I ran across this little POV while randomly blog surfing:
"What people like the George W. Bush don’t understand is that capitalism is not a one-way street. When the demand for workers is high and the supply of laborers is low, the rational solution would be for employers to raise wages, increase benefits, or both to ensure that supply catches up to demand. But that would mean actually spending more money, and we can’t have that."
Isn't that how free market economics supposed to work? Frankly we have a long bad history when it comes to the lovely job of crop picking of using the cheapest labor we can possibly find from slaves to share croppers to migrant workers and now illegal immigrants. This goes back to my very first post in this blog about how this administration pays lip service to free market economic theory (amongst other things). The guest worker program is a soft subsidy to the agriculture, construction, food and beverage, hospitality, and food processing industries. It artificially depresses wages thereby keeping prices low. Americans will do the work just not for what the industries want to pay.
And to be perfectly honest once this work is done by guest workers rather than illegal immigrants you're looking at the very real possibility of a Guest Workers Union. And then we're screwed in a new way.
Now how do ya like them apples?
Friday, March 31, 2006
I ran across this little POV while randomly blog surfing:
Posted by Dyre42 at 3/31/2006 07:02:00 AM
Thursday, March 30, 2006
Believe it or not, I don't read a lot of blogs regularly. I tend to click a link on my alliance blog roll and see where it takes me and then follow a link from there to somewhere else. About once a week I visit DailyKoS or Instapundit to see what's up. Slowly this random blog surfing has reinforced one belief of mine and that's this: There are a lot of sheep out there. Red sheep, Blue Sheep, and just plain freaky conspiracy theory oriented sheep that think the Illuminati stole their wool. (That last herd of sheep can make for some highly entertaining reading though.)
I'll come back to that later. Having been on the internet now for 12 years and having been a BBSer before that I am well aware of one of the true downsides of e-communication. It allows people to behave really badly in "public" with no real consequences. Then came blogs where you could yell whatever you want all day long. And boy is it ugly out there. I get 1300 hits on Google when I search for the phrase "Kill all liberals". Is the country really that divided?
But there are those who have elected to be spoon fed their information by sources they know are biased and they have bought every word lock stock and barrel. They have isolated themselves from any voice other than that which they already want to believe. And those media sources sell a "we are better than them" package of goods. And I'm sure that's comforting to some and its nice to feel that your right and superior and all. But its an illusion. Nothing more.
The Democratic Party stinks. The Republican Party stinks. Why? Because they are both all about money, influence, and agendas. Theirs. Not yours.
And to this end they are buying media so that more people can further insulate themselves from dissenting voices. And we are falling for it en masse.
So here's a radical idea.
We aren't going to get real solutions that work to solve this countries problems until most of us decide to stop being spoon fed biased pablum and become engaged in the national debate. If all you are doing is regurgitating what some pundit or talking head said then you are part of the problem. Real answers come from real debate and the free exchange of NEW ideas. If you're buying what they are selling you then you aren't contributing new ideas.
And frankly this is a new world that's changing every minute of every day and America needs every new idea it can get. The competition is fierce out there.
Here is what I am asking you to do, watch some BBC News, read some Reuters, go see what the Libertarians are up to, go chat with members of the Reform party, and the next time someone spouts off an opinion that's the complete opposite of yours ask them why and then actually listen. Why? Because they may not be completely wrong. Complex problems get solved by looking at them from every angle. Not right angles or even left angles. (I know, but work with me here)
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
Unless you've had your head in the sand you've heard part of the ongoing debate about immigration reform. I live in Texas so conversations about illegal immigration, illegal immigrants, and border security are only slightly less common than conversations about college football. And in an environment like that you rapidly come to a few conclusions:
A: Everyone has an opinion on it.
B: People opinions on it actually have little to do with which party they vote for.
C: Border security is a joke.
A comes as no surprise in a state that borders Mexico. B is suprising because you rarely ever find any other issue that card carrying PETA members and NRA members actually agree on (except for maybe a balanced budget). And C is just disturbing.
One charge against illegals is that they raise the crime rate. And the simple fact of the matter is its true. Now before I get strung up in a tree and beaten like a pinata let me explain why its true.
On average 3% of the total population has arrested for something. Public Intoxication, Driving Under the Influence, driving with no liscence etc etc at 13,000,000 illegals that an extra 390,000 crimes.
Of the 1% of the population thats actually been busted for a felony that boils down to 130,000 felonies. Thats leaves 230,000 misdemeanors many of which were avoidable had said illegal immigrant actually gone through legal channels where they bring you up to speed on the differences between Mexican law and US and state law. And thats only if they commit a single crime apiece.
And you run into some really weird misconceptions about the law from illegals and some legals. A good common example is the number of immigrants that believe donating to the Fraternal Order of Police or the Police Benevolence Association is the same as making your monthly bribe payment to the local police chief. Few things piss off a cop more than saying that you've already paid your bribe to them that month. Its a great way to turn a speeding ticket into something worse.
