Breaking news from yesterday, the Major League Players Association (MLPA) has magnanimously announced that they will not set a strike date at this time. According to senior executive board member Tom Glavine, they feel they owe it to baseball fans to do "everything possible" to avoid a work stoppage. In my mind that would simply mean accepting your $2 million per man average salary and DON'T STOP WORKING until the collective bargaining agreement actually ends (after the season). However, in the distorted, pampered logic of the jockocracy, "everything possible" means they'll delay any such announcement by ... four entire days. That's right, the next announcment is due on Friday.
I have trouble getting a good fix on my feelings toward major league baseball. I love the sport. I love to watch the games and read box scores. And I simply like to sit and ruminate on its history, both locally and nationally. Yet now I find myself hating everyone involved with the current incarnation of the sport, the owners, players, and obviously, the Umps.
The owners are beneath contempt. They hide behind the tenets of capitalism when its suits them and then use "the special nature of America's past time" to bludgeon any critic pointing out the violations of the free market on which they base their baseball related profit margins. An editorial by Charles Euchner recently highlighted some of the anit-competitve practies ownership endorses.
Even given all of this, I think I hate the players more. Why? Perhaps because I can identify with them more, as they are still in a position of selling their labor for wages. Yet they consistently treat the public, who directly subsidize their salaries, with absolute disdain. And I just don't mean by dating more women and more beautiful women than I do - even though that's probably at the heart of my discontent. No, no, there are numerous examples, of both individual and collective behavior, of flagrantly arrogant and destructive actions by our heroes in sanitary socks. But the most galling comments recently have come from the local nine.
For example, Doug Mientkiewicz - he takes every opportunity he can to condemn the Metrodome as a terrible place to play and to state how the players need a new stadium to play in. Now, on the fist account he's right, BUT he's in no position to say so. That monstrosity, which was a product of a previous blackmail effort, was built by a tax on the public. Regardless of its aesthetic appeal, it is responsible for the current, exhorbanant salary Dougie makes for hitting .251 with 6 homeruns as the starting 1st baseman - in the middle of August!!! (He's well earning his nickname of Mr. Last May.) Furthermore, the fact that the stadium is lousy is only an issue for those who have to pay to go sit inside it - which he is not, he is an employee and a guest. Granted, Doug is a truly stupid man and likely the dimmest bulb on the Twins roster. (At least the dimmest one that can speak English - who knows the true intelligence of the Spanish-only speaking Twins' Latin contingent. But given the fact most of them have been living and working in the US for years and still can't speak the native language coherently, I think Doug might have some competition.) But it doesn't take intelligence to have a mature perspective on life and that's something Doug (and most modern professional athletes) simply don't have.
And just the other day Denny Hocking took pains to publicly assure his brethren in the MLPA that the Twins will definitely vote to strike if, God forbid, they are forced to do so. Apparently there were rumors that the Twins players would vote 'no' because some didn't feel it was appropriate to vote for a strike in the midst of a season where they were not only in competion for the post season for the first time in 11 years, but also in the midst blackmailing their host city for hundreds of millions of dollars in public subsidy. But according to Denny Hocking, that's crazy talk, and they will vote in the interest of continuing the status quo of using the tax money of poor people in St. Paul (me) to pay an absolute mediocrity (Hocking) $1.1 million per year.
Any work stoppage that occurs this year will be based on one factor - the proportion of the public subsidy each side feels they are entitled too. The negotiations assume the existence of the subsidy as a given. Hundreds of millions of dollars of your money and mine will be available, the only question is, who get's more of it. And both sides are willing to crash the entire enterprise in order to get their fair share. Welfare rights anyone?
Monday, August 12, 2002
Saved by a Hobbit?
Let me just start by acknowledging that I don't get out to see too many movies in theaters anymore, so this discussion may seem a bit dated. For some reason I have found it preferable to sit in my basement watching DVDs on my schedule while enjoying a beer or Scotch or both rather than trudging off to the local thirty-six screen megaplex to mingle with the unwashed masses. As of late I have been on a bad run with my film selections have endured the awful 'The Time Machine' and the sickeningly PC 'Hart's War' in the space of a few weeks. I had begun to lose faith in the ability of Hollywood to tell a story when a classic like 'The Time Machine' is so poorly done and a classic setting like a WWII POW camp is so misused.
Fortunatley the long but never dull 'Lord of the Rings' has restored my hope that a good story can still be told. I am not some kind of Tolkein freak and in fact have not even read any of his works, although I am now inclined to take them up, so I approached the film with no expectations other than to be entertained.
And I certainly was. The beauty of the film is that it completely allows you to wrap yourself up in it and forget the time and place you live in. Other than one humerous aside that references dwarf tossing there isn't some not so subtle modern day message that the film makers try to pound into your head other than the one that Tolkein originally intended. The story is the center of the film as it should be. While that doesn't seem like a lot to ask these days it can be hard to find.
Fortunatley the long but never dull 'Lord of the Rings' has restored my hope that a good story can still be told. I am not some kind of Tolkein freak and in fact have not even read any of his works, although I am now inclined to take them up, so I approached the film with no expectations other than to be entertained.
And I certainly was. The beauty of the film is that it completely allows you to wrap yourself up in it and forget the time and place you live in. Other than one humerous aside that references dwarf tossing there isn't some not so subtle modern day message that the film makers try to pound into your head other than the one that Tolkein originally intended. The story is the center of the film as it should be. While that doesn't seem like a lot to ask these days it can be hard to find.
Friday, August 09, 2002
Why We Must Choose War
While I agree with the Minneapolis Star Tribune's August 3rd editorial that a debate on the issue is healthy and warranted, I disagree with those who oppose the use of military force against Iraq. In my opinion the justification for war with Iraq is demonstrated by answering five critical questions:
1. Does Iraq currently possess or will it shortly possess weapons that could threaten the United States or our allies?
In addition to their current stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons it has been estimated that Iraq will have a nuclear weapons capability by 2005. While these weapons may not be used directly against the United States they certainly pose a threat to US forces and our allies, in particular Israel, in the Middle East. And even if the Iraqis do not directly employ these weapons against us their support of various terrorist groups in the past makes the possibility of them supplying such a group with chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons a very real threat. The incineration of three thousand Americans on September 11th leaves little doubt as to whether terrorist groups would choose to use such weapons against us.
