Saturday, August 29, 2009
Anonymity
Today I received two anonymous comments to blog posts. Both of them were rather sad in their ineffectualness, shallow thought, and cowardice. I allowed them to be posted because I decided I wanted to reply. I have stated before that I welcome disagreement as long as it is thought out and not a personal attack. These were right on the line. I have a lot more respect for disagreement from those who are willing to identify themselves. The strongest and best worded disagreement with one of my posts that I have ever received came from Dymphna, who willingly identified herself. I was more than happy to publish it and respond. I have had long comment discussions in the past.
I have yet to establish a policy of non-posting of anonymous comments. There are bloggers that do and they have good reasons for it. However, anonymous comments have a much higher chance of going in the bit bucket than others. I consider it a form of cowardice to not be willing to stand by ones statements publically.
I have yet to establish a policy of non-posting of anonymous comments. There are bloggers that do and they have good reasons for it. However, anonymous comments have a much higher chance of going in the bit bucket than others. I consider it a form of cowardice to not be willing to stand by ones statements publically.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Culture Counts
I am almost finished with "Russka" by Edward Rutherfurd. In the 19th century there was a supposed reform, and the serfs were freed. As it turns out, the names were changed but the situation remained the same. In fact, a continual thread throughout the entire book is the dominance of institutionalized paranoia and xenophobia, combined with the perpetuation of medieval government and theocracy. Reading about Russia today, nothing has changed except the names, instead of the Tsar, there is the Premier. Instead of the nobility, there is the Communist party. All of the corruption, buying of favors, and political maneuvering continues unabated from the last thousand years.
But Russia is not unique. Read about China now and China in earlier times. Instead of a Mandarinate there is the Communist Party. Everything continues with the paying of bribes and the extraction of money as it is handed down from the top to the recipients. (There was a very revealing article in National Geographic about the building of the dam on the Yalu river.) The plite of the peasant has not changed, and the ways of doing business are the same with different names.
From my own experience in France, the bureaucracy is just as it was in the 18th and 19th Century novels. Nothing is colder than a petty French bureaucrat or official. The King has been replaced with Government, but the structure rolls on. Taxes are just as heavy as they ever have been under the nobility, only they are paid to the government. Instead of the largesse of the rulers it is the welfare of the state.
From what I have seen in Great Britain, the Magna Carta may have provided freedom to the nobles from the king, but it did little or nothing for the people. There is still a class structure. Instead of the peers, it is the members of parliament that are profligate and corrupt, as witness the headlines earlier this year.
The United States has a different history. We have no indigenous government that has evolved in place for a thousand years. We are built from the people with enough spirit and independence to turn their backs on the known and try to build something different and better. Until the middle of the last century, our culture has been one of self-reliance, can-do attitude, and a well-earned and deserved arrogance towards the rest of the world. For over a hundred years socialism which found fertile ground in Russia, France, Great Britain, and other states of Europe, failed to gain any significant foothold in this country.
It is not without trying that this is so. Socialists have been working to teach those who teach for over a hundred years. They have come close enough to success at building an underclass that it came out in this election and the resultant government actions. Note that immigration is the attempt to import an underclass. Much of this has had sporadic attempts before, but eventually there was at least some retreat when people woke up to the fact that it didn't work.
However, this summer we are seeing a resurgence of the American Spirit. It is currently spasmodic and disorganized, despite the claims of the Democrats. But it is there, and eventually will coalesce into something, though what the form will be is a great unknown. What is driving it? The remains of the American Culture--the belief in self-reliance, in heroes, in work, in laws, and in God.
What will save our country is that CULTURE COUNTS.
But Russia is not unique. Read about China now and China in earlier times. Instead of a Mandarinate there is the Communist Party. Everything continues with the paying of bribes and the extraction of money as it is handed down from the top to the recipients. (There was a very revealing article in National Geographic about the building of the dam on the Yalu river.) The plite of the peasant has not changed, and the ways of doing business are the same with different names.
From my own experience in France, the bureaucracy is just as it was in the 18th and 19th Century novels. Nothing is colder than a petty French bureaucrat or official. The King has been replaced with Government, but the structure rolls on. Taxes are just as heavy as they ever have been under the nobility, only they are paid to the government. Instead of the largesse of the rulers it is the welfare of the state.
From what I have seen in Great Britain, the Magna Carta may have provided freedom to the nobles from the king, but it did little or nothing for the people. There is still a class structure. Instead of the peers, it is the members of parliament that are profligate and corrupt, as witness the headlines earlier this year.
The United States has a different history. We have no indigenous government that has evolved in place for a thousand years. We are built from the people with enough spirit and independence to turn their backs on the known and try to build something different and better. Until the middle of the last century, our culture has been one of self-reliance, can-do attitude, and a well-earned and deserved arrogance towards the rest of the world. For over a hundred years socialism which found fertile ground in Russia, France, Great Britain, and other states of Europe, failed to gain any significant foothold in this country.