Here's another common problem. The age for consent in Mexico is 13. Its 17 in Texas AND you cannot be more than 3 years older than your partner. I can go to Meganslaw.com and pull up a huge list of "sex offenders" that would have really benefitted by having been brought up to speed on that fact. And you run across other little legal differences like firing guns in the air in the city limits is illegal regardless of what holiday it is. Same goes for fireworks, open containers of alcohol, corporal punishment of spouses etc etc etc ad nauseum. (For the record I'm dating a public defender. And its her stories from work I'm referring to.)
If both sides of the aisle weren't so worried about the Latino vote we may have seen a solution by now. But they are, so we haven't.
So here is what I think we really need a bipartisan bill that:
Then both parties twist arms until it gets near unanimous approval and they both find some other issue to garner Hispanic support for their parties.
You'll note I didn't put build a whopping great wall on the border in that list. Why? Because unless your mine the length of the wall and install enough gun turrets on it so that every inch of the wall can be covered by crossfire it won't work. It'll just be a waste of taxpayer money and there's enough of that going on as it is.
The legal citizens of America conspire to fake another great depression and then all the illegals go home on their own. Which is about as likely to happen as my first suggestion.
My proposal isn't a cure by any means, but its a good place to start.
Posted by Dyre42 at 3/28/2006 09:13:00 PM
Monday, March 27, 2006
I get to be right twice in the same week. After this post I'm going out for beer. Beer made in Texas by Americans dammit!
First Up Downing Street Memo 2.0 has been released. W had every intention of going after Saddam no matter what. I steadfastly maintained that he would try to finish his Father's work if elected and I think as time goes on I'll be proven right. But here its is:
LONDON — In the weeks before the United States-led invasion of Iraq, as the United States and Britain pressed for a second United Nations resolution condemning Iraq, President Bush's public ultimatum to Saddam Hussein was blunt: Disarm or face war.
But behind closed doors, the president was certain that war was inevitable. During a private two-hour meeting in the Oval Office on Jan. 31, 2003, he made clear to Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain that he was determined to invade Iraq without the second resolution, or even if international arms inspectors failed to find unconventional weapons, said a confidential memo about the meeting written by Mr. Blair's top foreign policy adviser and reviewed by The New York Times.
"Our diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning," David Manning, Mr. Blair's chief foreign policy adviser at the time, wrote in the memo that summarized the discussion between Mr. Bush, Mr. Blair and six of their top aides.
"The start date for the military campaign was now penciled in for 10 March," Mr. Manning wrote, paraphrasing the president. "This was when the bombing would begin."Here's a little commentary from the Washington Posts chief political reporter Dan Balz from earlier today
Dan Balz: The Times story follows up with more detail about the memo detailing the meeting between Bush and Blair in early 2003. There's no question about the authenticity of the memo, nor was there any doubt about the validity of the infamous Downing Street Memo, written in the summer of 2002.Some of the information is not new and by now there is a pretty substantial body of evidence that the Bush administration was planning for war with Iraq for more than a year before the invasion.
Now the funny thing is I expect to hear a big red So What? from certain sides of the blogosphere. Followed by numerous defenses of his actions. He lied to us to promote his agenda. He's done it since and he'll do it again. And what I have to say about it is this:
Dammit, I knew we should have sent in a second pretzel!
Posted by Dyre42 at 3/27/2006 09:44:00 PM
The last sentence in an earlier post of mine stated that I don't believe the administration has a clear plan to get Iraq fixed and our troops out of there. Looks like I was right President Bush acknowledged yesterday that the war in Iraq is dominating nearly every aspect of his presidency, and he served notice for the first time that he expects the decision on when all U.S. troops come home to fall on his successors. In an hour-long news conference, Bush said the "trauma" of war has left the public and even some lawmakers in his own party understandably shaken and skeptical of his vow that the United States will prevail.
Bush: Troops to Stay in Iraq Past '08
Wednesday, March 22, 2006; Page A01
Resign? Hell no. After all by his standards the mission is accomplished.
He should be canned. Or better still, Rumsfeld should commit Sepuku!
President Bush acknowledged yesterday that the war in Iraq is dominating nearly every aspect of his presidency, and he served notice for the first time that he expects the decision on when all U.S. troops come home to fall on his successors.
In an hour-long news conference, Bush said the "trauma" of war has left the public and even some lawmakers in his own party understandably shaken and skeptical of his vow that the United States will prevail.The president rejected calls for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, chief architect of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. "Listen, every war plan looks good on paper until you meet the enemy," Bush said, acknowledging mistakes as the United States was forced to switch tactics and change a reconstruction strategy that offered targets for insurgents.