2. Is there a link between Iraq and September 11th?
Even though a direct link between the Iraqi regime and the attacks of September 11th has not been established yet (Mohammed Atta did meet with Iraqi intelligence in the summer of 2001) it seems clear that the Iraqis have had contacts with Al Qaeda providing them with supplies and weapons in Afghanistan and possibly training Al Qaeda operatives inside Iraq. Should we wait for another attack which may kill 50,000-100,000 or even more and then go after Iraq or should we take action today that may save thousands of lives?
3. Will an attack on Iraq cause Hussein to unleash his chemical/biological/nuclear weapons as a last resort?
While I acknowledge there is some risk of this occurring I prefer to force Saddam's hand rather than sitting back and allowing him to choose the time and place for such an attack. The use of chemical and biological weapons is difficult under the best of circumstances. I would take my chances that the Iraqis will find nearly impossible to adequately coordinate chemical/biological strikes while they themselves are under intense aerial attack. Obviously any known Iraqi chemical/biological/nuclear facilities would be targeted early in any US attack and Special Forces could be employed to locate Scud missile sites and pinpoint air strikes against them. Patriot missiles could be once again sent to Israel and the Israeli population prepared to deal with possible retaliation (gas masks, inoculations, etc,). I would rather have properly equipped US forces dealing with such attacks in Iraq on our timetable than have a large US civilian population exposed to the threat on Saddam's terms.
4. Would the Iraqi people be better off with a new government?
The opponents of military action against Iraq often profess their concern for the suffering of the Iraqi people and claim a war would hurt them the most. While it is true that in the short run a war would cause civilian casualties and deprivations in the long run the Iraqi people would be much better off in an Iraq free of Saddam's dictatorship. Instead of the vast oil resources of the country being devoted to developing weapons and building palaces the income from oil sales (no longer restricted in a post-Saddam Iraq) could be used for rebuilding the infrastructure, educating the children, and creating an environment where a free market economy could flourish thus laying the foundation for a free and democratic Iraq. Japan and Germany are two excellent examples of such post war reconstruction.
5. Can there peace in the Middle East with the current Iraqi regime?
One of the best hopes for a lasting peace in the Middle East may be for a regime change in Iraq. Currently Hussein aids the Palestinian terror groups and rewards the families of suicide bombers with cash payments. He calls for all Arabs to unite in a war to destroy Israel and the last thing he wants is a peaceful settlement. His removal would eliminate one obstacle to peace while at the same time sending a message to other countries in the region particularly Iran and Syria. With Saddam in power there is little possibility of peace in the Middle East. Without him there is at least hope.
War is a terrible thing and should never be entered into lightly. However, sometimes the alternative can be much worse. Our failure to act now to eliminate the threat from Iraq may come back to haunt us later in thousands of civilian deaths in the Middle East and here in the United States. As Aleksander Solzhenitsyn said "The price of cowardice will only be evil."
1. Does Iraq currently possess or will it shortly possess weapons that could threaten the United States or our allies?
In addition to their current stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons it has been estimated that Iraq will have a nuclear weapons capability by 2005. While these weapons may not be used directly against the United States they certainly pose a threat to US forces and our allies, in particular Israel, in the Middle East. And even if the Iraqis do not directly employ these weapons against us their support of various terrorist groups in the past makes the possibility of them supplying such a group with chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons a very real threat. The incineration of three thousand Americans on September 11th leaves little doubt as to whether terrorist groups would choose to use such weapons against us.
2. Is there a link between Iraq and September 11th?
Even though a direct link between the Iraqi regime and the attacks of September 11th has not been established yet (Mohammed Atta did meet with Iraqi intelligence in the summer of 2001) it seems clear that the Iraqis have had contacts with Al Qaeda providing them with supplies and weapons in Afghanistan and possibly training Al Qaeda operatives inside Iraq. Should we wait for another attack which may kill 50,000-100,000 or even more and then go after Iraq or should we take action today that may save thousands of lives?
3. Will an attack on Iraq cause Hussein to unleash his chemical/biological/nuclear weapons as a last resort?
While I acknowledge there is some risk of this occurring I prefer to force Saddam's hand rather than sitting back and allowing him to choose the time and place for such an attack. The use of chemical and biological weapons is difficult under the best of circumstances. I would take my chances that the Iraqis will find nearly impossible to adequately coordinate chemical/biological strikes while they themselves are under intense aerial attack. Obviously any known Iraqi chemical/biological/nuclear facilities would be targeted early in any US attack and Special Forces could be employed to locate Scud missile sites and pinpoint air strikes against them. Patriot missiles could be once again sent to Israel and the Israeli population prepared to deal with possible retaliation (gas masks, inoculations, etc,). I would rather have properly equipped US forces dealing with such attacks in Iraq on our timetable than have a large US civilian population exposed to the threat on Saddam's terms.
4. Would the Iraqi people be better off with a new government?
The opponents of military action against Iraq often profess their concern for the suffering of the Iraqi people and claim a war would hurt them the most. While it is true that in the short run a war would cause civilian casualties and deprivations in the long run the Iraqi people would be much better off in an Iraq free of Saddam's dictatorship. Instead of the vast oil resources of the country being devoted to developing weapons and building palaces the income from oil sales (no longer restricted in a post-Saddam Iraq) could be used for rebuilding the infrastructure, educating the children, and creating an environment where a free market economy could flourish thus laying the foundation for a free and democratic Iraq. Japan and Germany are two excellent examples of such post war reconstruction.
5. Can there peace in the Middle East with the current Iraqi regime?
One of the best hopes for a lasting peace in the Middle East may be for a regime change in Iraq. Currently Hussein aids the Palestinian terror groups and rewards the families of suicide bombers with cash payments. He calls for all Arabs to unite in a war to destroy Israel and the last thing he wants is a peaceful settlement. His removal would eliminate one obstacle to peace while at the same time sending a message to other countries in the region particularly Iran and Syria. With Saddam in power there is little possibility of peace in the Middle East. Without him there is at least hope.
War is a terrible thing and should never be entered into lightly. However, sometimes the alternative can be much worse. Our failure to act now to eliminate the threat from Iraq may come back to haunt us later in thousands of civilian deaths in the Middle East and here in the United States. As Aleksander Solzhenitsyn said "The price of cowardice will only be evil."
