Generally one to look on the positive side of things, lately I've felt a bit discouraged.
Always in search of objective truth, I've recently found that there may be too many people out there who for whatever reason can't see truth even if it slaps them in the face. I suppose they are too invested in what seems to be an almost religious fervor to believe their heroes, even when those heroes tell them it's raining on a bright and sunny day.
Name me an issue and I'll point out the lies you've been fed:
Illegal immigration: First of all, you're not even being told that all these people here from foreign countries are here illegally. The euphemism I keep hearing is "undocumented workers". The US Senate passed a bill that completely ignored all of their constituents in an outrageous pander to corporate interests, future voters, and Mexico. But they completely ignored a super-majority of their actual tax paying constituency, who they must think of as ignorant fools.
Iraq: I'll let you in on a big secret: Iraq has a government now, they are standing up their own military and police force, and American casualty rates have been decreasing steadily over the last several months. But somehow talking heads continue to suggest we're losing? And get off the "Bush lied" stupidity. Disagreement with the war for actual geopolitical reasons or general pacifistic philosophies is one thing, but the whole "Bush lied" line is tired and just plain false. Not to mention moot.
Iran: We should be very worried about Iran. Because they have openly thumbed their nose at the world and are working feverishly to build nuclear weapons. The UN won't do anything about it, and it looks like the US won't either because of all the Iraq angst and general war weariness. What's Iran going to do when they get the weapons? At minimum, they will use them to hold the world hostage. Most likely they will give small portable nuclear bombs to their many terrorists to sneak into our country and set them to explode in our cities. And right now it seems most of our population has chosen to pretend there is no risk.
Energy: So all of a sudden the oil companies just decided arbitrarily to ratchet up oil prices just so they could stick it to all of us and make obscene profits? And somehow Bush is involved in the conspiracy to enrich his friends in the oil business. So now we demand price controls or windfall profits taxes on those nasty oil companies. Anybody remember Nixon, who established price controls back in the 70's? It failed miserably, and just made things worse. What about Carter, who got a Democrat congress to pass a windfall profits tax on oil companies in the late 70's. Again a miserable failure that economists agree just made things worse. The secret? Iran's a destabilizing force in the middle east, China's buying up more oil than ever to support their exploding economy as they now make everything we buy at WalMart. Venezuela's gone Communist, Russia is creeping back toward Communism. And we in the US aren't allowed to drill for more oil anywhere or build new refineries. All put tremendous pressure toward limiting supplies, therefore higher prices. Oh yeah, alternative fuels. Sure, we could start producing cars that run on ethanol, and the farmers love the idea. Guess what ethanol costs to produce? And how long it takes to build the capacity and roll out new vehicles engineered to burn it? And hydrogen fuel cells? Way down the road, if at all. Yeah, the whole conspiracy theory stuff saying somebody already has invented 70 mpg engines but it's being suppressed by the mighty oil companies is the same stupid idea that was running around in the 70's.
Health Care: OK, we can all agree it's a mess. So what should we do about it? Canada-style socialized medicine? Tax money collected to pay for everyone's health care sounds great to people who don't pay taxes. To the rest of us who already see between 40 and 50 percent of our earnings confiscated by the government, it's a frightening idea. But even those who don't get that much taken away, just wait until you find out what socialized medicine really means. Think you wait a long time at the doctor's office today? As they say, you ain't seen nothin' yet.
There are plenty more issues, but I don't feel like writing any more.
Monday, May 29, 2006
Tuesday, May 23, 2006
Funny and Sad
Sometimes things strike me as funny, then sad.
This week it's the Dixie Chicks and their (air)head chick, Natalie Maines. She came out with this sort of retraction of her previous apology for saying hateful things about the president.
So, if I follow the story right, Natalie fancies herself as some sort of crusading anti-Bush spokeswoman who dissed the president a few years back during a concert. Lots of Americans took offense at her offensive remarks and led a boycott of Dixie Chicks music.
She was amazed and appalled that her political ranting would actually cost her money, so at first she went around trying to suggest that there was some sort of Nazi-style censorship going on. That flopped, so eventually she offered a vague apology for having offended anyone.
I'm guessing sales are up these days - I wouldn't know, and could not identify a Dixie Chicks song if you played it for me - so I suppose she feels like it's OK to go back to dissing Bush.
It's funny because she is such a dim bulb but somehow thinks people actually care what she has to say. As if there's anybody on the planet who would listen to her talk, if they could ever decipher the lingo filled with "like, you know" and "whatever"; and suddenly realize, "how stupid I've been to not hate Bush all these years. Why, if Natalie says he sucks, then she must be right!". Think of the millions of people who are now liberal Democrats just because of Natalie. (me laughing)
It's sad because she is such a dim bulb that she can't even see that all this behavior does is make her prove just how dim she is to the entire country. And who knows how many offended people who might have been fans of her little country girl band will never buy another CD because of her hateful and ignorant trash talk.
When will entertainers get it? If they want to get politically active, they should do so by giving some of their fortunes to their favorite candidates behind the scenes. Even showing up to perform for a politician they like would be something they could get away with now and then. But to run around spewing hatred against a president not only changes nobody's mind, but makes about half the country nauseous and hurts the entertainer's business.
Funny and sad.
This week it's the Dixie Chicks and their (air)head chick, Natalie Maines. She came out with this sort of retraction of her previous apology for saying hateful things about the president.
So, if I follow the story right, Natalie fancies herself as some sort of crusading anti-Bush spokeswoman who dissed the president a few years back during a concert. Lots of Americans took offense at her offensive remarks and led a boycott of Dixie Chicks music.
She was amazed and appalled that her political ranting would actually cost her money, so at first she went around trying to suggest that there was some sort of Nazi-style censorship going on. That flopped, so eventually she offered a vague apology for having offended anyone.
I'm guessing sales are up these days - I wouldn't know, and could not identify a Dixie Chicks song if you played it for me - so I suppose she feels like it's OK to go back to dissing Bush.
It's funny because she is such a dim bulb but somehow thinks people actually care what she has to say. As if there's anybody on the planet who would listen to her talk, if they could ever decipher the lingo filled with "like, you know" and "whatever"; and suddenly realize, "how stupid I've been to not hate Bush all these years. Why, if Natalie says he sucks, then she must be right!". Think of the millions of people who are now liberal Democrats just because of Natalie. (me laughing)
It's sad because she is such a dim bulb that she can't even see that all this behavior does is make her prove just how dim she is to the entire country. And who knows how many offended people who might have been fans of her little country girl band will never buy another CD because of her hateful and ignorant trash talk.
When will entertainers get it? If they want to get politically active, they should do so by giving some of their fortunes to their favorite candidates behind the scenes. Even showing up to perform for a politician they like would be something they could get away with now and then. But to run around spewing hatred against a president not only changes nobody's mind, but makes about half the country nauseous and hurts the entertainer's business.
Funny and sad.
Monday, May 22, 2006
Action and Adventure
Things have really popped today. All of a sudden my summer is within maybe a couple of weeks of being filled up with consulting work, it looks like I'm going to hit the road this Wednesday after all, and there's a company that seems to be interested in hiring me full-time.
With everything else, I'm beginning to think the full-time job option will get turned down pretty quickly, unless it's some kind of dream job. At the same time, I've got to get on the stick to get some of my website work finished before I get buried in other things.
It's sort of a mixed blessing. I like getting busy because it means good steady income. I dislike getting too busy because it wears me out. Too bad I can't even out all the peaks and valleys and just keep a nice, easy, even pace.
Better get back to work.
With everything else, I'm beginning to think the full-time job option will get turned down pretty quickly, unless it's some kind of dream job. At the same time, I've got to get on the stick to get some of my website work finished before I get buried in other things.
It's sort of a mixed blessing. I like getting busy because it means good steady income. I dislike getting too busy because it wears me out. Too bad I can't even out all the peaks and valleys and just keep a nice, easy, even pace.
Better get back to work.
Friday, May 19, 2006
TGIF
I haven't had a day off since Christmastime, I have most of the urgent stuff done for today, and it looks nice outside. So I'm considering taking off early to go play a little golf.
Tim & I had time to kill waiting for Chris to be done with his basketball camp in Seymour last night, so we wandered around a couple of car lots. We decided that the only used car lots worthy of our business are those that post their prices. What an idiotic tradition to make you ask a salesman for a price on a vehicle, who is likely to withhold the information in an attempt to get you to test drive it and get all excited before trying to close the deal that's great for his commission but not so great for your pocket. For me, wandering around looking at vehicles and prices had the effect of making me feel better about hanging on to ol' Jed awhile longer.
The kooks who keep saying our government is somehow torturing prisoners in Gitmo despite investigations that reported the contrary have friends in the UN, which is calling for the closing of the camp and release of prisoners there. The question is, release them to where? I'd suggest just dropping them off in Cuba to become guests of Fidel when we close the camp, but that's just me.
I was sort of wondering, since most of the Gitmo prisoners are enemy combatants from Afghanistan, why not just turn them over to the Afghan government? I may have found the answer at PowerLine - check out their article titled The UN Keeps its Eye on the Ball
Tim & I had time to kill waiting for Chris to be done with his basketball camp in Seymour last night, so we wandered around a couple of car lots. We decided that the only used car lots worthy of our business are those that post their prices. What an idiotic tradition to make you ask a salesman for a price on a vehicle, who is likely to withhold the information in an attempt to get you to test drive it and get all excited before trying to close the deal that's great for his commission but not so great for your pocket. For me, wandering around looking at vehicles and prices had the effect of making me feel better about hanging on to ol' Jed awhile longer.
