Pernicious Opinions

Addressing the Immigration Problem

2008-05-23T13:14:00.000-04:00

Removing the impetus to come to the

will slow down illegal immigration.

To begin with, this position is not against illegal aliens, the vast majority of whom are simple, hard working people trying to provide for their families. Without recourse available to legal residents and citizens, these same people generally end up living in what we would consider deplorable conditions and are often taken advantage of by their employers.

We often hear two issues that are at the heart of illegal immigration to the US: “There are 12 million illegals; what’s the sense of trying to catch them? It would be easier to give them amnesty,” and “We need ‘guest workers’ for the sake of our economy. They do jobs Americans won’t do.”

Bull.

The first excuse is a cop out. If that were considered a legitimate reason for not enforcing a law, marijuana and prostitution would have been legalized decades ago. Giving illegals amnesty would effectively do one thing: remove from employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants the onus of complying with immigration laws. Keep in mind, many illegal immigrants are employed by wealthy people on both sides of the political isle to work in their homes and yards. It would be foolish to think these politicians and corporate movers and shakers would kill the cheap labor goose.

How we could go about catching and deporting illegals is anyone’s guess, but it can’t justify giving them a free ride to anyplace but the border.

Again, if we change the law because it cannot be enforced, we damn well better consider doing the same with other, unenforceable statutes.

The second attempt at justifying “guest workers” is also without justification. The first reason, “We need ‘guest workers’ (read: illegal aliens, if we can get away with it) for the sake of our economy,” smacks of pre-Civil War, pro-slavery rhetoric. Landowners and businessmen who made the argument that the Southern agricultural economy depended on cheap slave labor. A simple analysis shows that slaves cost more than do free workers. Slaves need to be cared for: fed, housed, clothed and looked after. Employees only need to be paid; their welfare is their responsibility. I won’t get into a slavery argument here, but illegal aliens who work in this country are paid slave wages and still have to watch out for themselves. Yes, it’s the best of both worlds for the agriculture industry and wealthy homeowners who employ these folk.

The argument that illegals “do jobs Americans won’t do,” is an open invitation to a solution. A solution that may not kill two birds with one stone, but it sure wounds them. In its simplest form, and for the sake of this discussion, it is a three step solution:

Consider every able-bodied welfare recipient, who is a US citizen (not resident), eligible to perform farm work, or work concomitant with where they live. Obviously, not a lot of farm workers can be found in urban areas, so there must be reasonable considerations for opportunity.
Offer each person who takes a job his current welfare allotment, and subsidize this with wages provided by the employers. The wages are determined by historical pay scales. Neither the wages nor the welfare payments influence the other. If a worker begins earning more wages, it should be seen as a sign of the program’s success and the welfare amount must not be cut until the worker is consistently earning a “reasonable” amount above the poverty level. (I’m not an economist, so I won’t guess what that would be.)
Provide, without cost or fail, each subsidized worker and family adequate health care, housing and education. Poor living conditions perpetuate the poverty cycle. The cost to the government will be amortized by moving families off welfare over time.

Now, it’s obvious not all who would be willing to work will be able to, but this will address the issue of needing cheap labor to control costs and helping the impoverished find a way to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. If we can fill the job ranks with citizens who are given an opportunity to better themselves, we can remove the opportunities illegals come here for. When the economic well dries up, they’ll have no reason to stay here, and even less to come in the first place.

Business will do anything to find cheaper ways to make a greater profit. That is an essential concept of business, but it can’t be done on the backs of American citizens who are tired of supporting the wealthy who abuse the system, lazy welfare recipients who feel they are owed something, and illegal aliens who break our laws for their own, personal gains.

Many both in and outside this country demand we allow anyone to come here and live as they please. We have immigration laws for a reason and they should be enforced. And, dammit, it’s our country, and we should decided who comes here to live.

Conservative Morons: Too Stupid to Vote?

2008-05-18T20:37:00.005-04:00

Childish sheep being led to slaughter

I'll keep this brief. With John McCain's ascendancy to the Republican presidential ticket, mouthpieces like Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh and others are squawking about McCain not being conservative enough.

What a load of crap.

McCain obviously is where he is because a majority of Republican voters want him there. Right-wing pundits do not have the good of the country in mind, just the good of the party, and lining their own pockets.

