The problem with special interest groups is that when they have too much time on their hands, they end up attacking problems which don't actually exist. Such is the case with Elizabeth Vargas' recent decision to step down from the anchor desk at ABC evening news to have a child.
Kim Gandy, from the National Orgainzation for Women (NOW) claims, "It just doesn't strike me as a logical explanation. I don't think there are too many men who would be happy to be removed from the anchor chair."
Gandy was so fired up, in fact, that she, along with two other womens' special interest groups, sent a letter to Disney (parent company of ABC News) indicating that Disney was engaging in "a dispiriting return to the days of discrimination against women that we thought were behind us." They linked the "demotion" of Vargas, who will return to ABC news, once again co-hosting 20/20 with John Stossel, with the cancellation of "Commander-in-chief," the drama featuring Geena Davis as the President of the United States.
Of course, there is a grand conspiracy to make women voluntarily leave the work force to become barefoot and pregnant again.
But Vargas herself denies this. She claims a combination of circumstances, including an unexpected pregnancy (Vargas is 43), and the injury of her co-anchor, Bob Woodruff in Iraq led her to this decision. She felt that being a full-time mother to her newborn was more important than anchoring the nightly news.
Geez, Kim Gandy, that is an awful step back for women: someone realizes that the birth of a child is more important than the rigors of the nighly news! "Give me a break!", as John Stossel might say.
Monday, May 29, 2006
Sunday, May 28, 2006
More Graft in Washington
This morning, the Washington Post printed a story about William Cohen, former Republican Senator from Maine and Defense Secretary under President WJ Clinton.
For those of you who don't know, Secretary Cohen retired from public office at the end of 2000, as President Clinton's term came to an end. Once he left office, he competed in the very legal lobbying sweepstakes. Secretary Cohen opened a D.C. firm and started selling his services.
What exactly are Secretary Cohen's services? Access. Secretary Cohen was able to guarantee (more or less) access by his clients to powerful decision makers in Washington who would create legislation benefitting Secretary Cohen's clients.
Folks, this is the game. This is exactly why politicians spend millions of dollars to get a job that "only" pays $200,000 per year. I've always had a problem with the math, but like in finance, you must consider the net present value of your investment.
First, the millions you spend to become a federal politician generally aren't your own millions of dollars (but Secretary Cohen actually went into significant deficit spending to serve the public interest). The big payoff, though (unless you are as blatant as Rep Jefferson of Louisiana) is when you can earn hundreds of thousands of dollars for introducing your new client (i.e. Lockheed Martin) to your good buddies still in Congress.
Do you want to know why these guys don't want term limits? It is because their lobbying would have less of an impact on people they never met.
The unfortunate part is that everything these guys are doing is legal, if not seriously unethical.
For those of you who don't know, Secretary Cohen retired from public office at the end of 2000, as President Clinton's term came to an end. Once he left office, he competed in the very legal lobbying sweepstakes. Secretary Cohen opened a D.C. firm and started selling his services.
What exactly are Secretary Cohen's services? Access. Secretary Cohen was able to guarantee (more or less) access by his clients to powerful decision makers in Washington who would create legislation benefitting Secretary Cohen's clients.
Folks, this is the game. This is exactly why politicians spend millions of dollars to get a job that "only" pays $200,000 per year. I've always had a problem with the math, but like in finance, you must consider the net present value of your investment.
First, the millions you spend to become a federal politician generally aren't your own millions of dollars (but Secretary Cohen actually went into significant deficit spending to serve the public interest). The big payoff, though (unless you are as blatant as Rep Jefferson of Louisiana) is when you can earn hundreds of thousands of dollars for introducing your new client (i.e. Lockheed Martin) to your good buddies still in Congress.
Do you want to know why these guys don't want term limits? It is because their lobbying would have less of an impact on people they never met.
The unfortunate part is that everything these guys are doing is legal, if not seriously unethical.