The kooks who keep saying our government is somehow torturing prisoners in Gitmo despite investigations that reported the contrary have friends in the UN, which is calling for the closing of the camp and release of prisoners there. The question is, release them to where? I'd suggest just dropping them off in Cuba to become guests of Fidel when we close the camp, but that's just me.
I was sort of wondering, since most of the Gitmo prisoners are enemy combatants from Afghanistan, why not just turn them over to the Afghan government? I may have found the answer at PowerLine - check out their article titled The UN Keeps its Eye on the Ball
Thursday, May 18, 2006
Musings
The depth of ignorance I encounter seems to be bottomless. Just when I think I've heard the most ignorant ideas possible, somebody proves me wrong just by speaking.
Had an unscheduled visit to the dentist yesterday afternoon. Gave in and scheduled the work they told me I needed done a year ago. Trips to the dentist for me are torture sessions. And I don't even have any national secrets to protect. (Ever seen Marathon Man? "Is it safe?")
Got a call about a 6-month full-time contract possibility in Cincinnati. Could be very nice, but would not allow me to do anything else for 6 months. Not sure it will happen, though.
Summer movie season is arriving. Cars looks like fun.
Too bad Dickie Lugar was unopposed in the primary. If a credible candidate had decided to take him on this year, I would have happily voted for him (or her). Unfortunately, when we get to November I'll probably have to hold my nose and vote for Lugar anyway. Frustrating.
Would vote against Bayh too anyway, but he's not running this time around. Both Indiana Senators have lost touch with their constituents. And their party machines don't care.
I've been home all week, which was nice for the first few days. But I'm ready to go out again. Maybe this traveling stuff is in my blood. I'm restless and bored. (And some other things, not for public consumption.)
I noticed something about the CSI shows. Not sure about Miami, but doesn't it seem like New York and Las Vegas have almost the same storyline for thier "Season Finale"? Are they using the same writers or stealing ideas from each other?
So what about The DaVinci Code? Is it heretical and anti-Christian? Yeah. I read the book, and it certainly is a novel written based on some pretty wild theories that seem to have originated from a book called "Holy Blood, Holy Grail". Treated simply as a work of fiction, it's a great read, and probably made a pretty good movie as well. But it's unfortunate that Dan Brown chose to promote the book as based on some serious questions, rather than solely a work of fiction. That makes me suspect that Brown may, for reasons I can't know, have an anti-Christian agenda in promoting information in his novel as "factual", when most every idea presented has been proven either completely false or badly distorted.
Would watching that movie be some sort of unpardonable sin? Nah, I don't think so. Watch it solely as fiction, and it is nothing more than another good movie. Watch it with the idea that it has some sort of underlying "truth" about Jesus and Mary Magdalene and the early Catholic Church, and maybe so. Want to boycott the movie to send a message about not supporting such anti-Christian stuff, like happened with the horrible Last Temptation of Christ? Go ahead, but I'm not sure it will succeed.
I want to go on vacation. Somewhere warm, on the ocean.
Better get back to work then.
Had an unscheduled visit to the dentist yesterday afternoon. Gave in and scheduled the work they told me I needed done a year ago. Trips to the dentist for me are torture sessions. And I don't even have any national secrets to protect. (Ever seen Marathon Man? "Is it safe?")
Got a call about a 6-month full-time contract possibility in Cincinnati. Could be very nice, but would not allow me to do anything else for 6 months. Not sure it will happen, though.
Summer movie season is arriving. Cars looks like fun.
Too bad Dickie Lugar was unopposed in the primary. If a credible candidate had decided to take him on this year, I would have happily voted for him (or her). Unfortunately, when we get to November I'll probably have to hold my nose and vote for Lugar anyway. Frustrating.
Would vote against Bayh too anyway, but he's not running this time around. Both Indiana Senators have lost touch with their constituents. And their party machines don't care.
I've been home all week, which was nice for the first few days. But I'm ready to go out again. Maybe this traveling stuff is in my blood. I'm restless and bored. (And some other things, not for public consumption.)
I noticed something about the CSI shows. Not sure about Miami, but doesn't it seem like New York and Las Vegas have almost the same storyline for thier "Season Finale"? Are they using the same writers or stealing ideas from each other?
So what about The DaVinci Code? Is it heretical and anti-Christian? Yeah. I read the book, and it certainly is a novel written based on some pretty wild theories that seem to have originated from a book called "Holy Blood, Holy Grail". Treated simply as a work of fiction, it's a great read, and probably made a pretty good movie as well. But it's unfortunate that Dan Brown chose to promote the book as based on some serious questions, rather than solely a work of fiction. That makes me suspect that Brown may, for reasons I can't know, have an anti-Christian agenda in promoting information in his novel as "factual", when most every idea presented has been proven either completely false or badly distorted.
Would watching that movie be some sort of unpardonable sin? Nah, I don't think so. Watch it solely as fiction, and it is nothing more than another good movie. Watch it with the idea that it has some sort of underlying "truth" about Jesus and Mary Magdalene and the early Catholic Church, and maybe so. Want to boycott the movie to send a message about not supporting such anti-Christian stuff, like happened with the horrible Last Temptation of Christ? Go ahead, but I'm not sure it will succeed.
I want to go on vacation. Somewhere warm, on the ocean.
Better get back to work then.
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
Economics
I've got to admit that I wasn't the greatest Econ student back in grad school. Macro Economics in particular just about killed me, and Micro was taught by a foreign professor nobody could understand.
But I got enough out of those classes to be able to view today's big issues through an economic lens.
Take illegal immigration. Emotional topic, with lots of arguing and demonstrating and demagoguery about the legal and moral issues. Which by the way I am on the law-and-order side of the argument, and agree with those who think we need strong border enforcement and to deal harshly with employers who cheat by hiring illegal immigrants. But that's not what this post is about.
What this post is about is the economic impact of illegal immigration on our society. Let's assume for a moment that the estimate of 12 million illegals in the USA is fairly accurate. That's a staggering number, which can't help but have a real impact on the nation's economy. What is that impact?
Basically, a large influx of workers who are willing to work for below-market wages impacts many sectors of the economy. Those workers take jobs many native-born citizens consider beneath them. They take jobs for lower wages than would be acceptable to citizens. That lowers cost of production, thus lowers consumer prices and increases company profits. It is quite a testament to the strength of the American economy that we have absorbed these gigantic numbers of illegal immigrants in addition to the many legal immigrants that came in the front door and still have a healthy and growing economy with low unemployment rates.
The downside of this trend is that American citizens are now finding that jobs they want are also being given to illegal immigrants. Traditionally higher-paying jobs in the construction trades and manufacturing are now being given preferentially to illegals by companies who have discovered that they can hire those workers at much lower hourly rates without fear of government sanctions. And the traditional student employers in fast food, lawn care, and other services are abandoning their student workers in favor of illegals who accept lower wages and don't have school schedules to work around.
Let's say that tomorrow our government answered the demands of those who want the border sealed and all illegal immigrants rounded up and deported. Note that when the President says it's impossible, he can't really mean it's impossible, because if our government had the will it absolutely could be done. What he really means is that it would shock the economy too much to undertake. Here's why.
Suppose that tomorrow we find and deport all 12 million or so illegals. The immediate effect is a void in the jobs those people were filling. Companies will have two choices: either recruit new employees to fill those jobs at market rates, or close. It is safe to assume that most of the companies will raise their wages to attract workers.
Higher wages sounds great for the workers, right? Sure, it would be. For a very short time. But think about it for a minute. Let's say millions of jobs that were being filled by illegals at $5 per hour now must be filled at twice that, or $10 per hour. That means everybody else who is currently earning $6 to $10 per hour in more highly skilled jobs will demand they be paid equitably in comparison to the entry-level people now making more than them. And so on, throughout the entire salary scale, bottom to top. Great for everyone, right?
Not so great. It's called inflation. Upward pressure on wages due to a lack of supply in the labor market will place a corresponding upward pressure on prices. As prices rise, demand will decrease for the end products. With reduced demand for products comes reduced demand for workers to produce those products. Higher wages will bid up prices for everything, inflating the economy throughout. The inevitable result is recession. And given the relatively significant percentage of the workforce today that may be illegal, the recession could be deep and long-lasting.
That's why Bush wants a guest worker program. Such a program guarantees a permanent entry-level underclass of $5 per hour workers. Morally I have a major problem with creating such a permanent poverty-level working class just to prop up the economy. Moreover, the cynical reality of the guest-worker concept understands that if these low-wage visitors are given a path toward citizenship, they will become Americans in many ways, including becoming activists demanding higher wages and benefits for themselves. Thus the guest worker program instead of easier immigration policies.
Therefore, my preference would be a gradual change that protects borders, admits immigrants based on carefully designed limits, and over time eliminates the illegal class. I also have a major problem with importing high-tech workers from India and the Far East to take jobs of native-born Americans simply because they will accept a fraction of Americans' salaries. If these trends continue, eventually there will no longer be a middle class, because even the most highly skilled workers increasingly have to compete with people from around the globe for their jobs.