Wednesday, August 07, 2002
Unilateralism Is Not A Dirty Word
Wonderfully telling editorial in today's Minneapolis Star Tribune decrying what it describes as the United State's "go it alone" attitude. One paragraph in particular caught my attention:
That's the problem in a nutshell, and no amount of PR can polish it away. The rising outcry about U.S. unilateralism -- its refusal to heed any law but its own -- isn't born of foreign confusion about what America stands for. It's an expression of dismay about what America is doing. In dozens of ways over dozens of years, onlookers say, the United States has defended its own interests at global expense. As Sachs puts it, "The world thinks we're fighting for ourselves. What people say is, 'You're so rich and powerful, you don't even think about us -- unless you need something.' "
If you actually believe that a nation should not act in its own self interest but rather for the greater good of the world than you are either incredibly naive or a supporter of some type of world government organization that would supercede national sovereignty. I'm not a black helicpoter believer and don't think the UN is plotting to invade any time soon, but beliefs such as these seem to invariably lead to a one world governing body. The United States is not just another country among the many of the world and to subject ourselves to their rule would be absurd. We have been and still are the leader and defender of freedom and liberty in the world and we must continue to act in that role.
The day that the United States of America stops defending its own interests and instead heeds the call of the "global community" is the day that we might as well hang her up and call it quits as a country. The United States was founded to be unlike any nation that had come before her and has always followed its own path in international relations.
I have always thought that to truly be a leader you must not "go along to get along" but rather be willing to fight for your values and beliefs even if your opinions were not shared by all. During the Cold War the US was often criticized for its actions in building nuclear weapons, stationing troops around the world, and aiding countries fighting Communism, but our persistent efforts lead to the downfall of the Soviet Union and freedom for millions in Eastern Europe. It took courage to win the Cold War but we felt that we were right and history proved it.
Today, if the United States believes that Iraq must be neutralizied for both our security and the security of the world then we must act accordingly with or without the support of the rest of the world.
That's the problem in a nutshell, and no amount of PR can polish it away. The rising outcry about U.S. unilateralism -- its refusal to heed any law but its own -- isn't born of foreign confusion about what America stands for. It's an expression of dismay about what America is doing. In dozens of ways over dozens of years, onlookers say, the United States has defended its own interests at global expense. As Sachs puts it, "The world thinks we're fighting for ourselves. What people say is, 'You're so rich and powerful, you don't even think about us -- unless you need something.' "
If you actually believe that a nation should not act in its own self interest but rather for the greater good of the world than you are either incredibly naive or a supporter of some type of world government organization that would supercede national sovereignty. I'm not a black helicpoter believer and don't think the UN is plotting to invade any time soon, but beliefs such as these seem to invariably lead to a one world governing body. The United States is not just another country among the many of the world and to subject ourselves to their rule would be absurd. We have been and still are the leader and defender of freedom and liberty in the world and we must continue to act in that role.
The day that the United States of America stops defending its own interests and instead heeds the call of the "global community" is the day that we might as well hang her up and call it quits as a country. The United States was founded to be unlike any nation that had come before her and has always followed its own path in international relations.
I have always thought that to truly be a leader you must not "go along to get along" but rather be willing to fight for your values and beliefs even if your opinions were not shared by all. During the Cold War the US was often criticized for its actions in building nuclear weapons, stationing troops around the world, and aiding countries fighting Communism, but our persistent efforts lead to the downfall of the Soviet Union and freedom for millions in Eastern Europe. It took courage to win the Cold War but we felt that we were right and history proved it.
Today, if the United States believes that Iraq must be neutralizied for both our security and the security of the world then we must act accordingly with or without the support of the rest of the world.
Monday, August 05, 2002
Go Ahead, Throw Your Vote Away (please)
One significant event emerged from the Minnesota Gubernatorial debate Tuesday night. No, I'm not talking about Eric Eskola's new scarf (OK make it two significant events). Rather, I'm speaking of the solidification of a potentially permanent four party system here in Minnesota. Unlike the complex and difficult to achieve federal system, Minnesota law, for good and for evil, simply defines a "major" party as any that achieves 5% or more of the vote in any statewide election. This recognition allows for automatic ballot access and access to publicly funded campaign financing. In addition, the local media has adopted this standard for how they treat candidates, therefore anyone nominated by a major party has been given equal space in newspaper profiles and has been allowed to participate in the media presented debates.
Such was the case with Tuesday night's debate, which featured the DFL candidate Roger Moe, Republican Tim Pawlenty, Tim Penny of the Independence Party and Green Ken Pentel (or as Joe McCarthy would call him, Pink Ken Pentel). All four of them, sitting on a modular couch, being asked the same inane questions by the same inane moderators (one of them wearing a scarf).
What eventually occurred to me, amid the rote recitation of standard answers and half hearted attempts at mudslinging (and I'm describing what was going on in my living room) is that proximity and presence does matter in one's valuation of a candidate as legitimate--even to the exclusion of what they're actually saying. Just the fact that Ken Pentel was sitting in a suit next to the Senate Majority leader, and uttering big words, using correct syntax and grammar, gave him instant credibility as a candidate. It didn't matter that he happened to be advocating the use of human feces as an environmentally-friendly tub and tile grout, gosh darnit, he looked like he belonged there!
This is an accomplishment that cannot be reached through the other means available to non-major party candidates. No matter how many pamphlets you publish on 40% post consumer waste recycled paper or how many times Doug Grow trumpets you as a "caring voice from the chorus of the people," the average a-hole in Hopkins is going to hear you're a member of the "Green Party" and he's still going to think you're a freak and a loser. Sadly, this is one of the few times the good people of Hopkins get to be right on an issue, and now it's gone. The power of the televised image alone is enough to overcome this initial hurdle of recognition and impress an aura of credibility, no matter the intelligence of the observer.
Understand, I'm not claiming that the Greens have any chance of winning this year. The Independence Party certainly does, and at this point, I'd have to say Penny is the favorite. He'll draw the percentage of the population that believes voting for him is an act of intellectual superiority, affirming their independence from the crass party paradigm ("Honey, he's doesn't call himself a Democrat--he only acts like one, this is great!"). As this group is about 36% of the entire population--that's enough to put Penny over the top.
However, the Greens will certainly get 5% of the vote this time, maybe more due to the mass exposure provided by the TV. That means they get to hang around again, throughout the next election cycle, further giving the appearance that they have something substantive to say. The longer they are allowed to sniff around the electorate, the more they will be able to nibble away at the slightly less extreme extremists (commonly known as social moderates). And with 4 apparently credible entities claiming their share of the vote, you can forget about a majority deciding anything. It's going to be a plurality, and a weak one at that. It's plausible that it will only take 28% - 30% to win an election for Governor. And I do believe the Greens have it within their power to gain this much of a vote in Minnesota. That is, as long as they don't nominate some bizarre clown as their candidate, like Fancy Ray McCloney or John Marty.
