Bigotry is the issue, not immigration

I have long argued the position that so-called illegal immigration is an issue that the United States has had to deal with in the past and will have to continue to deal with in the future. In a series of ionic twists, again reminding me how little Americans really know about what is going on in their own country, much less the rest of the world, I have discovered that not only am I right, but that the memory of many Americans is subjective at best and revisionist at worst.

According to Michele Wucker's book Lockout, it was not until World War II that the United States even began keeping serious track of immigrants in the United States. Up until the early 1900's they were encouraged to vote! It was in the early 1980's that it became a crime to knowingly hire an illegal alien, but (and there is a huge one here) immigration officials could not raid outdoor agricultural operations without a warrant (and one assumes they still cannot). So the party line about "assimilating like my grandparents did" (and according to history - the facts, not what is remembered - this is also not the case, more than 50% of immigrants actually never naturalized, sent money back home [to countries in Europe rather than Central and South America] and eventually returned to their home countries themselves) is little more than romantic hogwash at best and shrouded bigotry at worst.

The current debate in the United States is being lead by a small, vocal group of old white men who are more afraid of the growth of the Latino/Hispanic minority than they are about the so-called costs of "illegal" immigration and their racist attempts to deny services will only result in increases in tax burdens and continued decreases in real revenues.

A five-day workweek is too much?

Members: House is not a home By: Josephine Hearn and Patrick O'Connor Oct 11, 2007 05:58 AM EST Rank-and-file members of Congress are grumbling about the five-day workweek instituted this year by House Democratic leaders, complaining that it leaves little time for campaigning and allows few weekdays to deal with business back home. (Politico)

If the members of the House are looking for sympathy, then it is falling on deaf ears. Mine especially. The elected leaders of the United States were never expected to take up politics as a "real job." It was supposed to be a part-time, volunteer effort. Unfortunately, it has become, in many cases a full-time career for a number of people that are not qualified to do anything else and in some cases barely qualified to do the job they are in. And now they are belly aching that they have to put in a full day's work for a full day's pay?

These are people that I am paying to shuttle back and forth between their home and their office on a commuting schedule that is a consultant's dream. These are people that I am paying to staff and office, read and answer mail and respond to issues. In most corporations, where real money is required to get work done, there are CEOs without the staff or office space that these people have. And they are complaining? These are people that get to waste my money, extolling the virtues of what they have accomplished, when they are on vacation more than they are at work?

Sorry. No sympathy from those of us that work more than 40 hour weeks but only get paid for 40 and have a maximum two weeks of vacation. None whatsoever.

Fear Obesity before Terror

Two items crossed my desk this morning that deserve a moment of thought. The first is the battle between Congress and the White House over SCHIP (State Children's Health Insurance Program). I can understand the White House's reluctance to "increase" spending on anything. After all, there is not a lot of money left after their last request for Iraq spending, but in this case, the funds seem to be self-generating (as much as any can be) in the form of a sin tax on cigarettes. Of course, here in the United States, the idea of the sin tax is not as well documented as it is in Canada, but they are starting to catch on. Heck, I would be willing to pay an increased alcohol tax as well if it went to keeping children healthy.

It is the part about keeping children healthy that I am most in favor of. After all, a healthy child will eventually become a healthy adult and a healthy adult will not need as much in the way of medical coverage and costs. This is a key issue and one that is lost on a number of people (but not the drug or insurance industries). Bill Maher, on his HBO program the other night, commented on a Duke study that showed regular exercise and proper diet was as effective in battling depression as Paxil and Zoloft (two highly proscribed anti-depression drugs). Now, I am not belittling depression in and of itself, even though I have a note pad that says something to the effect of "Prozac? Haven't they ever heard of a martini?" I am sure there are some forms of depression that can only be treated medically, but I have to wonder how many of those people currently taking depression medications really need them.

This is a similar argument about ADD and other childhood "diseases" that practically did not exist even a dozen years ago. The reasons for this are pretty easy to document. First, children, generally, received routine, in depth physicals and the doctors that saw them knew their patients. Secondly, the children got a lot more exercise than they do today. Even elementary school students today are coddled to the extent that you would think they were made of fine china. Yet their parents grew up in a age where bicycles were ridden without helmets, playground equipment was often mounted over asphalt and dodge ball, tag and other "socially demeaning" games were routine. Yet we now feel we need to put our children in protective gear to be bused across the street where they are supposed to wait quietly in rows, inside, for school to start. And when was the last time you saw six kids playing a pick up game of any sort? Certainly not in most communities where you need a permit from the jurisdiction to even be on the fields.

We are doing ourselves and the next generation a disservice. We are over medicating, under exercising and generally coddling away any self-esteem or desire to succeed in these kids. Further, we are showing them that, as adults, reacting to irrational fears is perfectly acceptable behavior.

Which brings me to my next point. Tom Toles, the OpEd cartoonist for the Washington Post, had this cartoon in his corner yesterday. At what point are we, the voter, going to actually stop being afraid of our shadow and the shadow of September 11 and get on with our life? In a number of posts around the Internet, those of us that hold the view that being afraid is no way to live are shouted down by the lame argument that "you wouldn't say that if you lost a loved one." Well, frankly, yes, I would. And I tell you this because I have a very pragmatic outlook on life. If it is your time, then there is not a thing you can do about it. This is not to say I do not take the necessary precautions. I lock my doors, I drive defensively and I avoid dark places at night when I am alone. But I have also walked at night in New York, Los Angeles, London, Paris and a dozen other cities and not felt the least bit scared.

If terrorists want to blow up a building, they will find a way to do it. Ironically, terrorism is all about terror (go figure) and the more press they get about the plots they do not execute, the more effective the campaign is. But I really am not about to surrender my liberties and freedoms just to prevent them from blowing up a building or bringing down an airliner. As Americans, we seem to be able to do a pretty good job of that ourselves just through general neglect, yet that does not generate the same degree of fear that a guy with explosives in his shoe does (which would do little more than punch a hole in the plane and force a rapid decent by the way). In some ways, I could almost support the argument of every person carries a gun onto the plane. Almost. I would be more worried about the drunk in 8D shooting me than I am about some nut job hijacking us to Cuba, or Aruba or the White House lawn.

I am not immortal or invulnerable. However, I am not afraid of my shadow or of the boogie man, whoever he might be. When my ticket is punched, that is it, game over. As the comic once said, if I die in debt, I win!