I've been installing payroll systems for companies of all kinds around the country for about 25 years now, and the trends I've seen over the years are disturbing. Back in the '80s and early 90's, payrolls had a nice wage distribution. The exectives brought in the nice 6 figure salaries, followed by managers in the 70's to 100K, then supervisors in the 40's to 50's, then the line workers from the 30's to 50's. Now those payrolls have changed. Executives now pull in high 6-figures and often 7 figures. The Manager class has been slashed to a small fraction of people compared to the past, and their salaries have not increased. Supervisors are no longer professionally trained and certified, but are better described as "Lead Clerks" or "Team Leaders", which means they are more like senior front-line workers placed on salary so they can be forced to work uncompensated overtime. For example, companies used to employ a Payroll Manager who was a highly professional and often certified expert in payroll. Today, instead of a Payroll Manager there is a Payroll Supervisor or Payroll Coordinator who earns half what the Payroll Manager was paid, is not a certified professional, and knows only what she was taught by the Controller about processing the company payroll using advanced software systems that make everything nearly foolproof. And finally, the front-line workers have not gained any noticable wage increases, and generally earn the same or even less than the same groups did 20 years ago.
The weakening of labor unions, the introduction of new technologies, outsourcing, offshoring, and the influx of low-wage legal and illegal immigrants all contributed to these trends. And it is true, based on my actual observations at so many companies around the country, that the average American worker may be able to stay employed, but has not made any real gains in wages. No doubt, the typical American household needs 2 full-time incomes to maintain a middle-class lifestyle, whether they are educated and skilled or not.
I wonder if any of this is discussed in college economics classrooms? Because I sure don't hear it discussed in the American media.
But I got enough out of those classes to be able to view today's big issues through an economic lens.
Take illegal immigration. Emotional topic, with lots of arguing and demonstrating and demagoguery about the legal and moral issues. Which by the way I am on the law-and-order side of the argument, and agree with those who think we need strong border enforcement and to deal harshly with employers who cheat by hiring illegal immigrants. But that's not what this post is about.
What this post is about is the economic impact of illegal immigration on our society. Let's assume for a moment that the estimate of 12 million illegals in the USA is fairly accurate. That's a staggering number, which can't help but have a real impact on the nation's economy. What is that impact?
Basically, a large influx of workers who are willing to work for below-market wages impacts many sectors of the economy. Those workers take jobs many native-born citizens consider beneath them. They take jobs for lower wages than would be acceptable to citizens. That lowers cost of production, thus lowers consumer prices and increases company profits. It is quite a testament to the strength of the American economy that we have absorbed these gigantic numbers of illegal immigrants in addition to the many legal immigrants that came in the front door and still have a healthy and growing economy with low unemployment rates.
The downside of this trend is that American citizens are now finding that jobs they want are also being given to illegal immigrants. Traditionally higher-paying jobs in the construction trades and manufacturing are now being given preferentially to illegals by companies who have discovered that they can hire those workers at much lower hourly rates without fear of government sanctions. And the traditional student employers in fast food, lawn care, and other services are abandoning their student workers in favor of illegals who accept lower wages and don't have school schedules to work around.
Let's say that tomorrow our government answered the demands of those who want the border sealed and all illegal immigrants rounded up and deported. Note that when the President says it's impossible, he can't really mean it's impossible, because if our government had the will it absolutely could be done. What he really means is that it would shock the economy too much to undertake. Here's why.
Suppose that tomorrow we find and deport all 12 million or so illegals. The immediate effect is a void in the jobs those people were filling. Companies will have two choices: either recruit new employees to fill those jobs at market rates, or close. It is safe to assume that most of the companies will raise their wages to attract workers.
Higher wages sounds great for the workers, right? Sure, it would be. For a very short time. But think about it for a minute. Let's say millions of jobs that were being filled by illegals at $5 per hour now must be filled at twice that, or $10 per hour. That means everybody else who is currently earning $6 to $10 per hour in more highly skilled jobs will demand they be paid equitably in comparison to the entry-level people now making more than them. And so on, throughout the entire salary scale, bottom to top. Great for everyone, right?
Not so great. It's called inflation. Upward pressure on wages due to a lack of supply in the labor market will place a corresponding upward pressure on prices. As prices rise, demand will decrease for the end products. With reduced demand for products comes reduced demand for workers to produce those products. Higher wages will bid up prices for everything, inflating the economy throughout. The inevitable result is recession. And given the relatively significant percentage of the workforce today that may be illegal, the recession could be deep and long-lasting.
That's why Bush wants a guest worker program. Such a program guarantees a permanent entry-level underclass of $5 per hour workers. Morally I have a major problem with creating such a permanent poverty-level working class just to prop up the economy. Moreover, the cynical reality of the guest-worker concept understands that if these low-wage visitors are given a path toward citizenship, they will become Americans in many ways, including becoming activists demanding higher wages and benefits for themselves. Thus the guest worker program instead of easier immigration policies.
Therefore, my preference would be a gradual change that protects borders, admits immigrants based on carefully designed limits, and over time eliminates the illegal class. I also have a major problem with importing high-tech workers from India and the Far East to take jobs of native-born Americans simply because they will accept a fraction of Americans' salaries. If these trends continue, eventually there will no longer be a middle class, because even the most highly skilled workers increasingly have to compete with people from around the globe for their jobs.
I've been installing payroll systems for companies of all kinds around the country for about 25 years now, and the trends I've seen over the years are disturbing. Back in the '80s and early 90's, payrolls had a nice wage distribution. The exectives brought in the nice 6 figure salaries, followed by managers in the 70's to 100K, then supervisors in the 40's to 50's, then the line workers from the 30's to 50's. Now those payrolls have changed. Executives now pull in high 6-figures and often 7 figures. The Manager class has been slashed to a small fraction of people compared to the past, and their salaries have not increased. Supervisors are no longer professionally trained and certified, but are better described as "Lead Clerks" or "Team Leaders", which means they are more like senior front-line workers placed on salary so they can be forced to work uncompensated overtime. For example, companies used to employ a Payroll Manager who was a highly professional and often certified expert in payroll. Today, instead of a Payroll Manager there is a Payroll Supervisor or Payroll Coordinator who earns half what the Payroll Manager was paid, is not a certified professional, and knows only what she was taught by the Controller about processing the company payroll using advanced software systems that make everything nearly foolproof. And finally, the front-line workers have not gained any noticable wage increases, and generally earn the same or even less than the same groups did 20 years ago.
The weakening of labor unions, the introduction of new technologies, outsourcing, offshoring, and the influx of low-wage legal and illegal immigrants all contributed to these trends. And it is true, based on my actual observations at so many companies around the country, that the average American worker may be able to stay employed, but has not made any real gains in wages. No doubt, the typical American household needs 2 full-time incomes to maintain a middle-class lifestyle, whether they are educated and skilled or not.
I wonder if any of this is discussed in college economics classrooms? Because I sure don't hear it discussed in the American media.
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
If you can't say anything nice ...
My Mom used to say it to us, as many other mothers said to their children:
If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all
Lately I've been subjected to incessant negativity from people I care about, talking about other people I care about. Or even talking about others I don't know or care about personally. Such vitriol does nothing but upset me. When I blurted out, "Just stop! I don't want to hear any more.", I got the response, "You are so naive. Wake up! Get your head out of the sand!"
Want to call me naive? Go ahead. I still don't want to hear it. Save it for somebody who loves gossip. I'll make my own judgements about others' characters, thank you.
Unfortunately I can't change the behavior of others. But I can renew and strengthen my promise to myself: I will not speak negatively about anyone, nor will I listen to anyone who desires to poison my relationship with another. Why do you want so badly to spoil my opinion of another, anyway?
I'm sorry for so many people who seem to live their lives in hatred and anger. What a waste of time and emotion. If one really can't stand to be around an individual for whatever reason, just avoid that person; why go beyond and attempt to impose your hatred or bias on others?
If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all
Lately I've been subjected to incessant negativity from people I care about, talking about other people I care about. Or even talking about others I don't know or care about personally. Such vitriol does nothing but upset me. When I blurted out, "Just stop! I don't want to hear any more.", I got the response, "You are so naive. Wake up! Get your head out of the sand!"
Want to call me naive? Go ahead. I still don't want to hear it. Save it for somebody who loves gossip. I'll make my own judgements about others' characters, thank you.
Unfortunately I can't change the behavior of others. But I can renew and strengthen my promise to myself: I will not speak negatively about anyone, nor will I listen to anyone who desires to poison my relationship with another. Why do you want so badly to spoil my opinion of another, anyway?
I'm sorry for so many people who seem to live their lives in hatred and anger. What a waste of time and emotion. If one really can't stand to be around an individual for whatever reason, just avoid that person; why go beyond and attempt to impose your hatred or bias on others?
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
Questions
Just wondering ...
How is it that the very people who have successfully shut down domestic oil exploration through environmental laws are now the most vocally angry about high gas prices?
If your contention that major US oil companies are sticking it to all of us just because they can, then how do you explain the late '90s, when gas was under $1 a gallon and oil companies were hurting and going out of business?
If we do what you want and immediately and abruptly pull all our troops out of Iraq, do you really believe there will be no consequences for either us or the Iraqis? Would you be OK with the results, which would almost certainly be hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis in a civil war, a takeover of Iraq by Iran, and a major escalation in the jihad against us almost immediately?
Just how do you think diplomacy will actually stop Iran from building nuclear bombs and launching them at Israel and sending them over here with their terrorist cells to detonate in our own cities? So we just say, "we want to be your friends, please don't make nukes", then they will say, "why didn't you say something? Of course, we'll stop building nukes right now!"?
What is congress doing about illegal immigration? Who said we need a new law, when there are plenty of existing laws that just haven't been enforced? Isn't the only thing needed just appropriation of money to seal the borders, prosecute employers who knowingly employ illegals, and simply process and deport those here illegally? Do you think your favorite Senators who are more focused on amnesty than enforcement really have any intention to solve the problem?
The economy is better than it's been in a decade, so why is everyone so spitting angry?