"Messages to the World: The Statements of Osama bin Laden"
I was amazed to learn that most of bin Laden's speeches have been censored by western media. After reading this book, I just can't undertand it. It's not as if these speeches make bin Laden more palatable. I guess one of the reasons however, is that al Qaeda's war against the West is not commensurate with the Western narrative: they hate our freedoms.
What is important to learn about bin Laden is that he views all of the Muslim world (from Morocco to Indonesia) as one nation. This is a difficult concept for Westerners to grasp. We think in very nationalist terms. The second most important thing to understand regarding bin Laden, and hence the al Qaeda oranization is that their list of grievances against the West goes back to approximately 1917, or the Sykes-Picot agreement, where following World War I, Britain and France organized zones of influence and essentially redrew the map of the Middle East, including the beginnings of a Jewish state in the middle of everything.
The list is actually quite comprehensive and includes Western agreements with oil-producing autocratic regimes (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc.) which helped to prop up these governments which brutally oppressed their people, overthrowing governments (Iraq, Iran, etc.), creating the state of Israel and evicting Palestinians in 1947, supporting (arming) Israel in the 1973 Arab-Israeli war, supporting Israel in its invasion of Lebanon, basing troops in Saudi Arabia, and supporting other nations which oppress Muslims (Russia, India and China).
What bin Laden has learned from this behavior is that while the West talks the good talk about freedom and democracy, the reality is that it makes things happen with its war machine.
So far, all of the above is hard to argue. The West, including America, has done all of the above. Where most rational people will depart with bin Laden is his decision to attack civilians in the West, because they pay taxes and vote for their respective governments which make these policies. In these cases, violence will beget violence. This is alright for bin Laden who does not fear violence and in fact is probably attempting to create an apocalyptic war to end the world. It is his firm belief (and supported by an awful lot of Muslim scholarship, including the Quaran) that he will be judged in the right.
For Westerners, the most difficult concept to grasp is that we (as predominantly Christians) believe in turning the other cheek, peace, doing good works, etc. will lead us to heaven. The Salafi branch of Islam believes that defending their nation against non-believers, converting new peoples to Islam, and doing good works (helping the poor,etc.) will lead them to heaven. This is not too different than Crusades-era Christendom who were promised, by the pope, no less, that Crusaders would be immediately sent to heaven upon their death.
Sometimes bad concepts are hard to extinguish.
What is important to learn about bin Laden is that he views all of the Muslim world (from Morocco to Indonesia) as one nation. This is a difficult concept for Westerners to grasp. We think in very nationalist terms. The second most important thing to understand regarding bin Laden, and hence the al Qaeda oranization is that their list of grievances against the West goes back to approximately 1917, or the Sykes-Picot agreement, where following World War I, Britain and France organized zones of influence and essentially redrew the map of the Middle East, including the beginnings of a Jewish state in the middle of everything.
The list is actually quite comprehensive and includes Western agreements with oil-producing autocratic regimes (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc.) which helped to prop up these governments which brutally oppressed their people, overthrowing governments (Iraq, Iran, etc.), creating the state of Israel and evicting Palestinians in 1947, supporting (arming) Israel in the 1973 Arab-Israeli war, supporting Israel in its invasion of Lebanon, basing troops in Saudi Arabia, and supporting other nations which oppress Muslims (Russia, India and China).
What bin Laden has learned from this behavior is that while the West talks the good talk about freedom and democracy, the reality is that it makes things happen with its war machine.
So far, all of the above is hard to argue. The West, including America, has done all of the above. Where most rational people will depart with bin Laden is his decision to attack civilians in the West, because they pay taxes and vote for their respective governments which make these policies. In these cases, violence will beget violence. This is alright for bin Laden who does not fear violence and in fact is probably attempting to create an apocalyptic war to end the world. It is his firm belief (and supported by an awful lot of Muslim scholarship, including the Quaran) that he will be judged in the right.
For Westerners, the most difficult concept to grasp is that we (as predominantly Christians) believe in turning the other cheek, peace, doing good works, etc. will lead us to heaven. The Salafi branch of Islam believes that defending their nation against non-believers, converting new peoples to Islam, and doing good works (helping the poor,etc.) will lead them to heaven. This is not too different than Crusades-era Christendom who were promised, by the pope, no less, that Crusaders would be immediately sent to heaven upon their death.
