Beyond sobering.
Paul Fusco spent two months photographing the effects of Chernobyl still in evidence 20 years later. He has a Flash photo essay promoting his new book that everyone should see. Don't watch it on a bad day.
Cinco de Mayo
Midvale had a small Cinco de Mayo parade this morning. Very small, which sort of surprised me. The metro area of Salt Lake City has no shortage of Latinos, though I don't know how many of them are from Mexico. D participated with some Mexican friends of his who run a skate shop. There were probably half a dozen of them zipping about on racing roller blades.
I doubt I would have gone to the parade had it not been for D. Indeed being with D has made the immigration debate just a bit more personal for me. D is one of those who has immigrated legally, so that's not it. He is nevertheless an immigrant and Mexican. I have thus been reading a lot trying to form a coherent position on the immigration debate. I don't know that I've found one yet, but here are a few thoughts.
Undocumented workers - I've never been a fan of politically correct speech. Even "illigal immigrant" isnt' accurate, since I think an immigrant is someone who has become a U.S. citizen. D has a green card. His official status? Resident alien. You have to be a resident alien for five years before you can apply for citizenship. What does that make the rest then? Illegal aliens.
The Wall - A 1,951 mile wall. What a great idea! The most conservative estimate of length of the Great Wall of China is 1,500 miles. Some say it could have been up to 4,500 miles. National Geographic describes the effectiveness of this enormous physical barrier as "spotty."1 But it sure makes a statement!
The expense isn't finished once the wall is built either. Unless you build guard towers, have enough of them so that at least their rifle ranges over lap, and then man them, a wall isn't going to stop anyone who is even moderately determined. What made the Berlin Wall effective was the guards with machine guns. I suppose we could create some no man's land and put land mines down. Of course, they'd have to be sensitive enough that they'd go off if someone tried to dig a tunnel under them.
Felony - The only idea more stupid than the wall is the idea of making it a felony to be in the country without proper documentation. Hello! It's already against the law to be here without proper documentation. That's why they are called illegal aliens. We don't enforce the laws now. How is making it a felony going to make it easier, cheaper, or more practical to enforce? Where are we going to put them? Are more prisons included in this program? Idiots.
Amnesty-The conservative side of me rankles at the idea of people breaking the law and "getting away with it." On the other hand, if government didn't turn a blind eye to agribusiness and the service industry hiring illegal aliens, then the job market for them wouldn't exist and they probably wouldn't be coming in the numbers we are currently dealing with. Who's really to blame then? Even if I thought rounding up and deporting all illegal aliens was a good idea (which is right up there with felony laws and the wall), the logistics and expense are prohibitive. I say grant amnesty to anyone who doesn't have a criminal record and who can show gainful employment.
Nuestro Himno - As I sat waiting for the parade to start, pondering the question of immigration and nationalism, I had to come to the conclusion that nationalism is just one more thing people use to exclude others. You were not born on the right side of the border/tracks. Your English isn't good enough. You're not white enough. You're not smart enough. You're not rich enough. You're not straight enough. Identifying with a group isn't necessarily a bad thing except that humans seem to enjoy giving in to their baser tendency to demonize and persecute their out groups.
What does it mean to be American (or Mexican or Canadian) anyway? D's friend, E, who owns the skate shop is native born Mexican, but, being of Dutch descent, he's more blond and more fair than this American of Irish descent. It was interesting to watch a Dutch broadcast of a speed skating competition where E skated first and D skated second. When D went to the line the Dutch commentator said, "Ah, here's the real Mexican." (I speak German. I can understand some Dutch words and phrases.)
So what makes D the "real" Mexican? His dark skin? That can't be it. That would be racist. Is it the fact that D's family has been in Mexico longer than E's? My grandfather immigrated from Ireland. I'm not sure when the other side of my family first came to America, but it was several generations ago. Which line do we use to determine if I'm a "real" American? Back to my grandpa. We can find no record of his entry into the country (current speculation is he came in through Canada via Wales), so the odds that he entered the country legally are pretty low. It's quite likely that my grandfather isn't the only Irishman to enter the country illegally. Why isn't anyone bitching about St. Patrick's Day parades? (If you think people aren't bitching about Cinco de Mayo, I'll get to that.)