Why does the "culture of corruption" keep playing prominently about two or three Republican indictments that are seriously weak, when there are far more serious credible charges against Democrat lawmakers that aren't even mentioned on the evening news? Wouldn't you say at a minimum that corruption happens in both parties among corrupt individuals?
Seniors now get their prescription drugs paid for by the government, so why are they so angry about it?
What's all this ugliness against Christians? Are those of us who happen to be believers blowing up more people than Islamic terrorists? If you can call the President all manner of vile and profane names and accuse him of awful and untrue things, why can't Christians simply mention that, uh, you know, some behaviors are wrong and sort of disgusting.
You think everybody who hates Bush is being secretly and illegally surveilled? If so, would you mind giving me a name of a single person who has been unfairly arrested, imprisoned, questioned, harrassed, fired, ridiculed, audited? Just one name?
If you're going to be angry at the president or congress, don't you think you should at least find out the facts to make sure what exactly you should be angry about?
How is it that the very people who have successfully shut down domestic oil exploration through environmental laws are now the most vocally angry about high gas prices?
If your contention that major US oil companies are sticking it to all of us just because they can, then how do you explain the late '90s, when gas was under $1 a gallon and oil companies were hurting and going out of business?
If we do what you want and immediately and abruptly pull all our troops out of Iraq, do you really believe there will be no consequences for either us or the Iraqis? Would you be OK with the results, which would almost certainly be hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis in a civil war, a takeover of Iraq by Iran, and a major escalation in the jihad against us almost immediately?
Just how do you think diplomacy will actually stop Iran from building nuclear bombs and launching them at Israel and sending them over here with their terrorist cells to detonate in our own cities? So we just say, "we want to be your friends, please don't make nukes", then they will say, "why didn't you say something? Of course, we'll stop building nukes right now!"?
What is congress doing about illegal immigration? Who said we need a new law, when there are plenty of existing laws that just haven't been enforced? Isn't the only thing needed just appropriation of money to seal the borders, prosecute employers who knowingly employ illegals, and simply process and deport those here illegally? Do you think your favorite Senators who are more focused on amnesty than enforcement really have any intention to solve the problem?
The economy is better than it's been in a decade, so why is everyone so spitting angry?
Why does the "culture of corruption" keep playing prominently about two or three Republican indictments that are seriously weak, when there are far more serious credible charges against Democrat lawmakers that aren't even mentioned on the evening news? Wouldn't you say at a minimum that corruption happens in both parties among corrupt individuals?
Seniors now get their prescription drugs paid for by the government, so why are they so angry about it?
What's all this ugliness against Christians? Are those of us who happen to be believers blowing up more people than Islamic terrorists? If you can call the President all manner of vile and profane names and accuse him of awful and untrue things, why can't Christians simply mention that, uh, you know, some behaviors are wrong and sort of disgusting.
You think everybody who hates Bush is being secretly and illegally surveilled? If so, would you mind giving me a name of a single person who has been unfairly arrested, imprisoned, questioned, harrassed, fired, ridiculed, audited? Just one name?
If you're going to be angry at the president or congress, don't you think you should at least find out the facts to make sure what exactly you should be angry about?
Friday, May 05, 2006
Picking the right Customs Agent
So this week I returned to the border to try again. And the guy in the customs booth this time barely gave me a second look. All I went through to find my old diplomas and degrees, even ordering replacements for the ones I lost, was for nothing.
Instead of paying the (reportedly) exhorbitant fee to expedite some sort of Canadian work permit, the company was advised by their attorney to write a better letter and have me try again. Yes, the new letter is better and more clearly written, but it still doesn't say much of anything that's different than the original letter that got me turned away last month.
I wonder, every time I go to Canada am I going to have to worry about which customs agent looks over my passport? That's the theory of the people at the client - it's all just who you get. They even theorized that it might be a gender thing, since the agent that turned me away last month was a female, and the one that waved me on through was male.
The only thing I can say for sure is that the female agent that turned me away definitely seemed to have an attitude. Exactly what her problem was, I can't guess. Because I'm male? Because I'm white? Because I remind her of somebody she hates? Because she's angry at all the people from the US coming to Canada to make money?
Beats me. If only I could peer into the booth before driving up and switch to the "right" one every time.
Know what's irritating about going to Canada? Coming home with a bunch of Canadian change in my pocket that isn't worth anything here. And it's not worth trying to exchange, especially because the currency exchange at the Indy airport has a $50 minimum and charges an exhorbitant fee. Anybody want to give me a couple bucks American for about 3 bucks in Canadian coins?
Instead of paying the (reportedly) exhorbitant fee to expedite some sort of Canadian work permit, the company was advised by their attorney to write a better letter and have me try again. Yes, the new letter is better and more clearly written, but it still doesn't say much of anything that's different than the original letter that got me turned away last month.
I wonder, every time I go to Canada am I going to have to worry about which customs agent looks over my passport? That's the theory of the people at the client - it's all just who you get. They even theorized that it might be a gender thing, since the agent that turned me away last month was a female, and the one that waved me on through was male.
The only thing I can say for sure is that the female agent that turned me away definitely seemed to have an attitude. Exactly what her problem was, I can't guess. Because I'm male? Because I'm white? Because I remind her of somebody she hates? Because she's angry at all the people from the US coming to Canada to make money?
Beats me. If only I could peer into the booth before driving up and switch to the "right" one every time.
Know what's irritating about going to Canada? Coming home with a bunch of Canadian change in my pocket that isn't worth anything here. And it's not worth trying to exchange, especially because the currency exchange at the Indy airport has a $50 minimum and charges an exhorbitant fee. Anybody want to give me a couple bucks American for about 3 bucks in Canadian coins?
Saturday, April 29, 2006
168
I'll leave you to guess the significance of the number.
Have I mentioned I'm sort of hooked on "24"? Even though it's gotten totally ridiculous the last few episodes, I still won't miss. Oh well, I guess I'm easily entertained.
Here's the week in review:
Last Saturday I put in 12 hours at the office trying to get everything done before my trip. Didn't get everything done but made progress. Then wondered where my weekend went.
Sunday I got up early to pack and head to the Indy airport. Tried to get Tim out of bed, because he said he wanted to get back to Butler early. But wasn't surprised when he wouldn't get up. Finished packing, drove to airport, flew to Reno, drove from there to Minden. Minden's near Carson City and Lake Tahoe. Got first class for both legs, but have no idea why. Makes the trip 10 times more comfortable though, so I'll take the upgrade anytime. Called home and found out Tim went back to school Sunday night because he slept all day. Hopefully that helped him recover from his illness.
Monday, got up at 5 and worked on the computer and made telephone calls until time to go to work at 8. Stayed in Monday night, partly to catch "24" and partly because I was tired. Went to sleep right after the show ended.
Tuesday, got up at 5 again and worked in the hotel room until 8. Went to work and worked all day. Found it strange that I kept sneezing throughout the day. People I was working with noticed, thought I was allergic to some of the desert plants that were blooming. Stayed in Tuesday night because was even more tired and sinuses were acting up, and made sure to catch Idol because they had Andrea Bocceli.
Wednesday woke up feeling rotten. Checked email and took my time getting ready, and was at least functional for the work day. But by mid-afternoon, was really suffering. Tried to pretend I was fine, but don't know if I pulled off the ruse with the clients. That night went straight back to hotel room after buying a couple bottles of gatorade and some benadryl. Popped the pills and marveled at the altered states they caused before falling asleep. But made sure to at least catch Bocelli's performance at the beginning of Idol first. I still admire his voice, but gotta say he doesn't sing English language songs well enough to be understood.
Thursday I felt a little better after sleeping in until 6. Didn't bother with email that morning, although found out later I should have. Of course. Made it through the day slightly better than Wednesday, said goodbye to the folks at the client. Nice people. Back to the hotel, called local movie theatre thinking about maybe catching a movie that night. Ultimately there was nothing playing that caught my interest and I didn't feel up to it, so I popped a couple benadryl and went to sleep after watching the Bulls embarrass the Heat.
Friday morning, slept in until 6 again, packed, went down to the restaurant for a nice big breakfast. On my way back to the room, a naked woman popped out of one of the rooms just as I was walking past in the hallway. Wierd. I just kept walking and tried to pretend I didn't see her. Even told myself, "You didn't just see that". Can't help wondering why she did that.
Checked out of the hotel, drove back to Reno, where I filled the rental car before returning it and checking in for the flight home. Flew home through O'Hare, watched "Narnia" onboard to pass the time. Right ear was increasingly difficult to keep clear, and descent into O'Hare was painful. For some reason, the descent into Indy was even more painful. Made it home by about 10PM, though, which was a lot better than the 1AM last trip. But I regret the illness a little, because otherwise I probably would have made another trip up to Tahoe, and possibly checked out Virginia City, although it looks like it might be a tourist trap.
It's Saturday afternoon, and I'm back in the office, wasting time with this post when I have several things that have to be done before Monday. Mostly all that's left of my illness is an earache and cough. And I won't be able to sing at church tomorrow. But I think I got off easy compared to poor Chris, who's had a bad time with the chicken pox all week.
That's my week. Think traveling sounds interesting or exotic? Sometimes it can be, but mostly it's more like this.
Have I mentioned I'm sort of hooked on "24"? Even though it's gotten totally ridiculous the last few episodes, I still won't miss. Oh well, I guess I'm easily entertained.
Here's the week in review:
Last Saturday I put in 12 hours at the office trying to get everything done before my trip. Didn't get everything done but made progress. Then wondered where my weekend went.