I can tell when a good friend of mine is listening to these guys. An otherwise intelligent person, Bill, as I'll call him, repeats--damn near verbatim--what he hears on the radio. I don't need to listen to Beck or Limbaugh, I just need to listen to Bill. Well, his mimicking of those two and their compatriots is stupid to the point making me wonder if Bill and others like him have the intelligence to vote.

And if they do not, maybe they shouldn't be allowed to vote.

So--who is really not representing Republican ideals? Limbaugh and Beck, et al, and their willing sheep like Bill? Or McCain and those who voted for him because they realize the Republican party has not been the party of the people for several years now, just a rubber stamp for the rich getting richer.

As for me--I'll vote for the person who is best for the country, not who is best for a small group of political rapists, conservative and liberal alike.

Prejudice, Bias and Bigotry: Three Related Concepts With Different Meanings

2008-05-18T20:18:00.002-04:00

Prejudice is a natural and necessary response to the unknown; to pretend otherwise is nonsense.

As children we are told that prejudice is bad, evil, and we should not be prejudiced. Defenders of minorities and politicians seeking support rail against prejudice. One thing these self-righteous mouth pieces never recognize or mention is that:

Prejudice is as normal as it is necessary to survival.

Prejudice is the act of pre-judging, coming to a conclusion before all facts are known. In its simplest form, prejudice is what keeps organisms, even humans, safe and alive. Have you ever walked near a bird, only to have it fly off? Or have you ever had a small dog yip at you, even though you were yards away? That is prejudice in its most innocent form—a defense mechanism against an unknown “other.” The “other” to which I refer is an animal unlike itself, or, in human terms, someone recognizably from another group, whether they be from another tribe, race or region. Organisms must practice a certain amount of prejudice until they learn that the “other” will do them no harm. A squirrel can be trained to take seeds from one’s hand, a bird can be coaxed to finger, given time enough to learn that no threat is found there.

Bias, on the other hand, is the act of giving unwarranted preferential treatment or consideration. Bias can be for or against, or can be used for good or evil. When a contract for a project is given to a company with a relationship with an interested party, even though it is not the best for the project, that is bias against citizens and the other contractors; it is wrong. When a minority student is given entry to a college for which he is less qualified than other applicants, it is good for the winner, especially if he goes on to do good with the “leg up,” but bad for those who worked hard—maybe harder—but were not selected because of their race or economic status. Bias is relative, good for some, not good for others. Bias can be argued for only if it is for the greater good. Bias is antithetical to the “level playing ground” we purport to have in Western cultures.

Bigotry is taking unwarranted action against others, especially others of a different race, culture or nationality. It is seen and practiced in all cultures and races. No group, no matter how liberal or friendly it purports to be is free of its own form of bigotry. It is universal.

Prejudice keeps one safe. Bias gives preferential treatment. Bigotry is an act of hate. Having prejudiced thoughts is natural, but when acted upon in the form of bias or bigotry, they change into something that needs to be controlled. People need to understand the difference between the three if progress is to be made, but we also need to understand that all three are immutable attributes of being human.

An Argument For Public Prayer

2008-05-18T20:04:00.000-04:00

Majority rule is the democratic way

Many American Christians declare they have a right to pray in public. I completely agree. They do, as do all other people of faith. Many of these same Christians declare they also have a right to have prayers in school, at school sporting events, in courtrooms and all other public venues sponsored by or on behalf of government. Many people disagree. But that is not the object of this argument.

My position, for the sake of argument is that public, government-sponsored prayer should be allowed if we can easily solve just one challenge: Make it fair.

How do we make it fair? Well, we need to decide who selects the prayer. I guess that since this is a democratic nation, it should be voted on, and a simple majority wins. Good, fair enough. That way, the majority gets to choose what prayers are said in public settings. And don’t forget that since it’s a majority decision, all are required to comply with it, regardless of their beliefs. It’s only fair.

Here’s three example of how this might work:

-A town in Kansas has a Christian majority that wins the vote. Prayers in school and at ball games and in the courts are Christian prayers.

-A suburb of New York City has Jewish majority, so all prayers in school and at ball games and in the courts are Jewish prayers. Oh, don’t forget head coverings, and separate males from females during prayers.

-A county in northern Michigan has a Muslim majority, so prayers in school and at ball games and in the courts are Muslim prayers. Oh—don’t forget to stop classes several times a day to have all the students—Christians and Jews included—face Mecca for their prayers.

Great. Problem solved. We have school prayer and it’s done in the manner the majority chooses. It’s only fair; it’s the democratic way.

God bless America. You may now pray….