Sometimes bad concepts are hard to extinguish.
Sunday, May 14, 2006
Not Ready to Make Nice
This evening, on 60 Minutes, the Dixie Chicks were profiled. The story starts out with the note about the Chicks making a comment, on the eve of the Iraq invasion, of how they were embarrassed that President Bush was from their state.
Now I am not a country music fan, nor am I a "progressive." I didn't have the slightest interest in listening, let alone purchasing an album created by the Dixie Chicks. But I do engage in product marketing for a living. And I would say, that by making an anti-Presidential comment, their careers are over.
Not being a country music fan, I can't say I know where all the musicians and bands are from. But one thing I do know, is that I don't recall any muscian from Arkansas ever mentioning s/he was ashamed of President Clinton. It just doesn't happen. People who listen to country music are probably more patriotic than the average joe. They don't like anti-American rhetoric, and probably ascribe to the thought that you don't ever tell your opinion to those outside of your family (Godfather part I).
By the Dixie Chicks aggressively marketing themselves as against the President, they are alienating their most loyal base: flag-waving, blue-collar, country music fans. If you were to take a realistic scientific poll, my guess is that 70% of country fans voted for President Bush in 2000 and 2004. They are probably strongly in the camp of those who still support him and they are likely overwhelmingly likely to have sent a son or daughter to war, in either Afghanistan or Iraq.
Ladies, know your market. Are you likely to be a novelty in the "progressive community?" Sure, but my guess is that won't pay the bills. Good thing you already made your millions. Enjoy it.
Now I am not a country music fan, nor am I a "progressive." I didn't have the slightest interest in listening, let alone purchasing an album created by the Dixie Chicks. But I do engage in product marketing for a living. And I would say, that by making an anti-Presidential comment, their careers are over.
Not being a country music fan, I can't say I know where all the musicians and bands are from. But one thing I do know, is that I don't recall any muscian from Arkansas ever mentioning s/he was ashamed of President Clinton. It just doesn't happen. People who listen to country music are probably more patriotic than the average joe. They don't like anti-American rhetoric, and probably ascribe to the thought that you don't ever tell your opinion to those outside of your family (Godfather part I).
By the Dixie Chicks aggressively marketing themselves as against the President, they are alienating their most loyal base: flag-waving, blue-collar, country music fans. If you were to take a realistic scientific poll, my guess is that 70% of country fans voted for President Bush in 2000 and 2004. They are probably strongly in the camp of those who still support him and they are likely overwhelmingly likely to have sent a son or daughter to war, in either Afghanistan or Iraq.
Ladies, know your market. Are you likely to be a novelty in the "progressive community?" Sure, but my guess is that won't pay the bills. Good thing you already made your millions. Enjoy it.
Poll Numbers
Recently, the big polling news has been the approval rating of President George W Bush. People are either joyous (typically Democrats) or nervous (typically Republicans) about the most recent poll readings, but the real deal is actually quite simple.
President Bush won the most recent presidential election 51/47. Let us call that 50/50. In other words, Democrats make up 40% of the voting electorate, Republicans make up 40% of the voting electorate and the rest make up 10% of the voting electorate. What has happened is that the Democrats have remained virtually unchanged at 90% of Democrats dissaprove of President Bush. This is more or less his approval rating from Democrats in 2004. This equates to a dissaproval rating of 35% of the total electorate. The "other" category has gone from solidly President Bush (in large part because most non-Republicans and Democrats found Senator Kerry extremely unfavorable) to solidly anti-President Bush. If 9% (out of 10% of the electorate for this group) of the electorate had been for the President, they are now against him. The real story is the Republicans, with whom the President is losing significant support. The most recent polling data I have seen is a 50% approval rating among Republicans. This means a 50% dissaproval rating, also among Republicans.
If you add the numbers up, 35% + 9% + 20% = 64%, or roughly the President's current dissaproval rating.