Immigration Reform - Is it necessary? Yeah. What should it look like? I have absolutely no idea. Will it happen? I don't think so, and I'll tell you why. The U.S. is slipping below the fertility rate necessary to sustain the population. That rate is about 2.1 children per woman. The U.S. is hovering around 2.0. What this means is we aren't creating enough of our own workers to keep society rolling. As the population declines, so to does the standard of living. Let me give you an example. In a shrinking work force, managing Dillards becomes less important than garbage collection. You could probably survive without the latest in fashion trends, but things will get ugly and smelly really quick if there is no one to pick up your garbage.
There are two solutions to this problem, raise your fertility rate or immigration. Since I don't see the fertility rate going up (in fact it's more likely to go down), let's reform immigration. Which jobs do you think these new immigrants will get? Gee, might it be the jobs Americans don't want to do? What have we created but an underclass to serve the upper class?
You might be saying, "But that's what we have now, dummy!" Yes, that, however, brings me to...
American Jobs - Here is where the rubber really hits the road. Frankly, I think this argument is pretty much horse shit. If Americans really wanted those jobs, they could have them, but they probably get more from welfare than they would working at the wages sans benefits illegal aliens get. Maybe the problem is our welfare programs then. Take that away and there would be Americans desperate enough to work for next to nothing.
You can bitch and moan about depressed wages all you want, but wanting something to be true, doesn't make it so. The job market is something like collectible. An antique is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it. So to with a job. It doesn't matter if I think I'm worth $50/hour. If no one is willing to pay me $50/hour, what I think means nothing.
It seems to me if we actually prosecuted employers for hiring illegal aliens, heavy fines and jail time ought to do it, it would go a long way to stemming the tide of illegal aliens. However, do you think corporate America is really going to give up it's cheap labor? Yeah, right. Immigration reform, while solidifying the current class structure, would also legitimize the lower class and give them rights and legal recourse. How much of what you have heard from Capitol Hill is more than grandstanding and hot air? Until you get government and big business out of each other's pants, I don't see that much is going to change.
No matter what solution is decided upon, it's not going to be cheap. I don't think that anybody really gives consideration to the expense of any program, whether it's hiring more border patrol guards or more bureaucrats to administer some guest worker program. Are U.S. citizens willing to accept a tax hike to pay for any of this? I doubt it.
Now, back to my comment about people protesting Cinco de Mayo. There was, of course, a fair set up in a city park after the parade with ethnic foods and music. Just outside the boundaries of the event was a lone display with four or five people dressed as pioneers touting American heritage. I found it offensive. There was no need for them to be there other than to make a statement about their political beliefs. Jerks.
The homosexual agenda laid bare.
First it was ear rings. Then it was hair coloring. After that was dressing fashionably. Now this.
The secret is out. The homosexual agenda is to make all straight men. . .well groomed.
HAT TIP:Joe.My.God
It’s called painting yourself into a corner.
Columnist Bill Leak, writing in the Australian, admirably boils down the sexual politics of pointy-hatted men like this:
The hierarchy of the Catholic Church is struggling with another vital question: which is the lesser of two evils, wearing a condom or infecting your wife with AIDS?
Today's New York Times, which has had its own problems with condoms, has a story about this amusing-if-it-weren't-so-sad non-dilemma.1
You see, this is why the "Holier Than Thou" hypothesis doesn't hold water. You end up debating the painfully obvious. Gives a new meaning to "no-brainer."
As many times as the "Holier Than Thou" hypothesis has proven unreliable and outright false, it amazes me that people still cling to it. I kinda think God, being omniscient and all, wouldn't develop policies that would ultimately contradict each other in the near or even distant future. I also kinda think Jesus wouldn't have too much trouble sorting this one out. Kinda blows the corollary to the "Holier Than Thou" argument, too: "God and I are buds and I know exactly how He intends you to live your life."
David and Goliath
Orrin Hatch is up for re-election this year and someone is actually challenging him. That doesn't necessarily mean it will be a close race. Pete Ashdown is the Democratic candidate for that seat. A Utah native (which Hatch is not) and a small business owner (though I'm not sure XMission counts as a small business anymore), he seems pretty sane and not on the radical fringe. His web site, while it could use some help in the design department, has set up a wiki allowing public comment and contribution to his stance on various issues. As the owner of one of the oldest and largest ISPs in Utah, one would expect him to make good use of the Internet.
Hatch isn't really all that bad. Yes, he's conservative, but at least he's not a reactionary like many of the boobs running the GOP these days. Yes, he writes [editorial comment deleted] Mormon lyrics and poetry, but we could do a lot worse. Nevertheless, a change would be welcome.