So is it a good thing, this easy access to major party status? Unless your a raving fan of modern Italian electoral politics, the answer is no. When you consider the potential results of such a system--a Green in the Executive Mansion--the answer is resoundingly no. But I'm afraid we're stuck with it.
At least until a 5th party snares 5% of some vote, but this time the party is from the right or libertarian ranks. At that point I predict the media will come to the opinion that adding another voice to the discussion will be too chaotic so their procedures for inclusion in the debates must change. And the legislature will begin to question the legitimacy of a winning candidate who might only get 22% of the vote, because that simply isn't a mandate, so the laws about major party recognition will need some tweaking.
Such was the case with Tuesday night's debate, which featured the DFL candidate Roger Moe, Republican Tim Pawlenty, Tim Penny of the Independence Party and Green Ken Pentel (or as Joe McCarthy would call him, Pink Ken Pentel). All four of them, sitting on a modular couch, being asked the same inane questions by the same inane moderators (one of them wearing a scarf).
What eventually occurred to me, amid the rote recitation of standard answers and half hearted attempts at mudslinging (and I'm describing what was going on in my living room) is that proximity and presence does matter in one's valuation of a candidate as legitimate--even to the exclusion of what they're actually saying. Just the fact that Ken Pentel was sitting in a suit next to the Senate Majority leader, and uttering big words, using correct syntax and grammar, gave him instant credibility as a candidate. It didn't matter that he happened to be advocating the use of human feces as an environmentally-friendly tub and tile grout, gosh darnit, he looked like he belonged there!
This is an accomplishment that cannot be reached through the other means available to non-major party candidates. No matter how many pamphlets you publish on 40% post consumer waste recycled paper or how many times Doug Grow trumpets you as a "caring voice from the chorus of the people," the average a-hole in Hopkins is going to hear you're a member of the "Green Party" and he's still going to think you're a freak and a loser. Sadly, this is one of the few times the good people of Hopkins get to be right on an issue, and now it's gone. The power of the televised image alone is enough to overcome this initial hurdle of recognition and impress an aura of credibility, no matter the intelligence of the observer.
Understand, I'm not claiming that the Greens have any chance of winning this year. The Independence Party certainly does, and at this point, I'd have to say Penny is the favorite. He'll draw the percentage of the population that believes voting for him is an act of intellectual superiority, affirming their independence from the crass party paradigm ("Honey, he's doesn't call himself a Democrat--he only acts like one, this is great!"). As this group is about 36% of the entire population--that's enough to put Penny over the top.
However, the Greens will certainly get 5% of the vote this time, maybe more due to the mass exposure provided by the TV. That means they get to hang around again, throughout the next election cycle, further giving the appearance that they have something substantive to say. The longer they are allowed to sniff around the electorate, the more they will be able to nibble away at the slightly less extreme extremists (commonly known as social moderates). And with 4 apparently credible entities claiming their share of the vote, you can forget about a majority deciding anything. It's going to be a plurality, and a weak one at that. It's plausible that it will only take 28% - 30% to win an election for Governor. And I do believe the Greens have it within their power to gain this much of a vote in Minnesota. That is, as long as they don't nominate some bizarre clown as their candidate, like Fancy Ray McCloney or John Marty.
So is it a good thing, this easy access to major party status? Unless your a raving fan of modern Italian electoral politics, the answer is no. When you consider the potential results of such a system--a Green in the Executive Mansion--the answer is resoundingly no. But I'm afraid we're stuck with it.
At least until a 5th party snares 5% of some vote, but this time the party is from the right or libertarian ranks. At that point I predict the media will come to the opinion that adding another voice to the discussion will be too chaotic so their procedures for inclusion in the debates must change. And the legislature will begin to question the legitimacy of a winning candidate who might only get 22% of the vote, because that simply isn't a mandate, so the laws about major party recognition will need some tweaking.
Friday, August 02, 2002
The Best Hockey Player in Ecuador
Earlier this week I found myself watching the first gubernatorial debate on TPT. That is, I was watching the debate when there wasn't a wide shot of the entire assembled panel, because then I was watching Cathy Wurzer's legs slinking out from beneath a shortish yet still professional looking skirt. Holy smokes--yes, she's showing some age of late, she's married to a rumpled bag of used laundry, and her left leaning political preference is obvious and superficial and dull, but ... the woman's got magnetism. Call me shallow my ownself, but when I'm watching the boob tube, I'd rather see Ms. Wurzer chew up air time than sit through a session with her more journalistically able, yet terminally mousy counterpart Mary LaHammer.
Needless to say it was rather jarring to go from those beautiful stems to a smash cut showing the smug mug of Roger Moe or the conspicuously casual choreography of Tim Penny. But, believe it or not, I did catch a little of the substance of the arguments. And frankly, they left me inspired. Inspired to never vote again.
I wish it weren't so, I wish I could get caught up in the fever of one of these candidate's drive to achieve their dreams for Minnesota. But I can't, and I'm blaming them (at least publicly). Only Penny came off as something remotely close to a real human being (but only barely, and only by Waseca standards). Moe and Pawlenty were in half-arsed professional politician mode, pausing ever so briefly before every answer to calculate how it will be perceived by the key swing voter demographics (which apparently consists of the 18-35 year old male population of Hopkins and Blaine who still live with their parents and think professional wrestling is "funny"). Their other answers consisted of arcane references to obscure legislation they've supported in the past which were intended to "solve" some problem. Neither came off as greasy, slick types, rather they both seemed to be trying to live up to some image of politicians they've seen on TV, while simultaneously staying on message. For Moe the message was--"I'm not as old as I look" and for Penny it was "my parents were members of the lumpen proletariat". Ken Pentel, the Green, was just typically weird and flakey and whiney.
To be honest, I'd never consider voting for Penny, Moe or Pentel, no matter how they presented themselves . My understanding of the world is quite well formed and what they're advocating is contratry to this view. And I'm not going to change based on their promising me a bigger slice of cheese (even though Walter Williams would call that behavior rational--once theft is legalized and democratized, it only makes sense that people will vote to get as much of the take as they can--thus the continued success of the Democratic party in elections).
Tim Pawlenty was my only hope, and upon further review, I'm giving him a resounding perhaps. He seems to believe some of the right things, he mouths some of the right words. But he also says (and hints) at all sorts of wrong things. He's not against light rail--he's only against where they chose to build it? A commuter rail system to St. Cloud might make sense? (Both of these comments he made Tuesday night). And doesn't he have a record of voting (years ago--when he wasnt running for governor) to raise taxes when faced with so called "deficits"? (My source is the Jason Lewis show on this one.) I'll need to do some research on that last issue, but deep in my heart, I'm not sure he's extremely right.