The problem with this President has always been that he is the best conservative liberals could ever hope for, they just don't like his credentials.
Hey guys, with the kind of spending this President has engaged in, be careful what you wish for.
President Bush won the most recent presidential election 51/47. Let us call that 50/50. In other words, Democrats make up 40% of the voting electorate, Republicans make up 40% of the voting electorate and the rest make up 10% of the voting electorate. What has happened is that the Democrats have remained virtually unchanged at 90% of Democrats dissaprove of President Bush. This is more or less his approval rating from Democrats in 2004. This equates to a dissaproval rating of 35% of the total electorate. The "other" category has gone from solidly President Bush (in large part because most non-Republicans and Democrats found Senator Kerry extremely unfavorable) to solidly anti-President Bush. If 9% (out of 10% of the electorate for this group) of the electorate had been for the President, they are now against him. The real story is the Republicans, with whom the President is losing significant support. The most recent polling data I have seen is a 50% approval rating among Republicans. This means a 50% dissaproval rating, also among Republicans.
If you add the numbers up, 35% + 9% + 20% = 64%, or roughly the President's current dissaproval rating.
The problem with this President has always been that he is the best conservative liberals could ever hope for, they just don't like his credentials.
Hey guys, with the kind of spending this President has engaged in, be careful what you wish for.
Holy War, Inc.
"Holy War, Inc." is the most recent book I have read. It was written by Peter Bergen, a CNN reporter who is one of the few Westerners to have interviewed Osama bin Laden.
The thesis of this book, like others I have read, is more or less that bin Laden is a serious character who is extremely devoted to his cause. The book goes into defining his cause, which is to completely remove Western influence from the Middle East and to overthrow many of the regimes in control of Middle Eastern countries.
While this is not new info, it is impressive to read the works of someone (an American who grew up in Britain), who has been chasing radical Islamists for the length of his career.
I think it is a great book for an introduction into this movement called al Qaeda. Bergen is one of the few journalists who actually "get it."
The thesis of this book, like others I have read, is more or less that bin Laden is a serious character who is extremely devoted to his cause. The book goes into defining his cause, which is to completely remove Western influence from the Middle East and to overthrow many of the regimes in control of Middle Eastern countries.
While this is not new info, it is impressive to read the works of someone (an American who grew up in Britain), who has been chasing radical Islamists for the length of his career.
I think it is a great book for an introduction into this movement called al Qaeda. Bergen is one of the few journalists who actually "get it."
Copper and Oil and Gold, oh my!
Over the past four years or so, we in America are witnessing something that last occured about 30 years ago: the dramatic rise in commodity prices. Analysts can chalk this up to many things including greed, demand, etc., and while they might be correct, one thing is certain.
These, as well as most commodities, are priced in US dollars. As the price of the US dollar versus a basket of currencies rises, the prices of these commodities falls. And as the price of the US dollar falls, the prices of these commodities rises. The bottom line is that the actual value of these commodities does not rise or fall. It is a function of the currency.
In general, commodity prices fell from the early 1980's, through the early 2000's. This period was also marked by an historic rise in the value of the dollar relative to other currencies. As evidence of this, the price of gasoline barely rose from 1982 through 2002. Most of the rise we did experience was solely a function of inflation, but less so than most countries.
Now, fast forward to 11 September. The country is more or less in a recession that was forseen as early as January 2000. A massive revenue decline resulting from a significant decrease in capital gains payments in 1999 and 2000 left a Congress with budget shortfalls. This has not been uncommon in the course of our recent history, but had temporarily been alleviated by massive capital gains taxes in the late 1990s. Classic (Keynsian) economic theory states that during a recession, you do one or two things on the fiscal policy side to end the suffering: cut taxes and/or raise government spending. The course that our President and Congress took was both. While this will certainly create budget deficits, the theory stipulates that this policy only be undertaken during a recession. Once a recession ends, you can raise taxes and/or cut government spending. I am not saying this is sound economic policy, only classic policy.