Sunday I got up early to pack and head to the Indy airport. Tried to get Tim out of bed, because he said he wanted to get back to Butler early. But wasn't surprised when he wouldn't get up. Finished packing, drove to airport, flew to Reno, drove from there to Minden. Minden's near Carson City and Lake Tahoe. Got first class for both legs, but have no idea why. Makes the trip 10 times more comfortable though, so I'll take the upgrade anytime. Called home and found out Tim went back to school Sunday night because he slept all day. Hopefully that helped him recover from his illness.
Monday, got up at 5 and worked on the computer and made telephone calls until time to go to work at 8. Stayed in Monday night, partly to catch "24" and partly because I was tired. Went to sleep right after the show ended.
Tuesday, got up at 5 again and worked in the hotel room until 8. Went to work and worked all day. Found it strange that I kept sneezing throughout the day. People I was working with noticed, thought I was allergic to some of the desert plants that were blooming. Stayed in Tuesday night because was even more tired and sinuses were acting up, and made sure to catch Idol because they had Andrea Bocceli.
Wednesday woke up feeling rotten. Checked email and took my time getting ready, and was at least functional for the work day. But by mid-afternoon, was really suffering. Tried to pretend I was fine, but don't know if I pulled off the ruse with the clients. That night went straight back to hotel room after buying a couple bottles of gatorade and some benadryl. Popped the pills and marveled at the altered states they caused before falling asleep. But made sure to at least catch Bocelli's performance at the beginning of Idol first. I still admire his voice, but gotta say he doesn't sing English language songs well enough to be understood.
Thursday I felt a little better after sleeping in until 6. Didn't bother with email that morning, although found out later I should have. Of course. Made it through the day slightly better than Wednesday, said goodbye to the folks at the client. Nice people. Back to the hotel, called local movie theatre thinking about maybe catching a movie that night. Ultimately there was nothing playing that caught my interest and I didn't feel up to it, so I popped a couple benadryl and went to sleep after watching the Bulls embarrass the Heat.
Friday morning, slept in until 6 again, packed, went down to the restaurant for a nice big breakfast. On my way back to the room, a naked woman popped out of one of the rooms just as I was walking past in the hallway. Wierd. I just kept walking and tried to pretend I didn't see her. Even told myself, "You didn't just see that". Can't help wondering why she did that.
Checked out of the hotel, drove back to Reno, where I filled the rental car before returning it and checking in for the flight home. Flew home through O'Hare, watched "Narnia" onboard to pass the time. Right ear was increasingly difficult to keep clear, and descent into O'Hare was painful. For some reason, the descent into Indy was even more painful. Made it home by about 10PM, though, which was a lot better than the 1AM last trip. But I regret the illness a little, because otherwise I probably would have made another trip up to Tahoe, and possibly checked out Virginia City, although it looks like it might be a tourist trap.
It's Saturday afternoon, and I'm back in the office, wasting time with this post when I have several things that have to be done before Monday. Mostly all that's left of my illness is an earache and cough. And I won't be able to sing at church tomorrow. But I think I got off easy compared to poor Chris, who's had a bad time with the chicken pox all week.
That's my week. Think traveling sounds interesting or exotic? Sometimes it can be, but mostly it's more like this.
Saturday, April 22, 2006
2B2B
Too busy to blog.
Way behind. Too much work, too little time. Saturday is trashed. Sunday is travel all day.
Be back in a week, maybe.
Way behind. Too much work, too little time. Saturday is trashed. Sunday is travel all day.
Be back in a week, maybe.
Wednesday, April 19, 2006
Observations
Through observation, I've learned that people are divided into two groups. Group 1 takes responsibility for their lives, while group 2 blames everybody else.
Examples:
Group 1 strives to improve their income or find a job they love by working hard, studying, and persistence. Group 2 is angry with their boss, government, parents, white men, or others for trapping them in their crappy, low-paying jobs.
Group 1 responds to needs of poor in their communities by volunteering and contributing to the most effective charity groups. Group 2 complain about the poor and think the government should take care of them using taxes confiscated from "rich" folks.
Group 1 knows that faith and family are what matter most in life. Group 2 hates the values of Group 1, are cynical toward religion, and feel religious "fundamentalists" are "judging" Group 2's for their sexual promiscuity, serial marriages, homosexuality, and abortion.
Group 1 loves freedom and respects those who protect that freedom. Group 2 would willingly trade freedom for a government dole and hate all things military.
I don't categorize people except by these groups. I've noticed real hatred seems to exist mainly with people from Group 2. Their hatred is generally directed at members of Group 1, and if racial, is mostly directed at white male "oppressors". They hate people of faith, political conservatives, members of the military, wealthy people, fat people, smokers, SUV owners, CEO's.
For me, hatred is not part of my emotional inventory. I don't feel hatred for anyone. Supporting border enforcement in no way means I hate hispanics. Opposing gay marriage, and for that matter believing homosexual behavior is wrong in no way means I hate gays. Supporting equal opportunity while opposing race-based preferences in no way means I hate black people. For people who act in a hateful manner toward me or in my presence, I generally feel sorry for them. I might even pray for them. Because hatred consumes people, prematurely ages them, and is generally a waste of time and emotion.
If you happen to read this and think you might fit at least some of my description of Group 2, might I suggest you give Group 1 a try? I think you will find it liberating.
Examples:
Group 1 strives to improve their income or find a job they love by working hard, studying, and persistence. Group 2 is angry with their boss, government, parents, white men, or others for trapping them in their crappy, low-paying jobs.
Group 1 responds to needs of poor in their communities by volunteering and contributing to the most effective charity groups. Group 2 complain about the poor and think the government should take care of them using taxes confiscated from "rich" folks.
Group 1 knows that faith and family are what matter most in life. Group 2 hates the values of Group 1, are cynical toward religion, and feel religious "fundamentalists" are "judging" Group 2's for their sexual promiscuity, serial marriages, homosexuality, and abortion.
Group 1 loves freedom and respects those who protect that freedom. Group 2 would willingly trade freedom for a government dole and hate all things military.
I don't categorize people except by these groups. I've noticed real hatred seems to exist mainly with people from Group 2. Their hatred is generally directed at members of Group 1, and if racial, is mostly directed at white male "oppressors". They hate people of faith, political conservatives, members of the military, wealthy people, fat people, smokers, SUV owners, CEO's.
For me, hatred is not part of my emotional inventory. I don't feel hatred for anyone. Supporting border enforcement in no way means I hate hispanics. Opposing gay marriage, and for that matter believing homosexual behavior is wrong in no way means I hate gays. Supporting equal opportunity while opposing race-based preferences in no way means I hate black people. For people who act in a hateful manner toward me or in my presence, I generally feel sorry for them. I might even pray for them. Because hatred consumes people, prematurely ages them, and is generally a waste of time and emotion.
If you happen to read this and think you might fit at least some of my description of Group 2, might I suggest you give Group 1 a try? I think you will find it liberating.
Monday, April 17, 2006
Globalism
What's the real reason for the Iraq war?
Why is almost everything we buy these days made in China?
Why won't the politicians in Washington do anything about illegal immigration?
Why are gas prices so high?
I could come up with more questions, but those are the hot ones these days. And the answer isn't because Bush sucks, as so many ignoramuses are fond of repeating.
The more correct answer is - globalism. Bush Sr. was a globalist. So was Bill Clinton. And the current president continues the tradition.
The basic goal of the globalist is to make all the countries in the world so economically intertwined that nobody will want to go to war with anybody else again. The U.S. invests heavily in third world countries around the world, not out of altruism, but in an attempt to keep them relatively stable and beholden, and help their regimes hold off the anarchists and radical Islamists that seek to destabilize them.
Are you worried about Red China deciding to attack the U.S.? Not that they absolutely will not, but the economic ties between China and the world's largest consumer market will at least make the communist government think twice about biting the hand that feeds their own growing economy. Ever hear of the National Debt? Guess what foreign country holds a significant portion of our country's debt? You got it - China.
Which brings us to Iraq. Why did we choose Iraq for invasion after we drove the Taliban out of power in Afghanistan? Because of Saddam's complicity in 9/11? No. Even though Saddam harbored and financed Al Quaeda, so do Syria and Iran. Because of Saddam's possession of WMD? Partly. And yes, he had WMD and badly wanted nuclear weapons. The issue isn't that we didn't find them because Bush lied, but that we didn't find them most likely because he moved them into Syria, Iran, or both.
The bottom line is that Iraq, Iran, and Syria all represent rogue regimes bent on world destabilization. Iraq and Saddam were merely the most obvious choice. If we removed Saddam in Iraq, it would send a message to his neighbors that they can't get away with their destabilizing agendas. Which are the destruction of Israel and expanding Islamic rule throughout the world.
Endangering the mission in Iraq is the American anti-war left. Their continuous Bush bashing and demonstrations and anti-war rhetoric has been successful only in encouraging the so-called insurgents. But right now it seems we may succeed in Iraq despite their efforts to undermine the war. U.S. casualties are way down, the Iraqi government is on the brink of becoming organized and capable, and there's an excellent chance that Iraq will become a stable ally in the middle east. That is, unless the wackos get enough power in Washington to mess things up.
I would argue that the anti-war left created the current problems in Iran. Iran has been emboldened by the internal strife in America, which has led them to believe that we are so divided over Iraq that we won't have the will to stop Iran from pursuing their own evil agenda. I'm not sure, but they may be right.
Now oil prices. If you watch TV, you would think that fat oil company executives sit around their offices every day thinking, "How can we screw more people today and make even more money?". The reality is that oil is a commodity sold on the world market. The market sets the prices, so when Iran refuses to stop their uranium enrichment along with open threats of their intent to destroy Israel, the market gets nervous and bids up prices.