It is not without trying that this is so. Socialists have been working to teach those who teach for over a hundred years. They have come close enough to success at building an underclass that it came out in this election and the resultant government actions. Note that immigration is the attempt to import an underclass. Much of this has had sporadic attempts before, but eventually there was at least some retreat when people woke up to the fact that it didn't work.
However, this summer we are seeing a resurgence of the American Spirit. It is currently spasmodic and disorganized, despite the claims of the Democrats. But it is there, and eventually will coalesce into something, though what the form will be is a great unknown. What is driving it? The remains of the American Culture--the belief in self-reliance, in heroes, in work, in laws, and in God.
What will save our country is that CULTURE COUNTS.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
It isn't ideological................
This is the most believable analysis of ObamaCare I have seen.
........it's Chicago politics. Welcome to the Jungle.
........it's Chicago politics. Welcome to the Jungle.
Hopeful change
The man who killed Mary Jo Kopechne, destroyed the nomination of Robert Bork with the assistance of Howard Metzenbaum, and failed to destroy Clarence Thomas is now dead. Many will mourn, the press will say nice things, some will cheer. I am relieved. Regardless of what his synchophants and fellow liberals think, he did a lot of harm to this country, and very little good. The same may be said about his personal life. He will now finally face judgement. He won't be able to buy or deal his way out of this one.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Rail Safety
By now a lot of you realize I am a rail fan. Along with that comes an understanding of how hard it is to stop trains and how wrecks create such a mess. This video gives some very good examples.
Check out this link to a YouTube DOT of train crash tests at the DOT's railroad test facility in Pueblo, CO set to music.
Check out this link to a YouTube DOT of train crash tests at the DOT's railroad test facility in Pueblo, CO set to music.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Pay attention
As the resistance to Democratic programs increases so does the abuse of Congressional power to harass opposition. Now health insurance companies are being asked for detailed data on how they spend their money. As if Congress is the poster child for personal perk restraint.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
The balance
Being a road warrior definitely has a downside. Being gone so much and having to cram everything into 48 hours on a weekend takes a huge toll. But once in a while there is a great moment, when all is good. There was that moment Sunday night.
It starts with a perpetual sunset, or almost. One that lasts for three hours, because flying West at 30,000 ft and 400 mph, you only lose one hour against the sun. So I am sitting by the window, Pavratti coming from my headphones with the most exquistite music written for the Tenor voice, and I am marking up plays for production, the prelude to staging them, my passion. The seat is an upgrade to first class, and the meal is prepared special to be gluten-free. As a consequence, it is better than the usual.
Half way across the country we fly North of a huge thunderstorm, the Southeast end is a triple anvil, and the Northwest end is a huge anvil that is at least 10-15 thousand feet above us. As we come abreast of it, the music changes to Mannheim Steamroller in accompaniment to almost constant lightning displays from the storm. The entire event is 20 minutes of pure sensory pleasure. It is a rare and wonderful experience to have a front row seat on such a display in such comfort.
Something like this can balance a lot of miles crammed in regional jets with nothing but 4-6 oz of coffee and a quarter-ounce of peanuts for food. The not so good can be pretty grim sometimes with repetition, but the really good is top of the list and all the better for its rarity.
[The strawberry in a Zen koan.]
It starts with a perpetual sunset, or almost. One that lasts for three hours, because flying West at 30,000 ft and 400 mph, you only lose one hour against the sun. So I am sitting by the window, Pavratti coming from my headphones with the most exquistite music written for the Tenor voice, and I am marking up plays for production, the prelude to staging them, my passion. The seat is an upgrade to first class, and the meal is prepared special to be gluten-free. As a consequence, it is better than the usual.
Half way across the country we fly North of a huge thunderstorm, the Southeast end is a triple anvil, and the Northwest end is a huge anvil that is at least 10-15 thousand feet above us. As we come abreast of it, the music changes to Mannheim Steamroller in accompaniment to almost constant lightning displays from the storm. The entire event is 20 minutes of pure sensory pleasure. It is a rare and wonderful experience to have a front row seat on such a display in such comfort.
Something like this can balance a lot of miles crammed in regional jets with nothing but 4-6 oz of coffee and a quarter-ounce of peanuts for food. The not so good can be pretty grim sometimes with repetition, but the really good is top of the list and all the better for its rarity.
[The strawberry in a Zen koan.]
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Benevolent, Good, Bad, and Evil
These four words have no meaning outside of a human context. Their meaning requires sentience both to provide the value judgment and to provide the actions to which they are applied. In my thinking, these four words are a matrix, not a linear relationship. The two axes are active-passive, and beneficial-harmful. Benevolent and Evil are active, good and bad are passive. Benevolent and Good are beneficial; Bad and Evil are harmful. In all four cases it is human judgment that creates the classification. Good and Bad refer primarily to facts, whereas Benevolent and Evil include intent.