I get the sense that if elected, he wouldn't aggresively advocate for any of the important issues of the day--that is, reducing and eventually elminating the state government's role in education, and greatly reducing income and property taxes (via the elimination of government programs--across the board). Rather, I suspect he'd preside over a continued expansion of government and taxes, but he just wouldn't be happy about it. Come to think of it, that's kind of the platform Penny is running on-- and its the working definition of a fiscal conversative/social moderate. I wouldn't label Pawlenty with that particular smear, but at the end of a Pawlenty administration, I suspect that's exactly what he'd look like.
If only my political choices were similarly motivated as my tastes in TV viewership, I'd have no problem voting for Pawlenty, as I suspect his rhetoric is the equivalent of Cathy Wurzer's legs--eye (ear) candy wrapped around a gaping void of substance.
Needless to say it was rather jarring to go from those beautiful stems to a smash cut showing the smug mug of Roger Moe or the conspicuously casual choreography of Tim Penny. But, believe it or not, I did catch a little of the substance of the arguments. And frankly, they left me inspired. Inspired to never vote again.
I wish it weren't so, I wish I could get caught up in the fever of one of these candidate's drive to achieve their dreams for Minnesota. But I can't, and I'm blaming them (at least publicly). Only Penny came off as something remotely close to a real human being (but only barely, and only by Waseca standards). Moe and Pawlenty were in half-arsed professional politician mode, pausing ever so briefly before every answer to calculate how it will be perceived by the key swing voter demographics (which apparently consists of the 18-35 year old male population of Hopkins and Blaine who still live with their parents and think professional wrestling is "funny"). Their other answers consisted of arcane references to obscure legislation they've supported in the past which were intended to "solve" some problem. Neither came off as greasy, slick types, rather they both seemed to be trying to live up to some image of politicians they've seen on TV, while simultaneously staying on message. For Moe the message was--"I'm not as old as I look" and for Penny it was "my parents were members of the lumpen proletariat". Ken Pentel, the Green, was just typically weird and flakey and whiney.
To be honest, I'd never consider voting for Penny, Moe or Pentel, no matter how they presented themselves . My understanding of the world is quite well formed and what they're advocating is contratry to this view. And I'm not going to change based on their promising me a bigger slice of cheese (even though Walter Williams would call that behavior rational--once theft is legalized and democratized, it only makes sense that people will vote to get as much of the take as they can--thus the continued success of the Democratic party in elections).
Tim Pawlenty was my only hope, and upon further review, I'm giving him a resounding perhaps. He seems to believe some of the right things, he mouths some of the right words. But he also says (and hints) at all sorts of wrong things. He's not against light rail--he's only against where they chose to build it? A commuter rail system to St. Cloud might make sense? (Both of these comments he made Tuesday night). And doesn't he have a record of voting (years ago--when he wasnt running for governor) to raise taxes when faced with so called "deficits"? (My source is the Jason Lewis show on this one.) I'll need to do some research on that last issue, but deep in my heart, I'm not sure he's extremely right.
I get the sense that if elected, he wouldn't aggresively advocate for any of the important issues of the day--that is, reducing and eventually elminating the state government's role in education, and greatly reducing income and property taxes (via the elimination of government programs--across the board). Rather, I suspect he'd preside over a continued expansion of government and taxes, but he just wouldn't be happy about it. Come to think of it, that's kind of the platform Penny is running on-- and its the working definition of a fiscal conversative/social moderate. I wouldn't label Pawlenty with that particular smear, but at the end of a Pawlenty administration, I suspect that's exactly what he'd look like.
If only my political choices were similarly motivated as my tastes in TV viewership, I'd have no problem voting for Pawlenty, as I suspect his rhetoric is the equivalent of Cathy Wurzer's legs--eye (ear) candy wrapped around a gaping void of substance.
Through the HR Looking Glass
We can all probably recall an occasion when we were kids when we got the raw end of the deal. We would complain and whine that "It isn't fair" to which the standard response from parents/relatives/teachers was "Life's not fair." And as much as we didn't want to hear that answer most of us came to accept the reality of it as we matured and grew older.
But two groups of people were unwilling (or possible unable) to grasp this simple bit of truth and cling stubbornly to the notion that life can be fair if only we are willing to make it so. These two groups are socialists and HR people. Obviously they are not mutually exclusive and crossover between them is probably quite common.
My problem with socialists is well documented and it's not necessary to rehash all the particulars here, but lately I have become acutely aware of the pollyannaish approach to life that seems to affect so many who choose the HR lifestyle, particularly in corporate environments large enough to have their own distinct HR functions. There is striking dichotomy at play between the competitive business world where winning sales and coming out on top against your competitors is required to stay alive and thrive, and the HR worldview which often seems focused on equality of outcomes regardless of the company's business or economic requirements. Let me just offer a few examples that I have encountered:
Our company has a stated policy of not matching offers made by other firms to lure away talent. I once asked an HR representative why this so was in light of the significant costs involved in recruiting and training a new employee to take the place of one who leaves for greener pastures to say nothing of the detrimental impact on morale that such exits create. Might it not be easier and cheaper to pay the current employee a bit more more in order to avoid such costs? "But that wouldn't be fair to all the other employees who aren't out looking for jobs." Of course it wouldn't. It would require you to make a judgment that an individual has abilities above and beyond those of the other employees and recognize this individual has discovered a market for his talents that you must now compete against. But I guess competition isn't really fair to all so God forbid that we would engage it it.
Our group wanted to purchase a small refrigerator out of our own budget to use for lunch, beverages, etc. since the company does not make one available to us. My boss, who is kind of a weenie, refused to approve such a request until he checked with HR because he thought they might find it unfair to other groups. How did the HR departments acquire such power that a relatively simple decision must be passed by them for their consideration? My reaction was if the groups want a refrigerator tell them to go buy one on their own just as we had done. Instead of rewarding a bit of creative thinking and initiative the HR bureaucracy seeks to stifle it to ensure that all of us are equally deprived. It's like working for a corporate version of East Germany. Of course me and another manager subverted our boss and avoided the HR Stasi and we now have our refrigerator. A small step towards tearing down the wall.
But two groups of people were unwilling (or possible unable) to grasp this simple bit of truth and cling stubbornly to the notion that life can be fair if only we are willing to make it so. These two groups are socialists and HR people. Obviously they are not mutually exclusive and crossover between them is probably quite common.
