Illegal Immigration Redux

Let's go through this again: Immigration hurts who? It seems that the major thrust of the Political Right is to keep all those browns and yellows out. It does not matter that they do not compete with us native born for "good" jobs, all that matters is that they are not lily white and that, often, they don't speak English. I agree with DBK over at Blanton and Ashton's that "American Citizen" should mean something. However, I think it should mean that we are the most inclusive and open society this world has ever seen.

And the Republican agenda is not about "order and common sense," it is about racism. If it was about "order and common sense" we would have virtually unlimited "migrant worker" visas for people who work in our fields and in other menial (meaning "jobs the rest of us high and mighty Gringos don't want") positions. I gotta tell you that I have no problem letting in these workers. If we did it legally, they might not bring their whole families with them. They would come, live in communal apartments (like they do now) and then go home when their work visa expires at the end of the season. I would make said visas renewable and good for say six months at a time. After eight or so renewals, the holder could become eligible for a permanent visa which would include his/her family.

People, something like that is a non-zero sum game where both the immigrant and the United States win. If these people had a way to get here cheaply, work and save up some money to send back home, and then go home cheaply until next year, I am almost positive that there would be a mass migration back to their homes. A couple thousand US dollars in rural Mexico or Guatemala go a lot further than they do here, and we would get our lettuce picked, our lawns mowed, our stores cleaned and our burgers flipped for a lot less than we would be willing to do it ourselves. Think about it.

The Abortion Dilemma

On a number of Blogs I read, the Abortion debate is front and center. (I was going to say "raging" but, for the most part, it is civil, reasoned and intellectual in nature, so "raging" didn't quite fit...) The latest post over at the Xpatriated Texan is a good example of this. I am personally pro-choice, but I believe that abortion is, at best, a very bad alternative to choose. I have chosen it once in the past, and that choice, although it was over 25 years ago, sometimes still keeps me awake at night. And this is how it should be. Taking this path should be one of the most profound and wrenching decisions a person makes in her/his lifetime. And this is where the pro-life community is falling down. Rather than impose, via legislation, their viewpoint on the rest of the citizenry, they should be working to make the personal decision to have an abortion one of the hardest decisions a person is ever going to face.

Now, by "hard" I mean one which requires a very deep level of self examination and ethical/moral/emotional consideration. Frankly, the whole question of when "life" begins is, in my opinion, specious. The question is about potential. Once sperm and egg unite, a unique potential has been created. That microscopic union has produced a potential that stretches some indeterminate distance into the future. The decision to abort that potential must, at the least, give that potential profound weight. And, having made the decision to abort, that decision should stay with the maker(s) of the decision for the rest of their lives as one of the worst, most distressing things they have ever done.

If has with my wife and myself.(Note: while this was an intensely personal decision we made, and while it is nobody's business why we made the decision we did, for the record, there were critical medical issues involved. Because of my wife's medical condition at the time, there was both considerable risk to her life in continuing the pregnancy as well as a virtually certainty that there was genetic damage to the potential human she was gestating. For primarily those reasons, we reluctantly made our decision. 'Nuff said.)

Safe borders...or raging xenophobic racism...you tell me...

So...I was sitting in Econolube's waiting room while they changed the oil on my little Saturn (Notice that I am proudly telling you that I drive a small, inexpensive hi-mileage car. I'm am beginning to sincerely dislike people who drive around with one person in some behemoth. Damn resource hogs!! But I digress...) happily reading a Terry Brooks book from the Shannara series and paying no attention to the TV rumbling in the background when, against all my increased concentration on the book, the talking head on Fox News intruded itself on me. I mean, when I walked in an told the nice young lady behind the counter that I needed an oil change, I did glance at the tube, but, when I noticed that they had it on the Fox News channel, I deliberately sought a seat about as far from it as possible. I did not want to have to deal with those pinheads today. And, yet, they managed to force themselves upon my consciousness.

The particular talking head who started raising my blood pressure was some Yahoo (and I use "yahoo" in its original Swiftian usage)declaiming how the Bible mandates that we close our borders to the "huddled masses yearning to be free" (and rich) to the south of us. He spewed out some convoluted reasoning that these people were "coveting" our goods and were, therefore, sinning in the eyes of God, and that it was our duty to close our borders to these poor wretches. Of course, he doesn't tell us how we are supposed to harvest the veggies he buys at the supermarket or who is going to cut our lawns or do all the other menial tasks that us "native" born (and here I extend my sincere apologies to any Native American who might happen to read this, but, what the hell, if a person was born on this continent, that makes him/her "native born".) are too damn "good" to do. Yes, I do have a lawn service cut my grass in the summer and, yes, almost all the people who show up to run the various machines have Spanish as their native (and primary) tongue. But, then, I don't deny them the same opportunity that my ancestors had.