To illustrate, let’s start with a rock, about a foot square in size. As long as it is sitting on the ground where it was last located by natural forces, it is simply a fact, a rock with various attributes. Of its own, it does nothing except occupy a given space for a length of time. It is neither good nor bad in itself. If a human takes the rock and builds with it, it can be considered good as it sits in the wall of the building. If it were to block a road, it would be considered bad. In this case, it may arrive in its road-blocking role without human intervention. The important thing to notice is that whether good or bad, it is in reference to human activity and need. In the first case, human action might have created its new role, but it could have happened simply by the building being built upon its original location, with the rock incorporated into the foundation in situ.
Can the terms benevolent and evil be applied to the rock itself? I think not. Building the building may have been done by a person or persons with benevolent intent, but the rock itself is not benevolent. Similarly the road-blocking role may have been done with malice or evil intent, but the rock itself is not evil. Its goodness or badness derives from the role it was given by human action or with respect to human action, not from any properties inherent in itself. I challenge anyone to find a value of good, bad, benevolent, or evil without bringing human thought and/or action into the discussion, directly or indirectly.
A rock is a neutral object. People don’t hate rocks for their existence. So let’s look at a more emotional issue. Imagine a loaded Glock automatic pistol on a table. Is it good or bad? If it is one or the other, how is it different from a rock, which is neither good nor bad? Is the existence of the pistol bad, because it can be used to kill someone? Immediately the argument is lost, because the killing of one person with the pistol requires the active use by another person. Do you argue that if the pistol did not exist, it could not be used to kill another person? But if it does not exist, the argument is moot, there is no pistol to discuss. One cannot apply a value to something that does not exist.
It is the use of the pistol, not its existence that creates the value, positive or negative. But only humans use pistols with intent. It is theoretically possible to train an ape to use a pistol, but again this is human intervention, and the ape does not have the intention of use a human does.
So let us approach the pistol from another viewpoint. It is manufactured by humans with the intent to make a tool that kills either other animals or other humans. The intent is with those that make or purchase the pistol, not with the pistol. Regardless of why it was created and manufactured, the pistol has no intent of itself lying on the table. Without the intent, there is no good or bad in it. The point is, firearms just like rocks exist and have no value, good or bad, outside of human use. By this point, it should be obvious that the same argument applies to nuclear weapons.
At this point, it is interesting to apply the concepts directly to humans. Similar to the above discussion, is a human standing in the middle of the room good or bad? Unless we know what the person is doing other than standing or what he/she is thinking, the question is unanswerable. Other than to anti-humanists, the existence of humans is value-neutral. However, it is not the existence of humans an anti-humanist is condemning, but rather their actions. Without acting, a human is no more than a rock with respect to our values being discussed. Once again we are back to the point—values are the result of human assessment of human action.
Good and bad may be applied to active behaviors as well as passive existence. A good behavior would be one that is done without error, or achieves its result. A bad behavior would be the opposite. However, what do we do with a behavior that is perfectly executed to accomplish a bad, in the sense of harmful, result? It would seem necessary to separate the execution from the result. The execution must be assessed relative to its correctness, where as the result is evaluated with respect to its impact on people.
As an aside, it is the impact on people that determines good and bad. The impact of human action on the environment is often described as bad. As far as the environment itself is concerned, there is neither good nor bad. The environment is constantly changing and adapting, and human activity is often erased in less than 100 years, which is nothing in comparison to even the current inter-ice-age period, which has lasted for about 10,000 years so far. It is some humans assignment of bad to that impact that makes it bad. So the so-called evil or bad of human impacts on the environment is actually the impact of how those changes are perceived on other humans.
Having established that good and bad are human-assigned values, now let us look at benevolent and evil. As has been stated at the beginning of this post, benevolent is not the same as good, and evil is not the same as bad. They are definitely respectively related, but not equivalent. Good and bad may be applied to inanimate objects as well as animate behavior, but benevolent and evil apply only to behavior.
The main difference between good and bad and benevolent and evil, is that good and bad are the respective ends of benevolent and evil action. Additionally, benevolent action is characterized by its intent, to do good. Conversely, evil action has the intent to do harm. There is, however, a subtlety here. Benevolent behavior is not doing good as a return for earned value, but as more than earned or even unearned. The concept of benevolence, the noun form, includes generosity or an excess of goodness—goodness that more than accomplishes its goal. So too, evil action is that which intends to cause extreme harm.
The difficulty with benevolent and evil is the matter of degree. At some point one can say bad behavior becomes evil behavior. Or good behavior becomes benevolent. In the cases where the intent is unquestionable, the intent defines the action. The desire to do good for the sake of doing good defines benevolent as the doing of bad for the sake of doing bad defines evil. But, even with it defined that clearly, the amount of good or the amount of evil seems to enter in. Helping someone fix their car just out of caring or friendship is good, but doesn’t qualify as benevolent, unless, for instance one springs for an engine rebuild or provides the labor for it. Equivalently, simply purposefully doing annoying things or mildly injurious things doesn’t qualify as evil, unless they escalate into serious harm to the victim.