My problem with socialists is well documented and it's not necessary to rehash all the particulars here, but lately I have become acutely aware of the pollyannaish approach to life that seems to affect so many who choose the HR lifestyle, particularly in corporate environments large enough to have their own distinct HR functions. There is striking dichotomy at play between the competitive business world where winning sales and coming out on top against your competitors is required to stay alive and thrive, and the HR worldview which often seems focused on equality of outcomes regardless of the company's business or economic requirements. Let me just offer a few examples that I have encountered:
Our company has a stated policy of not matching offers made by other firms to lure away talent. I once asked an HR representative why this so was in light of the significant costs involved in recruiting and training a new employee to take the place of one who leaves for greener pastures to say nothing of the detrimental impact on morale that such exits create. Might it not be easier and cheaper to pay the current employee a bit more more in order to avoid such costs? "But that wouldn't be fair to all the other employees who aren't out looking for jobs." Of course it wouldn't. It would require you to make a judgment that an individual has abilities above and beyond those of the other employees and recognize this individual has discovered a market for his talents that you must now compete against. But I guess competition isn't really fair to all so God forbid that we would engage it it.
Our group wanted to purchase a small refrigerator out of our own budget to use for lunch, beverages, etc. since the company does not make one available to us. My boss, who is kind of a weenie, refused to approve such a request until he checked with HR because he thought they might find it unfair to other groups. How did the HR departments acquire such power that a relatively simple decision must be passed by them for their consideration? My reaction was if the groups want a refrigerator tell them to go buy one on their own just as we had done. Instead of rewarding a bit of creative thinking and initiative the HR bureaucracy seeks to stifle it to ensure that all of us are equally deprived. It's like working for a corporate version of East Germany. Of course me and another manager subverted our boss and avoided the HR Stasi and we now have our refrigerator. A small step towards tearing down the wall.
Thursday, August 01, 2002
Release the Hounds (On whoever created this list)
This week the much talked about TV Guide's 50 greatest cartoon characters of all time list was published. I could go into great detail on the problems that I have with the list but I'll limit my comments to just a few irritations:
* Mr. Burns is undoubtedly the best cartoon character of all time. End of discussion. To not include him is a disgrace.
* Who the bleep are Angelica Pickles and Gerald McBoing-Boing? How about Arthur? And who is Bill? Bill the Cat? Mr. Bill (not really a cartoon at all is it)?
* Way too many characters from recent shows. How about proving yourself over the long haul? Clearly the Simpson's has already cemented its place in history but Daria, SpongeBob, the Powerpuff Girls, Pikachu, and even maybe Bobby Hill? I don't see em' having the staying power.
* To list Charlie Brown and Snoopy together is absurd. They are both uniquely individual characters and actually don't even appear together all that often. Same with Bart and Lisa. Bart is a great character but Lisa would not make my list. Other duos like Beavis & Butthead and the Road Runner and Coyote do make sense but if you go with Charlie Brown and Snoopy then why not Scooby Doo and Shaggy?
* Daffy Duck is way too low on the list. Throw out the weak latter years of Daffy and I'd take the Daffy of the 30's and 40's against nearly anyone.
* Having a chipmunk on the list is just plain wrong.
* Mr. Burns is undoubtedly the best cartoon character of all time. End of discussion. To not include him is a disgrace.
* Who the bleep are Angelica Pickles and Gerald McBoing-Boing? How about Arthur? And who is Bill? Bill the Cat? Mr. Bill (not really a cartoon at all is it)?
* Way too many characters from recent shows. How about proving yourself over the long haul? Clearly the Simpson's has already cemented its place in history but Daria, SpongeBob, the Powerpuff Girls, Pikachu, and even maybe Bobby Hill? I don't see em' having the staying power.
* To list Charlie Brown and Snoopy together is absurd. They are both uniquely individual characters and actually don't even appear together all that often. Same with Bart and Lisa. Bart is a great character but Lisa would not make my list. Other duos like Beavis & Butthead and the Road Runner and Coyote do make sense but if you go with Charlie Brown and Snoopy then why not Scooby Doo and Shaggy?
* Daffy Duck is way too low on the list. Throw out the weak latter years of Daffy and I'd take the Daffy of the 30's and 40's against nearly anyone.
* Having a chipmunk on the list is just plain wrong.
Tanks versus Talk
Good read on the European versus the American view on how to secure peace by Jonah Goldberg on National Review Online. I happened to catch the Bill Moyers special that he references and it was a fascinating discussion during which Krauthammer was able to demonstrate once again why he's one of the sharpest minds in the game.
Rising to the task
Picked up the new Springsteen disk yesterday and after only listening to the first eight songs I am already able to say that this is top notch material. If wankers like U2 or Paul McCartney (yes, I know he was a Beatle that doesn't mean he's not a complete embarrassment these days) had put out an album reflecting on September 11th I would have been nauseated. But there's just something so quintessentially American about Bruce Springsteen that makes him the perfect choice for such an undertaking.. It also helps that he doesn't hammer you over the head with the theme but rather subtly touches on loss and grief in a genuine way without pretensions. It's hardly a perfect album and a couple of the songs seem jarringly out of place but overall it works and achieves it's aims. What could be more American than that?
Tuesday, July 30, 2002
No Fat Immigrant Chicks
A friend weighs in on immigration:
Regarding immigration--I agree with your comments and my evolution of opinion somewhat mirrors yours. The tempest-tossed, huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wreteched refuse from those teeming shores, have always represented potential for me.
Genius and ingenuity are rare and the successful exploitation of these attributes is a factor of, among other things, numbers. You're more likey to find one Thomas Edison or Bill Gates among a population of a million than you are in a population of 10,000. Such is the nature of the distribution of human potential. The beautiful thing is that just one Edison or Gates, operating in an environment where risk taking and entrepenuership is encouraged, can lift the standard of living for the other 999,999 slack-jawed troglydites. So my general stance has been to let them in and then sit back and watch the rising tide life all of our boats (grunt).
However, what mucks up this sunny day real estate disposition is the new context in which we thrust our immigrants. Namely, when they can expect to enter a welfare state that guarantees equality of outcome, no matter what the personal effort, and eliminates any consequences for being a lay about, well, that's trouble sir. Onerous regulation and confiscatory, redistributionist tax policy also conspire to eliminate motivation from just those geniuses we're all counting to haul our arses out of the primordial economic swamp.
Furthermore, this environment will tend to attract a different type of immigrant. Instead of this country sounding the clarion call for those who simply want to breathe free, and to be allowed to realize the benefits of their work, away from the dictators and oppresive systems in the rest of the world (see France), we're sending out the message that anyone who simply wants to live a comfortable life should show up and we'll sign them up for cradle to grave government services immediately.