People, like this "person" (and I use the term loosely) who claim to be both Christian and American are, in fact, neither. Both the founding fathers and our Heavenly Father, would (and will) disavow them when they appear at the gates of Heaven requesting entrance. At least they would if I had anything to say about it. "I'm sorry, we can't allow any undocumented immigrants (and you, sir, are completely undocumented) into the Heavenly abode. Nope, you're on the outside gnashing your teeth and generally feeling shitty about your eternity." But, then, God is all merciful and all knowing. He will probably allow these people in because, once they are there, they will know how wrong they were in this life and have to live their eternity with that knowledge. In other words, they carry the seeds of their own Hell within them. I can live with that...

Motion to Censure Bush

So, I got the following letter from my good friend, Governor Howard Dean:

RUSS FEINGOLD IS A TRAITOR

Dear <blank>,

That's what Republicans want you to think.

They are so scared of having a legitimate debate about Iraq or national security that they have only one reaction to news of their failures or calls for accountability.

On Monday, Democratic Senator Russ Feingold introduced legislation to censure the President for breaking the law by creating a secret domestic spying program. Agree or disagree with his proposal, as a Senator -- and as an American -- he has the right to speak his mind and express his views without Republican Senators questioning his patriotism.

But that's exactly what happened. This week Republican Senator Wayne Allard of Colorado, in an interview with Fox News radio, said in response to Feingold's action that he has "time and time again [sided] with the terrorists".

Send a message to Senator Allard: shame on him for questioning the patriotism of another Senator. Sign this petition and it will be delivered to Allard:

http://www.democrats.org/stopattackingruss

Agree or disagree with Russ Feingold's censure resolution, it is completely out of bounds to suggest that anyone demanding accountability is siding with terrorists. It is simply un-American to question the patriotism and loyalty of a Senator who wants the Congress to live up to its responsibility.

We've heard this cowardly nonsense from Republican leaders before. They attacked decorated Veteran and Democratic Rep. Jack Murtha for getting real on Iraq. They attacked Democratic Leader Harry Reid for shutting down the Senate to demand answers about manipulated pre-war intelligence.

They have ended the careers of generals who questioned Bush Administration talking points, and they even attack their own when respectable Republicans speak out on the disaster this administration has created in Iraq and its failure to close the gaps in our security here at home.

And time and again, the Republican controlled congress has consistently failed to conduct real oversight of the Administration, choosing instead to protect the Administration.

But polls show that nearly 70% of Americans reject this president and the Republican Congress that has failed to hold him accountable. And together we will hold Republicans accountable at the ballot box this year.

That's why the Democratic Party is putting the infrastructure on the ground now to fight in all 50 states. People everywhere are saying "enough is enough" -- and we will be ready to organize and fight everywhere with your help.

Please contribute whatever you can to make it happen:

http://www.democrats.org/accountability

The sick behavior of desperate Republicans will only stop when we fight back, and 2006 is the time to do it.

Thank you,

Governor Howard Dean, M.D.

I also got email from MoveOn.org on this subject requesting I sign their petition to support Senator Feingold in his attempt to get Congress to censure President Bush. I signed their petition (and urge anyone reading this to do the same. You can find the petition here.) However, I think it is time we thought about what it actually means to live in a “free” society. I think what we are forgetting is that there are both responsibilities and duties that go along with the freedom

There is a quote from Thomas Jefferson which should be burned into the minds of every citizen. It should be part of us, much like the Pledge of Allegiance is part of us. The quote is:

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ... And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

In the fight against terrorists, we all become patriots. If some of us die as a result of terrorist action, then that is the price they, and we, have to pay to be members of a free society. However, once we begin to give up our freedoms and liberties in the name of security, then we forfeit the right to be either free or patriots. I have no problem with using any and all legal means to combat terrorists. In fact, I have no problem with declaring open season on terrorists meaning all one needs to kill one is a valid hunting license. (Of course, one does have the burden of proof that the person killed was, in fact, a terrorist. Failure to provide that proof in a convincing manner could result in criminal charges. That should keep down the extraneous gun play…as should the judicious issuance of the appropriate hunting licenses.) No, catch a person red-handed with a terrorist device and that should be sufficient reason to terminate said person’s continued existence on this plane. But that brings us back to the manner in which we catch said person red-handed.