We also refer to people as benevolent or evil. Again, this is a characterization that is based on our observation of their behavior over time. If a person’s actions continually lead to harm to others, and especially if they seem to be pleased by it or enjoy it, we will start calling them evil. There can also be covertly evil people, who have a façade of well-meant behavior hiding their real intent which is harm. We can also construct the opposite situations for benevolent people.
It now crosses my mind to ask, “How to classify the Count of Monte Cristo?” The end result of his actions is the ruin of his victims. But we know that these victims had already harmed him excessively. It is obvious from the story that he relished the destruction of his enemies. However, he also revised his goals with the revelation of new information, and was remorseful over the death of the child of one of his enemies. It would appear that vengeance and/or justice can carve out limited exceptions to our concept of evil.
To reprise, good per se is not benevolence, bad per se is not evil. Good is not the opposite of evil, bad is. By the same token bad is not the opposite of benevolent, evil is. Most importantly, all four terms require the presence of sentience to have meaning. With these concepts in place, we now have a frame in which to discuss theodicy—why does God allow evil in the world?
To illustrate, let’s start with a rock, about a foot square in size. As long as it is sitting on the ground where it was last located by natural forces, it is simply a fact, a rock with various attributes. Of its own, it does nothing except occupy a given space for a length of time. It is neither good nor bad in itself. If a human takes the rock and builds with it, it can be considered good as it sits in the wall of the building. If it were to block a road, it would be considered bad. In this case, it may arrive in its road-blocking role without human intervention. The important thing to notice is that whether good or bad, it is in reference to human activity and need. In the first case, human action might have created its new role, but it could have happened simply by the building being built upon its original location, with the rock incorporated into the foundation in situ.
Can the terms benevolent and evil be applied to the rock itself? I think not. Building the building may have been done by a person or persons with benevolent intent, but the rock itself is not benevolent. Similarly the road-blocking role may have been done with malice or evil intent, but the rock itself is not evil. Its goodness or badness derives from the role it was given by human action or with respect to human action, not from any properties inherent in itself. I challenge anyone to find a value of good, bad, benevolent, or evil without bringing human thought and/or action into the discussion, directly or indirectly.
A rock is a neutral object. People don’t hate rocks for their existence. So let’s look at a more emotional issue. Imagine a loaded Glock automatic pistol on a table. Is it good or bad? If it is one or the other, how is it different from a rock, which is neither good nor bad? Is the existence of the pistol bad, because it can be used to kill someone? Immediately the argument is lost, because the killing of one person with the pistol requires the active use by another person. Do you argue that if the pistol did not exist, it could not be used to kill another person? But if it does not exist, the argument is moot, there is no pistol to discuss. One cannot apply a value to something that does not exist.
It is the use of the pistol, not its existence that creates the value, positive or negative. But only humans use pistols with intent. It is theoretically possible to train an ape to use a pistol, but again this is human intervention, and the ape does not have the intention of use a human does.
So let us approach the pistol from another viewpoint. It is manufactured by humans with the intent to make a tool that kills either other animals or other humans. The intent is with those that make or purchase the pistol, not with the pistol. Regardless of why it was created and manufactured, the pistol has no intent of itself lying on the table. Without the intent, there is no good or bad in it. The point is, firearms just like rocks exist and have no value, good or bad, outside of human use. By this point, it should be obvious that the same argument applies to nuclear weapons.
At this point, it is interesting to apply the concepts directly to humans. Similar to the above discussion, is a human standing in the middle of the room good or bad? Unless we know what the person is doing other than standing or what he/she is thinking, the question is unanswerable. Other than to anti-humanists, the existence of humans is value-neutral. However, it is not the existence of humans an anti-humanist is condemning, but rather their actions. Without acting, a human is no more than a rock with respect to our values being discussed. Once again we are back to the point—values are the result of human assessment of human action.
Good and bad may be applied to active behaviors as well as passive existence. A good behavior would be one that is done without error, or achieves its result. A bad behavior would be the opposite. However, what do we do with a behavior that is perfectly executed to accomplish a bad, in the sense of harmful, result? It would seem necessary to separate the execution from the result. The execution must be assessed relative to its correctness, where as the result is evaluated with respect to its impact on people.
As an aside, it is the impact on people that determines good and bad. The impact of human action on the environment is often described as bad. As far as the environment itself is concerned, there is neither good nor bad. The environment is constantly changing and adapting, and human activity is often erased in less than 100 years, which is nothing in comparison to even the current inter-ice-age period, which has lasted for about 10,000 years so far. It is some humans assignment of bad to that impact that makes it bad. So the so-called evil or bad of human impacts on the environment is actually the impact of how those changes are perceived on other humans.
Having established that good and bad are human-assigned values, now let us look at benevolent and evil. As has been stated at the beginning of this post, benevolent is not the same as good, and evil is not the same as bad. They are definitely respectively related, but not equivalent. Good and bad may be applied to inanimate objects as well as animate behavior, but benevolent and evil apply only to behavior.