Then there's the new communist dictator in Venezuela, which has fairly significant oil supplies, but their new dictator is destabilizing the market. Or Russia, where Putin took over oil production and handed it over to the corrupt and inefficient government, slowing output well below levels available previously.
Finally, there are America's own environmentalists, who are so powerful that they have successfully blocked further development of our country's own oil supplies. There is potentially enough oil offshore and in other parts of the country that could have a great impact on supply. But we can't drill for any of it because the powerful environmental lobby has effectively blocked it. (Who said oil companies were so powerful?) Add to this the lack of refinery capacity, also blocked by environmental hurdles, and you have $3 gas.
Illegal immigration? Of all the other globalist policies you want to blame on Bush, I'd say this might be the most legitimate example. Illegal immigrants lower wages for the rest of us, place a big burden on taxpayers by swamping our education, healthcare, law enforcement, and social services agencies, and threaten sovereignty. It's not that our laws are inadequate - there are actually plenty of laws on the books related to border enforcement, sanctions against employers who hire illegals, etc. It's just that the government chooses to look the other way, for a variety of their own reasons, none of which have anything to do with the overall welfare of the country they are supposed to protect and serve.
Bush is a globalist. That means he might dream of a united world someday, where there are no borders, no war, and economic opportunity for every person on the planet. You may have heard about his ideas for creating a European Union-style economic trade bloc of the Americas. His goal is to build a single currency and cooperative government structure for all countries from Canada in the north through Central America to the south. Open borders is only one part of that dream.
What I'm getting at is this: If you want to hate Bush, at least know why. You don't really have much of a choice on the globalist agenda; it has been steadily moving forward for the last 20 to 25 years. If you don't like it, here's a news flash: Electing a Democrat president won't change that. Kerry is also a globalist. So is Hillary. And pretty much everybody else who wants to be president in 2008.
I believe we can stop illegal immigration only if enough Americans band together and demand it of our politicians. That doesn't appear to be happening, so get ready for it to get worse instead of better.
We will either have to go to war with Iran (and possibly Syria) in the next few years, or face the alternative which includes nuclear war with Israel and nuclear terrorism here in the U.S. I wonder if we have the will to stop Iran in time, or if we'll have to live through an episode worse then 9/11 before we act?
We can't make gas prices lower, unless we somehow get our own oil fields opened up to exploration and drilling again. Stabilizing the middle east could also help, but that's a long-term solution. But there are too many ignorant citizens and politicians that put their own power ahead of the interests of the country for that to happen.
We can't bring manufacturing back home from China. Because we like buying cheap stuff at Wal Mart. And China won't let us, because they own a big chunk of our country already.
Why is almost everything we buy these days made in China?
Why won't the politicians in Washington do anything about illegal immigration?
Why are gas prices so high?
I could come up with more questions, but those are the hot ones these days. And the answer isn't because Bush sucks, as so many ignoramuses are fond of repeating.
The more correct answer is - globalism. Bush Sr. was a globalist. So was Bill Clinton. And the current president continues the tradition.
The basic goal of the globalist is to make all the countries in the world so economically intertwined that nobody will want to go to war with anybody else again. The U.S. invests heavily in third world countries around the world, not out of altruism, but in an attempt to keep them relatively stable and beholden, and help their regimes hold off the anarchists and radical Islamists that seek to destabilize them.
Are you worried about Red China deciding to attack the U.S.? Not that they absolutely will not, but the economic ties between China and the world's largest consumer market will at least make the communist government think twice about biting the hand that feeds their own growing economy. Ever hear of the National Debt? Guess what foreign country holds a significant portion of our country's debt? You got it - China.
Which brings us to Iraq. Why did we choose Iraq for invasion after we drove the Taliban out of power in Afghanistan? Because of Saddam's complicity in 9/11? No. Even though Saddam harbored and financed Al Quaeda, so do Syria and Iran. Because of Saddam's possession of WMD? Partly. And yes, he had WMD and badly wanted nuclear weapons. The issue isn't that we didn't find them because Bush lied, but that we didn't find them most likely because he moved them into Syria, Iran, or both.
The bottom line is that Iraq, Iran, and Syria all represent rogue regimes bent on world destabilization. Iraq and Saddam were merely the most obvious choice. If we removed Saddam in Iraq, it would send a message to his neighbors that they can't get away with their destabilizing agendas. Which are the destruction of Israel and expanding Islamic rule throughout the world.
Endangering the mission in Iraq is the American anti-war left. Their continuous Bush bashing and demonstrations and anti-war rhetoric has been successful only in encouraging the so-called insurgents. But right now it seems we may succeed in Iraq despite their efforts to undermine the war. U.S. casualties are way down, the Iraqi government is on the brink of becoming organized and capable, and there's an excellent chance that Iraq will become a stable ally in the middle east. That is, unless the wackos get enough power in Washington to mess things up.
I would argue that the anti-war left created the current problems in Iran. Iran has been emboldened by the internal strife in America, which has led them to believe that we are so divided over Iraq that we won't have the will to stop Iran from pursuing their own evil agenda. I'm not sure, but they may be right.
Now oil prices. If you watch TV, you would think that fat oil company executives sit around their offices every day thinking, "How can we screw more people today and make even more money?". The reality is that oil is a commodity sold on the world market. The market sets the prices, so when Iran refuses to stop their uranium enrichment along with open threats of their intent to destroy Israel, the market gets nervous and bids up prices.
Then there's the new communist dictator in Venezuela, which has fairly significant oil supplies, but their new dictator is destabilizing the market. Or Russia, where Putin took over oil production and handed it over to the corrupt and inefficient government, slowing output well below levels available previously.
Finally, there are America's own environmentalists, who are so powerful that they have successfully blocked further development of our country's own oil supplies. There is potentially enough oil offshore and in other parts of the country that could have a great impact on supply. But we can't drill for any of it because the powerful environmental lobby has effectively blocked it. (Who said oil companies were so powerful?) Add to this the lack of refinery capacity, also blocked by environmental hurdles, and you have $3 gas.
Illegal immigration? Of all the other globalist policies you want to blame on Bush, I'd say this might be the most legitimate example. Illegal immigrants lower wages for the rest of us, place a big burden on taxpayers by swamping our education, healthcare, law enforcement, and social services agencies, and threaten sovereignty. It's not that our laws are inadequate - there are actually plenty of laws on the books related to border enforcement, sanctions against employers who hire illegals, etc. It's just that the government chooses to look the other way, for a variety of their own reasons, none of which have anything to do with the overall welfare of the country they are supposed to protect and serve.
Bush is a globalist. That means he might dream of a united world someday, where there are no borders, no war, and economic opportunity for every person on the planet. You may have heard about his ideas for creating a European Union-style economic trade bloc of the Americas. His goal is to build a single currency and cooperative government structure for all countries from Canada in the north through Central America to the south. Open borders is only one part of that dream.
What I'm getting at is this: If you want to hate Bush, at least know why. You don't really have much of a choice on the globalist agenda; it has been steadily moving forward for the last 20 to 25 years. If you don't like it, here's a news flash: Electing a Democrat president won't change that. Kerry is also a globalist. So is Hillary. And pretty much everybody else who wants to be president in 2008.
I believe we can stop illegal immigration only if enough Americans band together and demand it of our politicians. That doesn't appear to be happening, so get ready for it to get worse instead of better.
We will either have to go to war with Iran (and possibly Syria) in the next few years, or face the alternative which includes nuclear war with Israel and nuclear terrorism here in the U.S. I wonder if we have the will to stop Iran in time, or if we'll have to live through an episode worse then 9/11 before we act?
We can't make gas prices lower, unless we somehow get our own oil fields opened up to exploration and drilling again. Stabilizing the middle east could also help, but that's a long-term solution. But there are too many ignorant citizens and politicians that put their own power ahead of the interests of the country for that to happen.
We can't bring manufacturing back home from China. Because we like buying cheap stuff at Wal Mart. And China won't let us, because they own a big chunk of our country already.
Friday, April 14, 2006
Weekend Update
It was a pretty good week. Spent in the Carson Valley, which is the Carson City area (Nevada). Surrounded by mountains, and a short scenic drive up over the mountain to Lake Tahoe. Very nice.
Hotel was OK, but it's got a casino and the cigarette smoke permeates the entire place, even up to my room on the third floor. And the bed is old and saggy, so I have the worst cramps behind my shoulder blades. And you can't get a newspaper anywhere, which feels sort of like withdrawal to have to go a full week without being able to read the paper with breakfast.
Working on the Canadian issue, I had a conversation with someone who said one of the attorneys they talked to just said I should try again. That according to Canadian laws, there's no reason they should have turned me around in the first place. I suggested that I wouldn't do that, given they told me I was subject to arrest if I tried again without the appropriate permits. I'm trying to force them to get me that permit.
Driving around, I found a radio station that was all liberal talk. Decided to give it a chance, you know, find out whether they had anything to say. An hour was all I could stand. There was never a substantive discussion of a single issue. Not one. Unless you consider Bush-bashing an issue. The entire hour - and I am in no way exaggerating - was all about the evil George W. Bush. The host went on and on, then had guests on the show to continue the process.
Here's the theme for the hour:
Bush is stupid
Bush is a criminal
Bush is a torturer of innocent Muslims
Bush has killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people
Bush spies on his political enemies
Bush should be impeached and imprisoned
Bush is a war monger
Bush stole both elections. Therefore he isn't really the President.