So what am I saying? Immigration itself isn't bad, rather it's the way our institutions have come to deal with immigrants. They're no longer partners in this enterprise of liberty, adding the strenghts of their backs and their minds to the larger effort--rather, they're just more pets to be kept by the federal government. The government promises to feed them and water them and house them--just as long as their votes continue to go to the government party.
You're also quite right in stating that neither of the major parties is adequately addressing these issues. The Democrats are, well Democrats. And George W. Bush is a disaster on this issue.
The minor parties do provide some additional insight--particularly the Libertarians. I watched a rather wonderful speech by Harry Browne a few weeks ago on C-SPAN and he spoke of this issue. I think the video is still available for download on the C-SPAN Web site--I couldn't find a transcription of his comments. But if your computer is advanced enough to view video (mine isn't) you may want to check it out.
The Harry Browne Web site is full of provocative articles. Some of which I tend to disagree with--particularly tactical recommendations on foreign policy, but it's difficult to argue with his philosophy on anything--because he's right (extremely right). He's recently re-posted a column he wrote in 1992 about the LA riots. It's excellent and it has several parallels to what
is happening today:
The Rodney King Incident
Regarding immigration--I agree with your comments and my evolution of opinion somewhat mirrors yours. The tempest-tossed, huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wreteched refuse from those teeming shores, have always represented potential for me.
Genius and ingenuity are rare and the successful exploitation of these attributes is a factor of, among other things, numbers. You're more likey to find one Thomas Edison or Bill Gates among a population of a million than you are in a population of 10,000. Such is the nature of the distribution of human potential. The beautiful thing is that just one Edison or Gates, operating in an environment where risk taking and entrepenuership is encouraged, can lift the standard of living for the other 999,999 slack-jawed troglydites. So my general stance has been to let them in and then sit back and watch the rising tide life all of our boats (grunt).
However, what mucks up this sunny day real estate disposition is the new context in which we thrust our immigrants. Namely, when they can expect to enter a welfare state that guarantees equality of outcome, no matter what the personal effort, and eliminates any consequences for being a lay about, well, that's trouble sir. Onerous regulation and confiscatory, redistributionist tax policy also conspire to eliminate motivation from just those geniuses we're all counting to haul our arses out of the primordial economic swamp.
Furthermore, this environment will tend to attract a different type of immigrant. Instead of this country sounding the clarion call for those who simply want to breathe free, and to be allowed to realize the benefits of their work, away from the dictators and oppresive systems in the rest of the world (see France), we're sending out the message that anyone who simply wants to live a comfortable life should show up and we'll sign them up for cradle to grave government services immediately.
So what am I saying? Immigration itself isn't bad, rather it's the way our institutions have come to deal with immigrants. They're no longer partners in this enterprise of liberty, adding the strenghts of their backs and their minds to the larger effort--rather, they're just more pets to be kept by the federal government. The government promises to feed them and water them and house them--just as long as their votes continue to go to the government party.
You're also quite right in stating that neither of the major parties is adequately addressing these issues. The Democrats are, well Democrats. And George W. Bush is a disaster on this issue.
The minor parties do provide some additional insight--particularly the Libertarians. I watched a rather wonderful speech by Harry Browne a few weeks ago on C-SPAN and he spoke of this issue. I think the video is still available for download on the C-SPAN Web site--I couldn't find a transcription of his comments. But if your computer is advanced enough to view video (mine isn't) you may want to check it out.
The Harry Browne Web site is full of provocative articles. Some of which I tend to disagree with--particularly tactical recommendations on foreign policy, but it's difficult to argue with his philosophy on anything--because he's right (extremely right). He's recently re-posted a column he wrote in 1992 about the LA riots. It's excellent and it has several parallels to what
is happening today:
The Rodney King Incident
Friday, July 26, 2002
Change of Heart(and of head)
For about as long as I've been old enough to have an opinion on it, I have been in favor of immigration to the US. I never bought the stories about wide spread abuse of governmental services by immigrants or the "they're taking our jobs" scare talk.
I took what I considered to be a pragmatic economic view of the issue. We need people to do jobs that Americans increasingly seemed unwilling to do and the immigrants needed and wanted an opportunity for a brighter economic future. I saw in the success of the Latino and Asian immigrants in opening their own businesses and achieving the "American dream" a refutation of the claims of native minority groups that racism and history had made it impossible for them to get ahead. On the whole I viewed immigration as a positive for our country.
A few years ago chinks (no pun intended) began to appear in the armor of my immigration position. The cons of immigration become increasingly evident while the pros seemed to be harder to spot. The problems of the border towns in California, Arizona, and Texas and the refusal of many new immigrants to assimilate raised concerns about the wisdom of continuing immigration. But, at the time, it was not a subject that I gave a great deal of thought to and my core beliefs on the issue remained unchanged.
September 11th brought to light just how dangerous the consequences of our lax immigration and border controls could be. An attack on our country was planned and prepared for over many months, even years on our own soil by declared enemies of our country who had little difficulty entering and leaving the US on multiple occasions before the attack.
The reaction of some immigrant groups after the attack also exposed the fact the even after living in our country for years and enjoying the many freedoms we afforded them some immigrants had scant loyalty to the US and were sometimes even openly disdainful of American ideals of liberty and democracy. Radical Islamists called for the overthrow of the government and the establishment of a Muslim state, creating the threat of future attacks from this small but dangerous group from within our own borders. In the months afterward, I have had to seriously question whether open immigration was still a value that our country wanted to embrace.
The final nail in the coffin was hammered home courtesy of an article in the latest edition of the National Review by Steven Camarota. It is not available on line but here is a brief excerpt:
When the history of the 1990s is written, the most important story may not be the GOP takeover of Congress, the boom economy, or the Clinton impeachment. The big story may be the decade's unprecedented level of immigration--a social phenomenon affecting everything from the nation's schools to the political balance between the two parties.
Newly released census figures show that the foreign-born population reached 31.1 million in 2000. This is by far the largest immigrant population in U.S. history, and represents a 57 percent increase from 1990. Even during the great wave of immigration from 1900 to 1910, the foreign-born population grew by only about 31 percent; over the past 30 years, the number of immigrants in the U.S. has tripled. If current trends are allowed to continue, the foreign-born share of the population will in fact pass the all-time high by the end of this decade.
Besides just demonstrating the frightening scope of the current levels of immigration, Camarota also points out that the immigrants of today are for the most part poor and uneducated. Whereas in the late 19th and early 20th century the Irish, German, and Italian immigrants coming to America had roughly the same education level as the average native born American at the time, today very few new immigrants have even attended high school. The costs to educate this new generation of immigrants in enormous and is one of the reasons that our educational system as a whole has performed so poorly of late.