If we are to remain a free society, we cannot allow our government to spy on us…any of us. It is unfortunate that some of our citizens might want to cause their country and their fellow citizens harm, but that is the way this world is right now. To protect ourselves against our enemies who are amongst us, we have to use all legal means at our government’s disposal to find them. I have no problem with that. However, we cannot allow the government to cross that line. We cannot allow the government to erode our liberties and we especially cannot allow our President to assume more power than the Constitution allows him. What George Bush has done, both in spying upon U.S. citizens and in his “pre-emptive invasion” of Iraq so vastly exceed his Constitutionally allowed power that it just boggles the mind. If we had a Congress such as we had in 1973, we would be in the middle of  Impeachment proceedings now. It is my hope that, after the coming November elections, we will have such a Congress and we will, in January of next year, begin such proceedings. Until then, it is our duty as citizens and patriots to continue to cry out against the unjust spying and the unjust war in Iraq.

Corporate Greed

So, here’s the deal, greed has become the guiding principle of US business. Greed is destroying this country, and it needs to be addressed. Now, I am not so simple as to think that we can eliminate greed by legislation or fiat. However, I do think that we can make greed extremely expensive for the greedy. “But, old Zorro,” you ask, “how can this be done?” The answer is by levying surcharges for various behaviors while granting direct tax credits for others.

On the surcharge side, for every job outsourced overseas, the surcharge is $50,000/year for every year that job stays outsourced out of country. Another surcharge might be $20,000/year for every employee not covered by full medical insurance. Yet another surcharge could be $15,000/year for every full time employee who does not make enough to support his/her family without supplementary income (i.e. a second or third job.) Of course, most of these surcharges would be only for companies of a certain size as determined by either/or/and number of employees/annual revenue. Companies which fall below a threshold value would be exempt from the above surcharges. (I don’t think Joe’s Plumbing is going to be exporting jobs to China, or wherever, nor do I think Joe will pay his employees less than the going local wage. Small businesses are not the problem. The problem is with our larger corporate citizens.

On the credit side, on the other hand, corporations could get a tax credit for every employee who has access to full medical insurance. They could get a tax credit for every full time employee who makes enough money to not qualify for low-income public assistance. Corporate citizens could get tax credits for creating rather than cutting jobs. And they should be rewarded for being good citizens by treating the environment as a precious resource which should be protected rather than exploited.

The bottom line is that we need to stop with our obsession with the bottom line. It is time corporate America remembered that both their employees and their customers are fellow citizens. Our trip through life together should not be a zero sum game. There is room for us all to be winners. Greed is one of the things we don’t need. We are a rich country; what our corporate citizens need to remember is how to share…it’s something we all were supposed to learn in kindergarten.

It IS hard to be a Republican...

The following is stolen from an email from my sister...and I haven't a clue where she got it. However, it resonated with my very soul, and I had to share it with the rest of the world...

It is very tough to be a Republican in 2006 , because somehow, you have to believe concurrently that:

1. Jesus loves you, but shares your deep hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.

2. The United States should get out of the United Nations, but our highest national priority is enforcing UN resolutions against other nations.

3. Standing Tall for America means firing your workers and moving their jobs to India.

4. A woman cannot be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multinational corporations can make decisions affecting all humankind without regulation.

5. Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an illness and you need our prayers for your recovery.

6. The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches, while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.

7. Group sex and drug use are degenerate sins, unless you someday run for governor of California as a Republican.

8. If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.

9. A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our long-time allies, but then demand their cooperation and money.

10. HMOs and insurance companies make huge profits and have the interest of the public at heart.

11. Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy. Providing health care to all Americans is socialism.

12. Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.

13. It is okay that the Bush family's Carlisle Group has done millions of business with the Bin Laden family.

14. Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him and Rumsfeld reassured him he was our buddy, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him, but then a bad guy again when Bush junior needed a prop for his re-election campaign as the war President.

15. A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense A president lying about WMD existence to enlist support for an unprovoked, undeclared war and occupation, in which thousands of soldiers and civilians die, is, somehow, solid defense policy in a War against Terrorism.

16. Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which should include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.

17. The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but George Bush's Harken Oil stock trade should be sealed in his Daddy's library, and is none of our business.

18. What Bill Clinton or John Kerry did in the 1960s was of vital national interest but what Bush did in the 80's is irrelevant.

19. Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.

20. Affirmative Action is wrong, but it is OK for Bush's Daddy and his friends (here and in Saudi Arabia) to get him to graduate from Yale without studying much, to dodge the draft in the Texas Air National Guard, to bail out his companies (Harken Oil and the Texas Rangers), to get the Governorship of Texas and then to have the Supreme Court appoint him President of the USA.

21. You are a conservative, but it is OK to spend like there is no tomorrow and run up deficits that your grandchildren will have to pay, while at the same refunding as much tax money as possible to rich people who do not need it.