The main difference between good and bad and benevolent and evil, is that good and bad are the respective ends of benevolent and evil action. Additionally, benevolent action is characterized by its intent, to do good. Conversely, evil action has the intent to do harm. There is, however, a subtlety here. Benevolent behavior is not doing good as a return for earned value, but as more than earned or even unearned. The concept of benevolence, the noun form, includes generosity or an excess of goodness—goodness that more than accomplishes its goal. So too, evil action is that which intends to cause extreme harm.
The difficulty with benevolent and evil is the matter of degree. At some point one can say bad behavior becomes evil behavior. Or good behavior becomes benevolent. In the cases where the intent is unquestionable, the intent defines the action. The desire to do good for the sake of doing good defines benevolent as the doing of bad for the sake of doing bad defines evil. But, even with it defined that clearly, the amount of good or the amount of evil seems to enter in. Helping someone fix their car just out of caring or friendship is good, but doesn’t qualify as benevolent, unless, for instance one springs for an engine rebuild or provides the labor for it. Equivalently, simply purposefully doing annoying things or mildly injurious things doesn’t qualify as evil, unless they escalate into serious harm to the victim.
We also refer to people as benevolent or evil. Again, this is a characterization that is based on our observation of their behavior over time. If a person’s actions continually lead to harm to others, and especially if they seem to be pleased by it or enjoy it, we will start calling them evil. There can also be covertly evil people, who have a façade of well-meant behavior hiding their real intent which is harm. We can also construct the opposite situations for benevolent people.
It now crosses my mind to ask, “How to classify the Count of Monte Cristo?” The end result of his actions is the ruin of his victims. But we know that these victims had already harmed him excessively. It is obvious from the story that he relished the destruction of his enemies. However, he also revised his goals with the revelation of new information, and was remorseful over the death of the child of one of his enemies. It would appear that vengeance and/or justice can carve out limited exceptions to our concept of evil.
To reprise, good per se is not benevolence, bad per se is not evil. Good is not the opposite of evil, bad is. By the same token bad is not the opposite of benevolent, evil is. Most importantly, all four terms require the presence of sentience to have meaning. With these concepts in place, we now have a frame in which to discuss theodicy—why does God allow evil in the world?
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
The ICE man cometh
This essay by one of my favorite bloggers, has prompted another rant on illegal immigration. Interestingly enough, this problem isn't new with us, Gibbon described it as happening in the Roman Empire. The details were different, they admitted the conquered people into full Roman Citizenship, unearned, to buy their favor. The parallel becomes obvious below.
There is probably no better focus for the corruption of our government and its processes than immigration. At the outset, I will state that I firmly believe in legal immigration and in much greater quotas than currently allowed. This country thrives on new ideas and people. It is the mechanics of bringing them in that are the problem.
Illegal immigration has been a hot topic in politics for several years now. The Republicans make noise about doing something about it, and the Democrats spout their usual liberal ooze, making victim noises. Neither party will do anything about it, because they are trying to buy the votes of the Hispanic voters. Democrats go farther than Republicans, because they also do everything they can to make it possible for illegal voters, both immigrant and non-registered voters, to vote.
Hollywood and the press are on the side of the illegal immigrants, painting them as victims and objects of sympathy.
The first and most obvious thing to do is to increase the immigration quotas to something realistic. If we have a need for immigrants that is great enough to absorb the work output of 10 million of them, then we should have immigration laws and quotas that provide an opportunity for that many to come into the country legally. The reason we don't is a very dark, dirty secret--we are afraid of that many legal immigrants. They might actually change things or demand decent wages. As long as they are illegal, they have only the political power we give them, and they will work for far less than legal workers will, mostly out of fear.
Second, in all this mass of stimulus spending, why is there no money to fix the Immigration Service? They are hopelessly understaffed, and US Customs and Border Protection is having their budgets CUT. The Border Patrol agents are not allowed to fight back or to effectively enforce the law. The Sheriff of Mariposa County, AZ, (Phoenix), is pilloried in the press for actually enforcing the law with respect to illegal immigrants. There are two parts, one enough staffing to process immigrants wanting to be legal, and two, enough staffing with effective rules of action to enforce the law. It is this second part that is the most galling.
The United States was founded on the basis of law--law arrived at by consent of those subject to them. We now have law that is made by a process so arcane and so corrupt that nobody, including the lawmakers fully knows or consents to what is in the laws. Effectively most law is unenforceable, simply because a good lawyer can find a conflict of law, rip a case apart and get his client off the hook. Don't blame the lawyer, blame the law-makers. The lawyer is doing his job; the law-makers didn't. Thus it is no wonder that there is movement to not enforce the immigration laws on the books. There is no respect for the concept of law, much less law itself.
If the laws are not enforced, the immigrants stay, and the legal bloc votes in appreciation for the powers that be, the children of the illegals become legal, and become grateful voters for those who didn't kick them out, and the illegals provide cheap labor. At least this is the underlying vision. The truth is not quite that simple, as I have seen mention that many legal immigrants do not appreciate the illegals getting the same privileges for free.