If Pete is going to have even a snowball's chance in Hell of unseating Hatch, he's going to have to find a way to get Republicans to vote for him. In this heavily Republican state, every single Democrat could vote for him (and probably will), but that wouldn't win him the election. If he can run a classy campaign and avoid typical political muckraking and mud slinging, he just might be able to do it.
Good luck, Pete.
Dude!
I am not a coffee snob. I am pretty happy with the selection at 7-Eleven. (Actually 7-Eleven has the best coffee bar of any service station around here.) I am, however, known to occasionally indulge in a white chocolate mocha at Starbucks. It's just yummy.
Coffee of any kind is rare these days since the doctor told me I should avoid caffeine. Bastard. So instead of two or three cups in a week (I know not a lot to begin with), I'm down to about one white chocolate mocha a month. Today while getting my monthly fix (if it's once a month can it really be called a fix?) the guy behind me ordered a six shot espresso. Six shots. Dude.
I hope he's compensating for some sleep disorder. If not, he will be soon.
Crude. Black Gold. Texas Tea. Oil, that is.
Rising gas prices are getting more press with elections looming and incumbents fearing some backlash from voters. Much is being made of ExxonMobile's record $36.1 billion profit in 2005 and their record breaking Q1 in 2006 that is putting them on track to break another profit record for 2006. I found this little breakdown of the numbers interesting.
To put things into perspective, Exxon's profit in 2005 amounted to six dollars for every single human being on the planet. Put another way, this astronomical profit was enough to buy almost 45 gallons of petrol (at $2.75/gallon) for every man, woman and child in the Evil Empire. This is equal to nearly ten percent of overall consumption for 2004.1
While I am not happy with gas prices at the pumps—mostly because my income isn't even keeping pace with inflation, which wanders between 3% and 5%2, much less the 20% increase in gas prices this year—I'm not necessarily upset with oil companies making record profits. Conditions favor them right now, so bully for them. Of course, you have those who believe that the two oil men in the White House have engineered this crisis in the Middle East to drive oil prices up. I tend to be highly skeptical of conspiracy theories in general. So we'll just move on.
My biggest issue with the record profits of oil companies is the fact they receive unbelievable handouts from our federal government. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 included $2.8 billion in tax breaks for fossil fuel production.3 It is incomprehensible to me that when a single player is posting record profits of $36 billion, they are still able to convince the bone-heads on Capitol Hill they need handouts. They don't need tax breaks. Multinational corporations like ExxonMobile have plenty of tax shelters of their own.
One recent study by Tax Notes found that subsidiaries of U.S. corporations operating in the top four tax havens (the Netherlands, Ireland, Bermuda and Luxembourg) had 46.3 percent of their profits in those countries in 2001, but only 9 percent of their employees and 12.6 percent of their plant and equipment.4
What a shock, ExxonMobile has a presence in the Netherlands, Ireland, Bermuda and Luxembourg. But Congress still seems to think (or at least seems to believe we'll buy it) that we can lure companies back to the U.S. by handing them money.
This bill spends capital at home to produce our own energy, create jobs and lessen our dependence on foreign sources of oil," said House Resources Committee Chairman Richard Pombo.5
What an idiot. It is always (or at least for the foreseeable future) going to be cheaper to operate abroad no matter how many tax breaks and subsidies we give away. The reason we are dependent on foreign oil is not because there is no oil to be had in the U.S. It's not because the U.S. extracts exorbitant tax revenues from corporations. It's cheaper for the same reason we buy toys from China. It's cheaper for the same reason we buy milk from Mexico. It's cheaper for the same reason we buy shirts from Indonesia. Cheap labor. No one likes to pay taxes, but I suspect that for companies operating in the U.S. employee salaries and benefits make up a much larger chunk of operating costs than taxes ever have or ever will. That doesn't mean they aren't going to turn down free money.
Whether I get nailed at the pump or have it added to my tax burden, I am paying for it either way. Frankly, I'd rather pay at the pump because I believe there are fewer pockets to line paying directly at the pump versus paying for my fuel via payroll deduction.
2"Inflation Rate in Percent for Jan 2000-Present," inflationdata.com.
3"Energy Policy Act of 2005", Widipedia.org, wikipedia.org.
4Rattner, Steven, "Why Companies Pay Less," The Washington Post, May 18, 2004, washingtonpost.com.
5Coile, Zachary, "House OKs energy bill laden with tax breaks: Measure seeks to build up domestic oil production," San Francisco Chronicle, April 22, 2005, sfgate.com.