Unfortunately, this Congress, which controls the purse strings, did neither. In fact, perhaps because of 11 September, Congress has increased tax cuts and government spending.
It was roughly from this time that commodity prices (once again, priced in US dollars) began to rise. Crude oil was trading around $17 per barrell, prior to 11 September. Gold was at this point trading at approximately $250 per ounce. As of Friday, crude oil traded over $70 per barrell and the price of gold closed at approximately $710 per ounce. If you'd like to know the market's perspective of our fiscal and even monetary (interest rates) policy, look no further. What this means is that, despite the value of commodities does not rise, only their prices, American can purchase significantly less (by approximately 2/3) of gold. The dollar has fallen this much, largely due to our fiscal situation.
As of this writing, the situation looks only like it will get worse. Baby boomers (far and away, the largest generation our country has ever seen) are beginning to retire, and soon, will begin collecting their entitlements that they have been promised since birth. If we can't balance our budget now, what will happen say in 10 years, when entitlement spending doubles? Either Congress will need to enact massive tax increases or dramatically cut spending. Each year we let pass will only make the situation get worse. Unfortunately, Congress is only elected for a finite period of time, and by the time this bomb drops, most are likely to be long gone.
So America, it is up to you. Either implore your Congressman to dramatically cut spending and raise taxes, or buy lots of gold. Choose wisely.
These, as well as most commodities, are priced in US dollars. As the price of the US dollar versus a basket of currencies rises, the prices of these commodities falls. And as the price of the US dollar falls, the prices of these commodities rises. The bottom line is that the actual value of these commodities does not rise or fall. It is a function of the currency.
In general, commodity prices fell from the early 1980's, through the early 2000's. This period was also marked by an historic rise in the value of the dollar relative to other currencies. As evidence of this, the price of gasoline barely rose from 1982 through 2002. Most of the rise we did experience was solely a function of inflation, but less so than most countries.
Now, fast forward to 11 September. The country is more or less in a recession that was forseen as early as January 2000. A massive revenue decline resulting from a significant decrease in capital gains payments in 1999 and 2000 left a Congress with budget shortfalls. This has not been uncommon in the course of our recent history, but had temporarily been alleviated by massive capital gains taxes in the late 1990s. Classic (Keynsian) economic theory states that during a recession, you do one or two things on the fiscal policy side to end the suffering: cut taxes and/or raise government spending. The course that our President and Congress took was both. While this will certainly create budget deficits, the theory stipulates that this policy only be undertaken during a recession. Once a recession ends, you can raise taxes and/or cut government spending. I am not saying this is sound economic policy, only classic policy.
Unfortunately, this Congress, which controls the purse strings, did neither. In fact, perhaps because of 11 September, Congress has increased tax cuts and government spending.
It was roughly from this time that commodity prices (once again, priced in US dollars) began to rise. Crude oil was trading around $17 per barrell, prior to 11 September. Gold was at this point trading at approximately $250 per ounce. As of Friday, crude oil traded over $70 per barrell and the price of gold closed at approximately $710 per ounce. If you'd like to know the market's perspective of our fiscal and even monetary (interest rates) policy, look no further. What this means is that, despite the value of commodities does not rise, only their prices, American can purchase significantly less (by approximately 2/3) of gold. The dollar has fallen this much, largely due to our fiscal situation.
As of this writing, the situation looks only like it will get worse. Baby boomers (far and away, the largest generation our country has ever seen) are beginning to retire, and soon, will begin collecting their entitlements that they have been promised since birth. If we can't balance our budget now, what will happen say in 10 years, when entitlement spending doubles? Either Congress will need to enact massive tax increases or dramatically cut spending. Each year we let pass will only make the situation get worse. Unfortunately, Congress is only elected for a finite period of time, and by the time this bomb drops, most are likely to be long gone.
So America, it is up to you. Either implore your Congressman to dramatically cut spending and raise taxes, or buy lots of gold. Choose wisely.
Sunday, May 07, 2006
What is Price Gouging?