It is also one of the reasons why during the economic expansion of the 90's the poverty rate remained unchanged. While most native born Americans were able to improve their fortunes during the decade this flood of poor immigrants insured that little progress could made overall. And, in purely economic terms, a recent study conservatively estimated that the immigrants of the '90s cost the United States government a net $20 billion dollars after comparing outlays to the immigrants with taxes collected from them. That was more than enough for me. Shields down, argument over. Where do I sign up to oppose immigration?
Camaroate does not propose completely eliminating immigration but rather wants to tighten a few rules which would result in a much lower figure of around 300,000 legal immigrants a year, a number he believes we can deal with. He also favors tightening controls on the borders, which in light on 9/11 seems to be a no brainer.
The problem as I see it is that no politician or party wants to touch this issue. Bush has clearly demonstrated his willingness to pander for the Hispanic vote by proposing legalization of illegal immigrants already here and doing nothing to place further restrictions on them. The culturally aware and diverse Dems also see immigration as a votes issue believing that once the immigrants get here they can be lured to the plantation with promises of government aid and feel good victimization to explain their plight. This could be a very dangerous situation if it continues and we might find ourselves falling into a trap that has already occurred in a few European countries.
For decades most European countries have encouraged immigration to provide labor for their work forces in the face of declining native populations. Now some Europeans are beginning to question the wisdom of further immigration in the light of the rising crime rates, intolerance towards Jews, and abuse of women among certain immigrant communities (can you guess which one I'm talking about?). But because so many immigrants are already there and can vote, no politician is willing to stand on the issue for fear of being punished at the voting booth with their block voting power. Talk about a truly frightening situation.
The issue of immigration is not on anybody's front burner right now. But in the next few years it may turn out to be one of the most critical challenges we face in ensuring the future of a prosperous and free United States. I know where I now stand. How about you?
I took what I considered to be a pragmatic economic view of the issue. We need people to do jobs that Americans increasingly seemed unwilling to do and the immigrants needed and wanted an opportunity for a brighter economic future. I saw in the success of the Latino and Asian immigrants in opening their own businesses and achieving the "American dream" a refutation of the claims of native minority groups that racism and history had made it impossible for them to get ahead. On the whole I viewed immigration as a positive for our country.
A few years ago chinks (no pun intended) began to appear in the armor of my immigration position. The cons of immigration become increasingly evident while the pros seemed to be harder to spot. The problems of the border towns in California, Arizona, and Texas and the refusal of many new immigrants to assimilate raised concerns about the wisdom of continuing immigration. But, at the time, it was not a subject that I gave a great deal of thought to and my core beliefs on the issue remained unchanged.
September 11th brought to light just how dangerous the consequences of our lax immigration and border controls could be. An attack on our country was planned and prepared for over many months, even years on our own soil by declared enemies of our country who had little difficulty entering and leaving the US on multiple occasions before the attack.
The reaction of some immigrant groups after the attack also exposed the fact the even after living in our country for years and enjoying the many freedoms we afforded them some immigrants had scant loyalty to the US and were sometimes even openly disdainful of American ideals of liberty and democracy. Radical Islamists called for the overthrow of the government and the establishment of a Muslim state, creating the threat of future attacks from this small but dangerous group from within our own borders. In the months afterward, I have had to seriously question whether open immigration was still a value that our country wanted to embrace.
The final nail in the coffin was hammered home courtesy of an article in the latest edition of the National Review by Steven Camarota. It is not available on line but here is a brief excerpt:
When the history of the 1990s is written, the most important story may not be the GOP takeover of Congress, the boom economy, or the Clinton impeachment. The big story may be the decade's unprecedented level of immigration--a social phenomenon affecting everything from the nation's schools to the political balance between the two parties.
Newly released census figures show that the foreign-born population reached 31.1 million in 2000. This is by far the largest immigrant population in U.S. history, and represents a 57 percent increase from 1990. Even during the great wave of immigration from 1900 to 1910, the foreign-born population grew by only about 31 percent; over the past 30 years, the number of immigrants in the U.S. has tripled. If current trends are allowed to continue, the foreign-born share of the population will in fact pass the all-time high by the end of this decade.
Besides just demonstrating the frightening scope of the current levels of immigration, Camarota also points out that the immigrants of today are for the most part poor and uneducated. Whereas in the late 19th and early 20th century the Irish, German, and Italian immigrants coming to America had roughly the same education level as the average native born American at the time, today very few new immigrants have even attended high school. The costs to educate this new generation of immigrants in enormous and is one of the reasons that our educational system as a whole has performed so poorly of late.
It is also one of the reasons why during the economic expansion of the 90's the poverty rate remained unchanged. While most native born Americans were able to improve their fortunes during the decade this flood of poor immigrants insured that little progress could made overall. And, in purely economic terms, a recent study conservatively estimated that the immigrants of the '90s cost the United States government a net $20 billion dollars after comparing outlays to the immigrants with taxes collected from them. That was more than enough for me. Shields down, argument over. Where do I sign up to oppose immigration?
Camaroate does not propose completely eliminating immigration but rather wants to tighten a few rules which would result in a much lower figure of around 300,000 legal immigrants a year, a number he believes we can deal with. He also favors tightening controls on the borders, which in light on 9/11 seems to be a no brainer.
The problem as I see it is that no politician or party wants to touch this issue. Bush has clearly demonstrated his willingness to pander for the Hispanic vote by proposing legalization of illegal immigrants already here and doing nothing to place further restrictions on them. The culturally aware and diverse Dems also see immigration as a votes issue believing that once the immigrants get here they can be lured to the plantation with promises of government aid and feel good victimization to explain their plight. This could be a very dangerous situation if it continues and we might find ourselves falling into a trap that has already occurred in a few European countries.
For decades most European countries have encouraged immigration to provide labor for their work forces in the face of declining native populations. Now some Europeans are beginning to question the wisdom of further immigration in the light of the rising crime rates, intolerance towards Jews, and abuse of women among certain immigrant communities (can you guess which one I'm talking about?). But because so many immigrants are already there and can vote, no politician is willing to stand on the issue for fear of being punished at the voting booth with their block voting power. Talk about a truly frightening situation.
The issue of immigration is not on anybody's front burner right now. But in the next few years it may turn out to be one of the most critical challenges we face in ensuring the future of a prosperous and free United States. I know where I now stand. How about you?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)