Bush caused global warming and is bent on destroying the planet
Bush is incompetent
Bush hates blacks, gays and poor people in general
Bush's policies are all about making his fat cat friends rich
Bush is a fascist dictator
And the one I found most ironic: Bush is divisive, a hater, and suppresses free speech.
So my attempt to understand what liberals would do differently if they were in charge, listening to this radio station didn't provide a single answer. Unless you consider hatred of Bush a political philosophy.
Time to pack up and head to the airport. Home for Easter, hoping the boys show up.
Hotel was OK, but it's got a casino and the cigarette smoke permeates the entire place, even up to my room on the third floor. And the bed is old and saggy, so I have the worst cramps behind my shoulder blades. And you can't get a newspaper anywhere, which feels sort of like withdrawal to have to go a full week without being able to read the paper with breakfast.
Working on the Canadian issue, I had a conversation with someone who said one of the attorneys they talked to just said I should try again. That according to Canadian laws, there's no reason they should have turned me around in the first place. I suggested that I wouldn't do that, given they told me I was subject to arrest if I tried again without the appropriate permits. I'm trying to force them to get me that permit.
Driving around, I found a radio station that was all liberal talk. Decided to give it a chance, you know, find out whether they had anything to say. An hour was all I could stand. There was never a substantive discussion of a single issue. Not one. Unless you consider Bush-bashing an issue. The entire hour - and I am in no way exaggerating - was all about the evil George W. Bush. The host went on and on, then had guests on the show to continue the process.
Here's the theme for the hour:
Bush is stupid
Bush is a criminal
Bush is a torturer of innocent Muslims
Bush has killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people
Bush spies on his political enemies
Bush should be impeached and imprisoned
Bush is a war monger
Bush stole both elections. Therefore he isn't really the President.
Bush caused global warming and is bent on destroying the planet
Bush is incompetent
Bush hates blacks, gays and poor people in general
Bush's policies are all about making his fat cat friends rich
Bush is a fascist dictator
And the one I found most ironic: Bush is divisive, a hater, and suppresses free speech.
So my attempt to understand what liberals would do differently if they were in charge, listening to this radio station didn't provide a single answer. Unless you consider hatred of Bush a political philosophy.
Time to pack up and head to the airport. Home for Easter, hoping the boys show up.
Friday, April 07, 2006
Friday Ramblings
So happy for Friday after a bizarre week.
Got a call late last night asking me to take on the Dubois Seven Last Words of Christ on Good Friday. I'm a last minute replacement, and won't be able to rehearse because I'll be in Nevada all week. But it's kind of cool to be asked. As I recall, there's a dramatic ending that's very difficult, and I have to be on my toes to pull it off, or risk booting the whole performance if I don't get it right. Better take it with me to practice this week.
Heard the Senate compromise on their immigration bill fell apart because of the usual partisan maneuvering. That's good, because it was a stupid bill. I'm wondering if the majority of the senate are idiots, if they think most of us are idiots, or most of us really are idiots. It's frustrating to see them posturing and trying to play to varied constituencies by building new expensive bureaucracies and set rules that the illegal immigrants and companies that employ them will ignore.
If we weren't all a bunch of idiots, we should fire every Senator (bye-bye, Lugar and Bayh) and replace them with people who actually look out for us.
Been feeling isolated and ignored lately. I don't know, maybe it's because I've been isolated and ignored lately.
I want a new car.
Lake Tahoe should be beautiful this time of year. I'll be there Sunday, I think.
Got a call late last night asking me to take on the Dubois Seven Last Words of Christ on Good Friday. I'm a last minute replacement, and won't be able to rehearse because I'll be in Nevada all week. But it's kind of cool to be asked. As I recall, there's a dramatic ending that's very difficult, and I have to be on my toes to pull it off, or risk booting the whole performance if I don't get it right. Better take it with me to practice this week.
Heard the Senate compromise on their immigration bill fell apart because of the usual partisan maneuvering. That's good, because it was a stupid bill. I'm wondering if the majority of the senate are idiots, if they think most of us are idiots, or most of us really are idiots. It's frustrating to see them posturing and trying to play to varied constituencies by building new expensive bureaucracies and set rules that the illegal immigrants and companies that employ them will ignore.
If we weren't all a bunch of idiots, we should fire every Senator (bye-bye, Lugar and Bayh) and replace them with people who actually look out for us.
Been feeling isolated and ignored lately. I don't know, maybe it's because I've been isolated and ignored lately.
I want a new car.
Lake Tahoe should be beautiful this time of year. I'll be there Sunday, I think.
Wednesday, April 05, 2006
Wetback
So I got turned away at the border. I went across and showed the customs agent my letter, which was supposed to guarantee me entry. Instead it got me an unpleasant interrogation by an ugly woman with an attitude in Canadian Immigration.
It ended with, "You can't just come to Canada and work. Don't come back without the proper documents or you will be subject to arrest." So much for our friendly neighbors to the north.
So now I have to jump through a bunch of hoops to get proper documentation under NAFTA to enter Canada. On the positive side, once I have those papers I should never have to worry again about getting hassled at the border. But it sort of blew up my plans for this week.
Nothing like being stuck in Detroit for two days. I couldn't even go to the Henry Ford museum because I had to be ready to get a possible phone call telling me all was clear to try again. So I sat in the rental car all day Monday and for two or three hours on Tuesday, just hanging out and listening to the radio and waiting for my cellphone to ring.
The possible upside to this bad experience is that once I have the right paperwork, I might be able to get all the Canadian accounts for the software company. Because they laid off all their Canadian consultants and don't have anybody to serve the clients up there anymore. I never expected to be a Canadian specialist, but whatever pays the bills.
It ended with, "You can't just come to Canada and work. Don't come back without the proper documents or you will be subject to arrest." So much for our friendly neighbors to the north.
So now I have to jump through a bunch of hoops to get proper documentation under NAFTA to enter Canada. On the positive side, once I have those papers I should never have to worry again about getting hassled at the border. But it sort of blew up my plans for this week.
Nothing like being stuck in Detroit for two days. I couldn't even go to the Henry Ford museum because I had to be ready to get a possible phone call telling me all was clear to try again. So I sat in the rental car all day Monday and for two or three hours on Tuesday, just hanging out and listening to the radio and waiting for my cellphone to ring.
The possible upside to this bad experience is that once I have the right paperwork, I might be able to get all the Canadian accounts for the software company. Because they laid off all their Canadian consultants and don't have anybody to serve the clients up there anymore. I never expected to be a Canadian specialist, but whatever pays the bills.
Friday, March 31, 2006
Yellow Pages Scam
How many business telephone directories do you think are out there calling themselves "Yellow Pages", or some variation thereof?
I don't exactly know the answer, but there are far too many, and most of them are scammers.
For my business, I willingly pay for a small yellow pages ad in our local telephone book. When I started, that seemed like a fairly simple venture, right? Wrong.
Ever since I opened the business, I have been inundated with mail and phone calls from people from "Yellow Pages" or "Yellow Book" or "Yellow Page Directories" or "Yellow Pages Online", ad nauseum. And they all seem to have picked up on the fact that we little business owners can't tell one from the other.
So they call me, and I say, "Didn't I already pay for my Yellow Page ad this year?". They try to change the subject, which I've learned means they're not from the same company that publishes our local phone book. I'm still kicking myself for one that fooled me into buying something, which meant I was suddenly getting invoices from them every month for an ad I didn't even know how to find that produced exactly zero customer calls. It took me 2 months, 3 letters, and about 5 phone calls to finally find the right person who actually said, "Yes, sir, I can cancel this for you."
Then there are the others that keep sending me invoices, even though I never signed up for anything. It's a scam based on the fact that they know we can't tell one yellow page company from another, and they think if they just send out a credible-looking invoice, they can trick us into putting it into our regular payment stack. And end up paying for some yellow page service that may or may not even exist.
Here's my current attitude on the subject: No more Yellow Page ads from me. I'm going to focus my advertising on direct mail, networking, and the internet. Don't call me, don't send me stuff, leave me alone. Your industry has been turned into one big scam, which I refuse to be associated with from now on.
I don't exactly know the answer, but there are far too many, and most of them are scammers.
For my business, I willingly pay for a small yellow pages ad in our local telephone book. When I started, that seemed like a fairly simple venture, right? Wrong.
Ever since I opened the business, I have been inundated with mail and phone calls from people from "Yellow Pages" or "Yellow Book" or "Yellow Page Directories" or "Yellow Pages Online", ad nauseum. And they all seem to have picked up on the fact that we little business owners can't tell one from the other.
So they call me, and I say, "Didn't I already pay for my Yellow Page ad this year?". They try to change the subject, which I've learned means they're not from the same company that publishes our local phone book. I'm still kicking myself for one that fooled me into buying something, which meant I was suddenly getting invoices from them every month for an ad I didn't even know how to find that produced exactly zero customer calls. It took me 2 months, 3 letters, and about 5 phone calls to finally find the right person who actually said, "Yes, sir, I can cancel this for you."
Then there are the others that keep sending me invoices, even though I never signed up for anything. It's a scam based on the fact that they know we can't tell one yellow page company from another, and they think if they just send out a credible-looking invoice, they can trick us into putting it into our regular payment stack. And end up paying for some yellow page service that may or may not even exist.
Here's my current attitude on the subject: No more Yellow Page ads from me. I'm going to focus my advertising on direct mail, networking, and the internet. Don't call me, don't send me stuff, leave me alone. Your industry has been turned into one big scam, which I refuse to be associated with from now on.