There are fixes for all of this, but not with the current composition of government, not just the politicians, but also the bureaucracy. It is possible to change the law, but unless the bureaucracy changes the rules by which it operates there is no change, and the bureaucracy is protected by civil service employment rules. Competency in ones job is not a requirement, though in all fairness, most civil servants are very competent and dedicated (at least the ones I've met), working in a system that works against them.
OK, so here is my version of an ideal fix.
1. First get rid of the politicians. OK we can't do that, but getting rid of as many incumbents as possible and implementing term limits by Constitutional amendment would be very nice.
2. Staff the US Immigration Service adequately to process millions of immigrants a year, and track the ones that are in the US.
3. Open up the quotas, and set firm, reasonable requirements for citizenship. A $5000 fee is NOT outrageous if it can be done as a payment plan or for that matter a loan for working immigrants. If it is free, there is no respect for what is obtained.
4. Implement strict enforcement of deportation law and border protection. Use unmanned drones WITH Weapons, to stop illegal trafficking in humans and drugs.
5. The only version of amnesty allowed is for all illegals to return to their home country and apply for citizenship under the new quotas. Ignore that they were once in the country illegally. If they go home voluntarily, the slate is wiped clean. If they are deported, it's a different matter, they have to wait a while, say half of the time they were in the country illegally.
6. Get rid of the "anchor baby" rules. A child born in the US of non-citizens of this country is a non-citizen. They can become a citizen if its parents do.
7. Enforce the employment rules. It doesn't have to be a SSN as proof of citizenship. Birth certificates, passports, driver's license with statement of citizenship are all possible documents, or a naturalized citizen certificate. If we continue the green-card rules then a green card.
The biggest obstacle to any of this is the unwillingness of politicians to take any responsibility for the country. Their only concern at this point is their own careers and re-election, hence item 1.
I realize that sometime in the future, caucasians will be a true minority in this country. That is not a problem. The problem is whether when it happens it will be the United States of America as envisioned--a country of laws and freedom, or simply a failed nation such as the Roman Empire became, and the countries of Europe are becoming.
There is probably no better focus for the corruption of our government and its processes than immigration. At the outset, I will state that I firmly believe in legal immigration and in much greater quotas than currently allowed. This country thrives on new ideas and people. It is the mechanics of bringing them in that are the problem.
Illegal immigration has been a hot topic in politics for several years now. The Republicans make noise about doing something about it, and the Democrats spout their usual liberal ooze, making victim noises. Neither party will do anything about it, because they are trying to buy the votes of the Hispanic voters. Democrats go farther than Republicans, because they also do everything they can to make it possible for illegal voters, both immigrant and non-registered voters, to vote.
Hollywood and the press are on the side of the illegal immigrants, painting them as victims and objects of sympathy.
The first and most obvious thing to do is to increase the immigration quotas to something realistic. If we have a need for immigrants that is great enough to absorb the work output of 10 million of them, then we should have immigration laws and quotas that provide an opportunity for that many to come into the country legally. The reason we don't is a very dark, dirty secret--we are afraid of that many legal immigrants. They might actually change things or demand decent wages. As long as they are illegal, they have only the political power we give them, and they will work for far less than legal workers will, mostly out of fear.
Second, in all this mass of stimulus spending, why is there no money to fix the Immigration Service? They are hopelessly understaffed, and US Customs and Border Protection is having their budgets CUT. The Border Patrol agents are not allowed to fight back or to effectively enforce the law. The Sheriff of Mariposa County, AZ, (Phoenix), is pilloried in the press for actually enforcing the law with respect to illegal immigrants. There are two parts, one enough staffing to process immigrants wanting to be legal, and two, enough staffing with effective rules of action to enforce the law. It is this second part that is the most galling.
The United States was founded on the basis of law--law arrived at by consent of those subject to them. We now have law that is made by a process so arcane and so corrupt that nobody, including the lawmakers fully knows or consents to what is in the laws. Effectively most law is unenforceable, simply because a good lawyer can find a conflict of law, rip a case apart and get his client off the hook. Don't blame the lawyer, blame the law-makers. The lawyer is doing his job; the law-makers didn't. Thus it is no wonder that there is movement to not enforce the immigration laws on the books. There is no respect for the concept of law, much less law itself.
If the laws are not enforced, the immigrants stay, and the legal bloc votes in appreciation for the powers that be, the children of the illegals become legal, and become grateful voters for those who didn't kick them out, and the illegals provide cheap labor. At least this is the underlying vision. The truth is not quite that simple, as I have seen mention that many legal immigrants do not appreciate the illegals getting the same privileges for free.
There are fixes for all of this, but not with the current composition of government, not just the politicians, but also the bureaucracy. It is possible to change the law, but unless the bureaucracy changes the rules by which it operates there is no change, and the bureaucracy is protected by civil service employment rules. Competency in ones job is not a requirement, though in all fairness, most civil servants are very competent and dedicated (at least the ones I've met), working in a system that works against them.
OK, so here is my version of an ideal fix.