Contemplating these illogical paradoxes can take a toll on a healthy mind. So if a friend of yours has been acting a bit dazed and confused lately, be nice: he or she may be a Republican.

And I think I'll just let that stand on its own without further editorial comment!

Another Bad Idea.

OK, it's not a horrible idea [Yahoo Small Business Web Hosting], but...damn it, if they want me to advertise for them, how about knocking off a couple bucks a month of the hosting fee? The original announcement, which I got via their monthly e-mail letter, made it sound like they were doing me a huge favor by providing me a badge to put on my website announcing it was hosted by Yahoo!. Well, Doh!!, what makes them think that adding such a badge will make the rest of the world swoon with envy?

Although I don't usually comment to Yahoo! even though I do have a prototype business website, email and a YahooGroups site, this time I did. Namely, I made the same suggestion to them that I made above: cut me a break on my monthly hosting cost, and I'll carry your advertising. Until and/or unless that happens, though, there is not a chance I'll sport their logo on my site. (It's like putting brand-name logos in large print on your cloths. Why on earth do people feel the need to advertise for their clothing manufacturer? Personally, I like to buy well made clothes that look good on me, and I let that make the impression. I don't need to scream that I wear DKNY or some such crap.)

*sigh* I know...I'm an old fart who should shaddup, put on his polyester slacks with the white socks and white shoes and let the young and hip get on with life...)

C'mon people, Stand up on your own two hind legs...

I sometimes cringe at the actions of my fellow travelers on the path of Liberalism. To wit, I received this letter from Moveon.org this week:

Dear MoveOn member,
The very existence of online civic participation and the free Internet as we know it are under attack by America Online.
AOL recently announced what amounts to an "email tax." Under this pay-to-send system, large emailers willing to pay an "email tax" can bypass spam filters and get guaranteed access to people's inboxes—with their messages having a preferential high-priority designation.
Charities, small businesses, civic organizing groups, and even families with mailing lists will inevitably be left with inferior Internet service unless they are willing to pay the "email tax" to AOL. We need to stop AOL immediately so other email hosts know that following AOL's lead would be a mistake.
Can you sign this emergency petition to America Online and forward it to your friends?

Sign a petition? Jesus! If I were running AOL, I'd wet my pants from laughing so hard. No, a petition is not what is needed. What is needed is a mass exodus from AOL.

I mean, right now, this won't bother me at all because I don't have an AOL account. However, if my current email provider started to do this, I would simply abandon that e-mail address. (Actually, I have 3 addresses at my ISP plus 4 more out on the web (Opera, Yahoo, ICQ and Google) all of which are free. And, even if all of these jumped on the AOL bandwagon, I still have another alternative: namely my own domain and email address. In other words, if AOL's subscribers are pissed about this, then they can send their own message by voting with their feet. Now, personally, if AOL is your ISP, I'd just stop using their mailbox. Tell your friends and family that you've moved to Yahoo or Google, and then simply ignore your AOL address. Let that mailbox fill with spam from AOL's paid spammers. If enough people did that, AOL would notice, sooner or later, that their storage servers were filling up with unopened mail. And, hopefully, their paid email customers would notice that all this email wasn't bringing in any business.

Now, because I have never used the software provided by an ISP to manage my Internet experience, I'm not 100% certain that you can turn off things like email. (I like the option of having my own choice of Internet software -- browser, email client, anti-virus etc., etc. -- so I have never used the software provided by an ISP, and my current plan is never to use that stuff in the future.) I do know that if you use Outlook or Eudora or Mozilla's email client or any of the other email clients out there, you can pick and chose which mailboxes you open and which ones you ignore. My Eudora client will let me pick and chose. Or you can use one of the web based email services (ICQ or Yahoo come to mind) and do all your emailing through your browser. It is not hard.

Personally, I think this is a really bad idea from AOL and I hope they do implement it. Then I hope that their huge customer base melts away like the arctic ice cap is doing. I further hope that a surge in AOL defections will breath some life into the independent ISP industry. I like the idea that there could be 10 small, local ISPs competing for my business. I would love to see AOL, MSN, Verizon (and the other Baby Bells) and the cable companies have serious competition from small independents. That way the cost to the consumer will be kept down and, more importantly, there won't be any 800 pound gorillas capable of forcing things like paid email on us. I want the Internet to be as open and unregulated as possible. And one way of ensuring this is to make sure that no one entity has too much power.

So, if you are an AOL customer and you don't want paid advertisements cluttering up your email inbox, then vote with your feet and move your lazy butt to another email provider or (even better)another ISP entirely. And, if you do consider another ISP, look at local independent suppliers first.