This is a term which has come up alot recently. Mostly, it applies to gas prices. What else has been termed price gouging? Not much I can think about but let me give you a couple. Housing prices are clearly being gouged. I believe the government should step in and prosecute home owners who are selling their homes above a minimum profit level. After all, housing is one of our life needs, like food and water and it is not fair for these home owners to earn anything above some minimum profit. Also, it will help to allow poor residents better affordability to achieve the American dream.
The price of a college education is also a clear example of gouging. General inflation has run less than 2% per year over the past 15 years. However, the cost of a public school education has increased about 7% per year over that time. That is more than triple the CPI over the same time period. Additionally, public schools are not "for profit" institutions and because they do not need to make profits, school costs should remain the same over time or even go down. I think the government needs to look into the factors that are causing this gouging.
I would suspect it has something to do with the exorbitant wages of the administrators and educators. I have heard that the average salary of a public school teacher in the state of Oregon is $45,000 per year, plus benefits that add nearly another $30,000. That is total income of $75,000 per year for someone who only works for 75% of the year. This is definately price gouging. Wanna take a gander at the average income in my community? This income would push these "average paid" educators into the richest 10% of the income scale. That is definately gouging.
Before we start complaining about gouging on a product that is not a necessity, and for which there are significant amounts of alternatives (hybrid vehicles, carpooling, higher CAFE standard vehicles, public transportation, etc.), we should look at those goods and services which are necessary for life. I say it is high time to start putting homeowners behind bars who have the gall to sell their homes for what someone is willing to pay them. Later, we can put gas station owners in jail for selling a product that people willingly purchase and for which there is significant competition.
The price of a college education is also a clear example of gouging. General inflation has run less than 2% per year over the past 15 years. However, the cost of a public school education has increased about 7% per year over that time. That is more than triple the CPI over the same time period. Additionally, public schools are not "for profit" institutions and because they do not need to make profits, school costs should remain the same over time or even go down. I think the government needs to look into the factors that are causing this gouging.
I would suspect it has something to do with the exorbitant wages of the administrators and educators. I have heard that the average salary of a public school teacher in the state of Oregon is $45,000 per year, plus benefits that add nearly another $30,000. That is total income of $75,000 per year for someone who only works for 75% of the year. This is definately price gouging. Wanna take a gander at the average income in my community? This income would push these "average paid" educators into the richest 10% of the income scale. That is definately gouging.
Before we start complaining about gouging on a product that is not a necessity, and for which there are significant amounts of alternatives (hybrid vehicles, carpooling, higher CAFE standard vehicles, public transportation, etc.), we should look at those goods and services which are necessary for life. I say it is high time to start putting homeowners behind bars who have the gall to sell their homes for what someone is willing to pay them. Later, we can put gas station owners in jail for selling a product that people willingly purchase and for which there is significant competition.
Saturday, May 06, 2006
Jihad: The Rise of Militant Islam in Central Asia
The above is the title of the most recent book I have read. It was written by Ahmed Rashid, who is a Pakistani journalist, who also wrote, "Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia."
His premise is that poverty and hardline dictators in Central Asia (Uzbekistan, Kyrgystan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Kazahkstan) are causing populations in the volatile region of former Soviet republics to support the Islamic terrorist movements. This is probably not too far from the support these movements have gained in other parts of the world (Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Yemen, Indonesia, etc.).
It was a very interesting book, which allowed me to learn more about a very underreported part of the world, which I believe will be in the headlines in the years to come. I also believe that the way to help break this is to promote democracy in this region, such as what George Soros' organization is doing. Unfortunately, the United States has earned such a poor reputation that I am not sure our government can actively support any of these measure, but it must be perpetuated by the NGO (non-governmental organization) community.
However, with political and economic reforms, it seems likely we can break the backs of this scourge. The question is, can we break the back of men like Islam Karimov (the autocratic leader of Uzbekistan)?
His premise is that poverty and hardline dictators in Central Asia (Uzbekistan, Kyrgystan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Kazahkstan) are causing populations in the volatile region of former Soviet republics to support the Islamic terrorist movements. This is probably not too far from the support these movements have gained in other parts of the world (Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Yemen, Indonesia, etc.).