1. First get rid of the politicians. OK we can't do that, but getting rid of as many incumbents as possible and implementing term limits by Constitutional amendment would be very nice.
2. Staff the US Immigration Service adequately to process millions of immigrants a year, and track the ones that are in the US.
3. Open up the quotas, and set firm, reasonable requirements for citizenship. A $5000 fee is NOT outrageous if it can be done as a payment plan or for that matter a loan for working immigrants. If it is free, there is no respect for what is obtained.
4. Implement strict enforcement of deportation law and border protection. Use unmanned drones WITH Weapons, to stop illegal trafficking in humans and drugs.
5. The only version of amnesty allowed is for all illegals to return to their home country and apply for citizenship under the new quotas. Ignore that they were once in the country illegally. If they go home voluntarily, the slate is wiped clean. If they are deported, it's a different matter, they have to wait a while, say half of the time they were in the country illegally.
6. Get rid of the "anchor baby" rules. A child born in the US of non-citizens of this country is a non-citizen. They can become a citizen if its parents do.
7. Enforce the employment rules. It doesn't have to be a SSN as proof of citizenship. Birth certificates, passports, driver's license with statement of citizenship are all possible documents, or a naturalized citizen certificate. If we continue the green-card rules then a green card.
The biggest obstacle to any of this is the unwillingness of politicians to take any responsibility for the country. Their only concern at this point is their own careers and re-election, hence item 1.
I realize that sometime in the future, caucasians will be a true minority in this country. That is not a problem. The problem is whether when it happens it will be the United States of America as envisioned--a country of laws and freedom, or simply a failed nation such as the Roman Empire became, and the countries of Europe are becoming.
Saturday, August 08, 2009
Impatience
My red maple rests
In August sunlight
I want to see new Spring leaves
In August sunlight
I want to see new Spring leaves
Friday, August 07, 2009
Perspective
My wife just told me Eunice Kennedy Shriver died. She was living with her brother Teddy, the Senator. I remember nothing about her specifically, but I have the idea that she had good intentions regardless of their outcomes.
But she led me to her brother. I just realized that the energy he brought to his Senate post was tremendous, and had it been guided by a different set of values would have created a truly great man. Senator Kennedy stood (and stands at the moment) for the complete opposite of the values I hold. But when one looks at his ability to remain a Senator, despite all his mistakes and crime (I consider Mary Jo Kopechne a crime), one has to acknowledge that he does have political savvy. He led the charge on Robert Bork and the attempted lynching of Clarence Thomas. He leads the sponsorship of the God-awful health bill and other Obama legislation. As an enemy, he is a "worthy opponent" not for his values but for his skill and ability to pursue the values he has.
He will not be much longer for this world, his brain cancer is particularly aggressive. In terms of his presence in the Senate, I will not be sorry to see him leave. Regardless of whom they replace him with, it will not be his equal. But in a larger sense, we will all lose. Energy and skill such as his, regardless of how applied, brings about a concommitant expenditure of energy and skill, from both sides. [When I fenced, I was a better fencer against better opponents.]
Cal Thomas, the well-known Conservative commentator, has great respect for Edward Kennedy as a person, despite intensely disagreeing with his positions. That was my first insight to the difference between a man and his ideas. This post is the crystalization of that insight. When Senator Kennedy actually succumbs to his cancer, I will probably say nothing. However, this post is the statement of how I hold him and is as close to an obituary as I would write.
But she led me to her brother. I just realized that the energy he brought to his Senate post was tremendous, and had it been guided by a different set of values would have created a truly great man. Senator Kennedy stood (and stands at the moment) for the complete opposite of the values I hold. But when one looks at his ability to remain a Senator, despite all his mistakes and crime (I consider Mary Jo Kopechne a crime), one has to acknowledge that he does have political savvy. He led the charge on Robert Bork and the attempted lynching of Clarence Thomas. He leads the sponsorship of the God-awful health bill and other Obama legislation. As an enemy, he is a "worthy opponent" not for his values but for his skill and ability to pursue the values he has.
He will not be much longer for this world, his brain cancer is particularly aggressive. In terms of his presence in the Senate, I will not be sorry to see him leave. Regardless of whom they replace him with, it will not be his equal. But in a larger sense, we will all lose. Energy and skill such as his, regardless of how applied, brings about a concommitant expenditure of energy and skill, from both sides. [When I fenced, I was a better fencer against better opponents.]
Cal Thomas, the well-known Conservative commentator, has great respect for Edward Kennedy as a person, despite intensely disagreeing with his positions. That was my first insight to the difference between a man and his ideas. This post is the crystalization of that insight. When Senator Kennedy actually succumbs to his cancer, I will probably say nothing. However, this post is the statement of how I hold him and is as close to an obituary as I would write.
Renewable Power Taken Seriously
This link to an item from Bloomberg, shows what happens when renewable power is taken seriously as an action item without any real understanding of what it really is.....
....very expensive pie-in-the-sky.
....very expensive pie-in-the-sky.
