact on that vote. Then we'll get a new president who can decide where we go from there.

And we'll either march ahead toward a socialist, perhaps marxist country, or we'll stay pretty much the same. I think most people want a third way, and want to elect people who actually care more about the country than themselves. But it won't happen, because only those who agree to toe the line drawn by their campaign financiers will get into office.

The cynicism is winning.

Stem Cell Deception

During the campaign last year, I found it objectionable that one political party supported distorted messages suggesting that evil opponents of stem cell research were denying people with all manner of disease and injury hope for a cure. What they conveniently didn't mention was that the only thing being opposed was tax money spent on embryonic stem cell research, which by the way requires destruction of a human embryo. Nobody's stopping privately funded research in this area.

As I do with many controversial issues, I checked it out and discovered that stem cells are indeed proving valuable in many cases. But not embryonic stem cells. The truth is that adult and placental stem cells are widely and successfully used, and new applications are being developed all the time. But embryonic stem cells haven't yet proven therapeutic for any disease. They just can't get them to work.

I tried to give the benefit of the doubt to the very vocal proponents of selective taxpayer funding of embryonic stem cells, thinking that maybe they were being duped by researchers in search of grant money. Or, like Michael J. Fox, they simply held out hope for a cure from any source for their own debilitating disease, even on the barest sliver of probability for success.

But now I'm more fully inclined to believe that the whole issue was manufactured. First of all, the announcement this week of the discovery that stem cells taken from amniotic fluid have all the properties of embryonic stem cells without the problems that researchers haven't yet been able to overcome.

Problem solved, right? You can now harvest stem cells that are better than embryonic without destroying a human embryo. So we can all celebrate and move forward!

I guess not. The Dems have told us to ignore that news, it's full speed ahead on their big bill to throw millions of dollars into embronic stem cell research. In other words, facts and science don't matter, and people with moral objection to such human experimentation certainly don't matter either.

Why? I think at least two reasons: First is money. Democrats have been given huge campaign contributions from those who champion this issue for their own reasons. Second is the reason isn't actually the reason. It's not about finding cures, but creating justification for abortion. See, with embryonic stem cell research funded by the government, women can say, "I'm not ready to be a mother just now, so I gave my embryo to science to help develop a cure for (insert disease here)."

What other explanation is there?

Football Entertainment

The first weekend of playoffs in the NFL was fun to watch, mostly I think because the Colts won. The bowl games were also somewhat interesting, even though Notre Dame seemed to hang up the cleats at halftime.

It seemed that KC had almost the right strategy for beating the Colts, at least on defense. In the first half, they kept the Colts out of the end zone. And you have to tip a hat to them for picking off Peyton 3 times.

Their problem was that they didn't count on Indy's defense actually showing up. In hindsight it may be easy to say they should have mixed the run and the pass to keep the Colts defense off-balance, but anybody who watched Indy this season would have to believe that the best rushing offense in the league should have run up and down the field all day long.

Bob Sanders helped - he made plays and brought lots of energy - but he didn't do it by himself. Kudos to the Colts defense. Let's hope they can do it again Saturday in Baltimore.

Interestingly, the two NFC games were very similar to each other. Except that Romo muffed the snap for what would have been the Cowboys' game-winner, and the Eagles had no such trouble.

It's gotta be tough to be Tony Romo right now. But then again, maybe not - he's sure to get a big contract boost and he's young. He'll do just fine, I think.

Ohio State and Florida tonight. Personally I don't care too much which team wins, but would enjoy a close game. Like Boise State against Oklahoma - too bad I didn't see that one as it happened.

People find entertainment in a variety of ways. Football is mine. And college basketball. And I don't bet.

Surviving the Holidays

Taking an entire week off for the first time in the nearly 3 years since becoming self-employed was a mixed blessing, to say the least. There were many things that came into sharp focus over the course of the week, and I was not happy to look. There's nothing more I dare say about that subject.

I'm back at work, planning to take every opportunity possible to earn as much as I possibly can. It's the only thing I can control.

Ever come off vacation thinking, "Boy, do I need a vacation!"?

Yeah, it's like that.