Thursday, March 30, 2006
The New Constitution
Amendments 1-10 of the Constitution
The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution;
Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two-thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States; all or any of which articles, when ratified by three-fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the said Constitution, namely:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
New Interpretation: Keep your religion to yourself, unless it's something besides Judaism and Christianity. Free exercise of religion means only in the privacy of your home and church (for now). Freedom of speech is to be respected, unless you're a Christian or Jew (especially one who supports Israel), a conservative talk show host, or Fox News. Freedom of peaceful assembly is to be upheld, unless you are protesting abortion.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
New Interpretation: Militas are outmoded and irrelevant and guns kill people, so all firearms may be outlawed.
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
New Interpretation: Abuse those war-mongering soldiers and disrupt their funerals whenever possible.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
New Interpretation: This amendment now applies to enemies and terrorists overseas, who are being subjected to such unreasonable telephone wiretaps simply because they wish our country harm. Oh, and if the President is a Democrat, it's OK to perform unreasonable searches and seizures against Republicans (see Bill & Hillary Clinton, 1993-2000)
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
New Interpretation: Private property may be taken for any use, public or private, with or without just compensation, at the discretion of the local authorities. (See Supreme Court of the United States, 2005)
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
New Interpretation: Speedy trials can be construed as anything between 1 week and 20 years, especially when they involve Federal Special Prosecutors and Capital Murder cases.
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
New Interpretation: The right is extended to that of defense attorneys hiring consultants to help them choose jury members most likely to return the verdict sought by the defense.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
New Interpretation: "Cruel and Unusual Punishments" has been redefined as imprisoning people more than one to a cell, failing to provide sumptuous meals, and requiring prisoners to work.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
New Interpretation: Except for religious freedom (See Amendment I). And Abortion (the "inalienable right to life ..." - Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence.)
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
New Interpretation: HaHaHa, that's a good one! NOT. (See past 100 years of Presidents and Congresses)
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
Choices
I would submit that all of these choices are available to each of us:
Life: Short and eventful, or long and unremarkable
Love: Brief and passionate or a long loveless parntnership
Wealth: Great wealth with extreme stress and loneliness, or subsistance living with little stress
Career: Do what you love, Love what you do, or survive a daily grind
Wisdom: Gained from a life of challenge and heartache, or Lost in blissful ignorance
Morality: Try to live a straight and honest life, or enjoy worldly pleasures and worry about consequences later
Faith and Religion: Constant search for God and the Truth, or disregard God as for the weak-minded
Family: Build, belong, and nurture a family or be alienated from your family
Involvement: Seek out ways to help others or focus on your own needs
Politics: Socialist or Capitalist
Friendship: Do anything for true friends or remain a loner
Outlook: Enthusiasm, Hope, and Love or Anger, Hopelessness, and Despair
Want to be happy in life? It's all up to choices you make every day about how to live your life.
Life: Short and eventful, or long and unremarkable
Love: Brief and passionate or a long loveless parntnership
Wealth: Great wealth with extreme stress and loneliness, or subsistance living with little stress
Career: Do what you love, Love what you do, or survive a daily grind
Wisdom: Gained from a life of challenge and heartache, or Lost in blissful ignorance
Morality: Try to live a straight and honest life, or enjoy worldly pleasures and worry about consequences later
Faith and Religion: Constant search for God and the Truth, or disregard God as for the weak-minded
Family: Build, belong, and nurture a family or be alienated from your family
Involvement: Seek out ways to help others or focus on your own needs
Politics: Socialist or Capitalist
Friendship: Do anything for true friends or remain a loner
Outlook: Enthusiasm, Hope, and Love or Anger, Hopelessness, and Despair
Want to be happy in life? It's all up to choices you make every day about how to live your life.
Monday, March 27, 2006
The United States of Mexico?
What exactly should we take from the massive demonstrations over the weekend, the largest in LA? Something close to a million latinos marching through the streets of Los Angeles waving Mexican flags to protest the move in Congress to crack down on illegal immigration was supposed to make the rest of legal citizens in the US more sensitive to the plight of illegals?
I don't think so.
I've been to LA. I worked with a company in the LA area that was 99% latino, with a majority of those in the country illegally. Did the managers of the company worry about that fact? No. In fact, I received this bit of unsolicited information from a senior manager at the company:
"You watch, we (Mexican immigrants) are taking over. Soon we will run this country."
And it was no joke.
If you think I'm overly harsh or insensitive or even racist, let me give you my answer to all the arguments for maintaining the status quo:
1. "Illegal immigrants are only trying to find a better life for themselves and their families." For many, I'm sure that's true. But does that justify our looking the other way while those immigrants are scammed and robbed and even killed by the "Coyotes" who prey on them? Does it mean we let drug dealers and gangs and terrorists walk across the border with them? And most importantly, it is outrageously unfair to those legal immigrants who fight to meet all of the requirements for entry into the country while illegals are let through with a wink and a nod.
2. "It's impossible to stop them." Thoroughly untrue. Border enforcement is completely possible, and the cost of fences, guards, and technology to secure the border is a drop in the bucket compared to the social services and healcare costs we are bearing right now taking care of illegals and trying to protect ourselves against the gangs and drug runners. We are failing to stop them because too many politicians want it that way: Some Republicans are catering to business owners who hire illegals because they will work for $5.15 and hour or less. Democrats just expect to grant them all citizenship so they can vote for Democrats every election cycle (see the Clinton administration).
3. "We are unfairly singling out Latinos for enforcement, and that's racist." Not true. The first and most obvious refutation is the sheer numbers of illegals from Mexico and Central America. If we were discriminating against them, you couldn't tell it from the sheer numbers. But there are also untold thousands of illegals entering the country from all over the world; they don't have to just sneak across the border, but arrive on tourist or education visas and just disappear. Like the 9/11 terrorists, for example.
4. "They do work nobody else will do." That's a myth perpetuated by the corporate farm owners and big business people. The reality is that it's just an incomplete sentence, which would be more correct if it read, "The do work nobody else will do for $5.15 or less per hour." Whether or not we need low-skilled workers from poor countries to take these sorts of jobs is a separate issue from illegal immigration. If we successfully stop the influx of illegals, then we could put a logical immigration policy in effect that meets the needs of employers legally while protecting citizens' rights to be the first in line for employment.
5. "We can't just deport 30 million people." Maybe not, but that's not really what we're trying to do. There's a lot of discussion remaining on this part of the policy, but the basic idea is this: If local law enforcement is empowered to arrest illegals and turn them over to INS for processing and deportation, that can happen over time. If employers are forced to stop employing illegals, many of their illegal employees will return to their home country on their own when they no longer have a job here. The bottom line is that we will find a way to deal with those already here, but the fact that so many are here does not mean we should give up the goal of gaining control over our country's borders.
The Congress is finally dealing with the issue, which is a positive. However, in today's polarized political climate, I fear we won't get a meaningful program out of Washington. We'll see.
I don't think so.
I've been to LA. I worked with a company in the LA area that was 99% latino, with a majority of those in the country illegally. Did the managers of the company worry about that fact? No. In fact, I received this bit of unsolicited information from a senior manager at the company:
"You watch, we (Mexican immigrants) are taking over. Soon we will run this country."
And it was no joke.
If you think I'm overly harsh or insensitive or even racist, let me give you my answer to all the arguments for maintaining the status quo:
1. "Illegal immigrants are only trying to find a better life for themselves and their families." For many, I'm sure that's true. But does that justify our looking the other way while those immigrants are scammed and robbed and even killed by the "Coyotes" who prey on them? Does it mean we let drug dealers and gangs and terrorists walk across the border with them? And most importantly, it is outrageously unfair to those legal immigrants who fight to meet all of the requirements for entry into the country while illegals are let through with a wink and a nod.
2. "It's impossible to stop them." Thoroughly untrue. Border enforcement is completely possible, and the cost of fences, guards, and technology to secure the border is a drop in the bucket compared to the social services and healcare costs we are bearing right now taking care of illegals and trying to protect ourselves against the gangs and drug runners. We are failing to stop them because too many politicians want it that way: Some Republicans are catering to business owners who hire illegals because they will work for $5.15 and hour or less. Democrats just expect to grant them all citizenship so they can vote for Democrats every election cycle (see the Clinton administration).
3. "We are unfairly singling out Latinos for enforcement, and that's racist." Not true. The first and most obvious refutation is the sheer numbers of illegals from Mexico and Central America. If we were discriminating against them, you couldn't tell it from the sheer numbers. But there are also untold thousands of illegals entering the country from all over the world; they don't have to just sneak across the border, but arrive on tourist or education visas and just disappear. Like the 9/11 terrorists, for example.
4. "They do work nobody else will do." That's a myth perpetuated by the corporate farm owners and big business people. The reality is that it's just an incomplete sentence, which would be more correct if it read, "The do work nobody else will do for $5.15 or less per hour." Whether or not we need low-skilled workers from poor countries to take these sorts of jobs is a separate issue from illegal immigration. If we successfully stop the influx of illegals, then we could put a logical immigration policy in effect that meets the needs of employers legally while protecting citizens' rights to be the first in line for employment.
5. "We can't just deport 30 million people." Maybe not, but that's not really what we're trying to do. There's a lot of discussion remaining on this part of the policy, but the basic idea is this: If local law enforcement is empowered to arrest illegals and turn them over to INS for processing and deportation, that can happen over time. If employers are forced to stop employing illegals, many of their illegal employees will return to their home country on their own when they no longer have a job here. The bottom line is that we will find a way to deal with those already here, but the fact that so many are here does not mean we should give up the goal of gaining control over our country's borders.
The Congress is finally dealing with the issue, which is a positive. However, in today's polarized political climate, I fear we won't get a meaningful program out of Washington. We'll see.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)