It was a very interesting book, which allowed me to learn more about a very underreported part of the world, which I believe will be in the headlines in the years to come. I also believe that the way to help break this is to promote democracy in this region, such as what George Soros' organization is doing. Unfortunately, the United States has earned such a poor reputation that I am not sure our government can actively support any of these measure, but it must be perpetuated by the NGO (non-governmental organization) community.
However, with political and economic reforms, it seems likely we can break the backs of this scourge. The question is, can we break the back of men like Islam Karimov (the autocratic leader of Uzbekistan)?
"A Day Without Immigrants"
I have a big problem with this movement. While I am not not a politician and don't know what is politically, I nonetheless think this group is hurting itself.
First, this movement is not about immigration. It is about eliminating the border in Mexico. The only people I saw marching were Latinos and their far-left Caucasian sympathizers.
Second, I don't think there is another nation in this world that is more accepting of immigrants culture. After all, yesterday was Cinco de Mayo, which is celebrated all over this country. In Portland, we have a festival at the waterfront with rides, music, games and food. I can't imagine Europe, for example, celebrating the cultures of their immigrants quite like we do.
Third, like it or not, the organizers of these protests are not really Latino community leaders. The are left-wing extremists from the likes of ANSWR (the anti-war group affiliated with the anti-globalization crowd) who are trying to adopt an immigration platform to draw more participants to their other protests. While I believe this strategy will backfire on groups like ANSWR, it will also backfire on Latino groups. While it is not the position of most politicians, a growing number of disenfranchised whites (30% by what I have heard) support building a fence along the border and deporting the 12 million or so illegal immigrants immediately. This is a problem for these Latino groups.
Finally, none of the proposals that are floating around that I have heard will help to solve the illegal immigrant problem. Like anything else, you can only affect supply or demand. So long as there are poor countries and the United States is rich, you will have a difficult time curbing supply. The only thing you really can do is to affect demand by requiring that employers verify the status of their propsective employees, instead of just verifying that they have documents. Once this is put into place, you can significantly fine employers who hire illegal aliens. This will pit the business interests versus the liberal interests and may have a difficult political journey, but a groudswell of popular opinion could push this forward.
There is, of course, one other option: completely open the border. I don't believe this will be acceptable to the voting masses in this country, but it would solve the immigration problem.
First, this movement is not about immigration. It is about eliminating the border in Mexico. The only people I saw marching were Latinos and their far-left Caucasian sympathizers.
Second, I don't think there is another nation in this world that is more accepting of immigrants culture. After all, yesterday was Cinco de Mayo, which is celebrated all over this country. In Portland, we have a festival at the waterfront with rides, music, games and food. I can't imagine Europe, for example, celebrating the cultures of their immigrants quite like we do.
Third, like it or not, the organizers of these protests are not really Latino community leaders. The are left-wing extremists from the likes of ANSWR (the anti-war group affiliated with the anti-globalization crowd) who are trying to adopt an immigration platform to draw more participants to their other protests. While I believe this strategy will backfire on groups like ANSWR, it will also backfire on Latino groups. While it is not the position of most politicians, a growing number of disenfranchised whites (30% by what I have heard) support building a fence along the border and deporting the 12 million or so illegal immigrants immediately. This is a problem for these Latino groups.
Finally, none of the proposals that are floating around that I have heard will help to solve the illegal immigrant problem. Like anything else, you can only affect supply or demand. So long as there are poor countries and the United States is rich, you will have a difficult time curbing supply. The only thing you really can do is to affect demand by requiring that employers verify the status of their propsective employees, instead of just verifying that they have documents. Once this is put into place, you can significantly fine employers who hire illegal aliens. This will pit the business interests versus the liberal interests and may have a difficult political journey, but a groudswell of popular opinion could push this forward.
There is, of course, one other option: completely open the border. I don't believe this will be acceptable to the voting masses in this country, but it would solve the immigration problem.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