Sunday, August 02, 2009
Sense of Importance
We all want to feel important and useful, even indispensable. The ideal way is to simply be the best at what we do. Based on it's value to the world, we will be equivalently important. We will also have the security of being true to ourselves. If we are lucky to be raised by trusting, truly loving parents, that corraled and guided us vs. commanded and controlled us, we will, indeed, be self-fulled.
However, as we are growing up other peoples' expectations --first our parents, then our teachers, and our peers--are urged on us. Parents may want an offspring to fulfill their frustrated plans or go into a field that the parent thinks has riches and/or status--"My son the doctor." Teachers and the self-styled intellectual elite want everybody to have a collelge education. Peers, in contrast, often make fun of high achievers.
It takes and extremely strong-willed person to resist these kinds of pressures and most don't. As a consequence, people enter careers where the standards are not their own. They strive to achieve, not what they want, but what constitutes "sucess" and then feel empty when they get there. Rather than investigating the source of emptiness, they strive for more of the same, thinking that it is only a matter of not-enough--quantity vs. quality.
This striving can become compulsive and have an hysterical quality, when challenged. There becomes an obsessive reiteration of beliefs and formulas--often attempting to impose them on others in order to remove the challenge to their own insecurities. After all, if everyone does it--it's OK. Misery wants and needs company.
Any and all militants, save when there is truly an issue of personal survival, can be considered to be covering a fear--the fear that they will fail, because they know that their pursuit is acquired not inate. The key to recognition is their refusal to reason. Any argument or disagreement is met with either an ad hominum attack or an attempt to change the grounds of discussion. Commonly it is shifted to a a pseudo-moral plane, changing from a discussion of principle to a discussion of utilitarian ends, ignoring the means.
Unfortunately, understanding what is going on does not necessarily lead to conflict resolution. One cannot reason with someone who refuses to reason. All that is left is defense in kind--a refusal to agree, a clear statement of principle, and physical defense including retaliation, if necessary.
It is a canard to say one is "sinking to their level" to physically defend and/or retaliate. That is an attempt to subvert principle by turning it upon itself. Basically it is trying to say that high moral principle is defenseless so that lessor view may triumph. WRONG--it is morally incumbent on those who hold high principles to forward their principles rationally in all cases, refuse to compromise the principles, though the expression mhy be a compromise, and defend their principles by whatever means are necessary.
This is the lesson of Christian martyrs, WW I, WW II, and both Gulf Wars. Martyrs were justified that they died for their integrity; the allies in both World Wars triumphed over aggression, and the US and it allies won both Gulf Wars with a feeling of pride. {The later deconstruction by the left/liberal axis is a whole other topic.}
By doing what they knew to be right, all of these people became important both to themselves and to history.
However, as we are growing up other peoples' expectations --first our parents, then our teachers, and our peers--are urged on us. Parents may want an offspring to fulfill their frustrated plans or go into a field that the parent thinks has riches and/or status--"My son the doctor." Teachers and the self-styled intellectual elite want everybody to have a collelge education. Peers, in contrast, often make fun of high achievers.
It takes and extremely strong-willed person to resist these kinds of pressures and most don't. As a consequence, people enter careers where the standards are not their own. They strive to achieve, not what they want, but what constitutes "sucess" and then feel empty when they get there. Rather than investigating the source of emptiness, they strive for more of the same, thinking that it is only a matter of not-enough--quantity vs. quality.
This striving can become compulsive and have an hysterical quality, when challenged. There becomes an obsessive reiteration of beliefs and formulas--often attempting to impose them on others in order to remove the challenge to their own insecurities. After all, if everyone does it--it's OK. Misery wants and needs company.
Any and all militants, save when there is truly an issue of personal survival, can be considered to be covering a fear--the fear that they will fail, because they know that their pursuit is acquired not inate. The key to recognition is their refusal to reason. Any argument or disagreement is met with either an ad hominum attack or an attempt to change the grounds of discussion. Commonly it is shifted to a a pseudo-moral plane, changing from a discussion of principle to a discussion of utilitarian ends, ignoring the means.
Unfortunately, understanding what is going on does not necessarily lead to conflict resolution. One cannot reason with someone who refuses to reason. All that is left is defense in kind--a refusal to agree, a clear statement of principle, and physical defense including retaliation, if necessary.
It is a canard to say one is "sinking to their level" to physically defend and/or retaliate. That is an attempt to subvert principle by turning it upon itself. Basically it is trying to say that high moral principle is defenseless so that lessor view may triumph. WRONG--it is morally incumbent on those who hold high principles to forward their principles rationally in all cases, refuse to compromise the principles, though the expression mhy be a compromise, and defend their principles by whatever means are necessary.
This is the lesson of Christian martyrs, WW I, WW II, and both Gulf Wars. Martyrs were justified that they died for their integrity; the allies in both World Wars triumphed over aggression, and the US and it allies won both Gulf Wars with a feeling of pride. {The later deconstruction by the left/liberal axis is a whole other topic.}
By doing what they knew to be right, all of these people became important both to themselves and to history.
