| Perfil de The Running PolRunning PolBlogListas |  Herramientas  Ayuda |
|
|
08 septiembre Are Apologies in OrderRecent news reports have former State Department official Richard Armitage admitting to being Robert Novak's source identifying Valerie Plame as a CIA operative. After three year's of investigations, with most critics directing blame towards President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and VP aid "Scooter" Libby, the truth is coming to light. It makes one wonder what impact this revelation will have.
Will all those who have directed their efforts at impugning the name of the President and Vice President apologize for their comments? Will they abandon their unsupported conspiracy theories about the White House attempting to destroy those with differing opinions (unlike liberals who support diverse viewpoints, just ask Senator Lieberman)? Will they ask that the charges against Scooter Libby be dropped, or will they continue to pursue him as a consolation prize? Will those driven by their hatred of President Bush be able to accept the admission from Armitage?
Another set of questions must be directed at Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald. When was it discovered that Armitage was the source, instead of Libby and/or Cheney, as many believed? If there are unclassified documents identifying Plame as a CIA operative, including where she worked, has any crime been committed? If we have an admission from the source of the information, with no intention of pursuing legal action against that individual, is it time for apologies to those falsely pursued and dissolution of this office of independent counsel?
In the desire to malign an administration they despise, a great many false claims and accusations have been made. The Plame's themselves filed suit against the administration because of their mistaken belief they were targeted by the President and Vice President. Apparently, their claims have less validity than they would like to claim.
Of course, any realist understands that this will all be labeled as part of the conspiracy. Armitage is being a "fall guy." Conspiracy theorists will determine that he is being paid large sums of money with lots of promises of protection for doing this. His action to protect the White House will be repaid. As usual, there will be no evidence to support this theory, but it won't take long before a few whackos present this as some sort of proven fact. And we'll start the whole process over, again.
Until then, at least, I'll be waiting to see how many apologies are printed in the same full page ads that were used to accuse the White House of illegal actions. 28 agosto Rock the VoteAs we approach election day in the United States, the political machines around the country are ramping up their campaigns. The Democratic and Republican Parties have both deemed this election as one of the most important of this generation. Of course, every election cycle is "the most important," as there are always key issues to be addressed.
This year is no different. There are a great many issues of significant importance. And true to form, various groups define their cause as the defining issue of the year, and believe votes should be cast based upon that single issue. They'll usually tell you how you should vote, as well. They are correct about one thing. You should vote. But your vote should be based on your own research and evaluation of the issues. Because their is a lot of spin going on out there, and getting to the whole truth is difficult, if not impossible. Your best bet is to read a lot of news, form your own opinions based on that news and your personal philosophy, and vote accordingly.
Here is a list of some of the topics that should have some impact on your vote:
Fiscal accountability - both parties claim to be for fiscal responsibility. Both have shown that the drumbeat of fiscal responsibility is generally beat by the opposition party. Republicans spent decades fighting the rampant growth of government they saw while Democrats controlled Congress. Now that Republicans have been in control for a decade, we see a bit of role reversal. Democrats are now calling out for fiscal control as Republicans generate much of the same pork they vehemently opposed in the past.
Taxation - both parties also claim to support tax cuts. The key difference is the beneficiary of those benefits. On one side are calls to transfer money from the wealthy to the poor. Many in this country pay no taxes, and therefore see no refund. Some receive "refunds," even though no taxes were paid (also known as transfer payments). The other side of the argument is to give tax breaks across the board. Those who pay some taxes receive a small break. Those who pay more taxes receive bigger breaks. Some refer to that as an equitable reduction in taxes. Others call it a tax break for the wealthy. Either way, tax policy should be a part of your decision making process.
Immigration - the issue of immigration has become a recurring theme in American politics. When the last general amnesty was granted 20 years ago, our elected officials claimed illegal immigration would no longer be a problem. Apparently, they were correct. It was no problem for people to enter the country illegally. And we now face the consequences of our immigration policy over the last 20 years. Basically, neither party is willing to address this issue. Both claim to have the solution. One thing is certain, immigration is a major topic in this election cycle. There are several takes on the subject, which can help you formulate a voting plan. First is the general amnesty plan, which nobody openly admits to supporting. Many, however, do favor granting amnesty to all who are currently here illegally. Another idea being floated around is the layered amnesty concept. Those here for many years pay a fine and receive citizenship. Those here for several years have to leave and are then allowed to immediately re-enter the country and seek citizenship. Those here less than 5 years have to leave and try to re-enter through normal avenues. (As an editorial, I would point out that "normal" for these people is to sneak across the border and be here illegally). Another option is to actually secure our borders and then enforce those laws already in place. Stop the flood of illegal immigration, and then deport anyone found to be here illegally. How you feel on the immigration issue will, to some degree, dictate your choices in the election.
The war in Iraq - separate from the war on Islamic terrorists, the war in Iraq is a hot-button topic. While debate rages about the actual events leading up to the war, a far better question for this election cycle is the actual prosecution of the war. The intelligence used to enter the war has been debated for the past several years. It is, at this point, largely moot. We are engaged with the enemy, and the conflict was entered with the support of Congress (debate surrounding the garnering of that support notwithstanding). Now, our leadership must determine the best course of action for securing long-term stability in the region, identify the circumstances under which American forces can begin to draw down, and ensure that our sacrifices in this conflict were not made in vain. Discussion of the history of the war is as counterproductive as continuing to debate whether President Bush or former Vice President Al Gore won the 2000 elections. Our energies are best directed at identifying who can better lead the United States in assisting the new Iraqi government to final victory over the aggressors in Iraq.
The war on Islamic terrorists - while some will take offense at the addition of the adjective "Islamic," it is important to remember where the "war on terror" is directed. While there are homegrown terrorists such as Timothy McVeigh, we are not truly at war with them. There are terrorists operating in the war on drugs. We aren't really at war with them. And there are enemies in many other struggles who use terror as a tool. We aren't engaged in a war on them. We are in a war against those who have hijacked the Islamic religion and declared war on the United States. This war began decades ago. Iranian extremists were fighting the war when they took Americans hostage during the administration of President Jimmy Carter. The conflict continued under President Reagan when they bombed the Marine barracks in Beirut, Leganon. President Bush (first) had to deal with Saddam Hussein's campaign to expand Iraq. President Clinton was plagued by Islamic terrorists as seen in numerous attacks in the 1990's. The Khobar Towers bombing, the USS Cole, embassies around the world, the first WTC bombing, etc. ad nauseum. And President Bush had only been in office a short time when the final "declaration of war" was made with the WTC attacks of September 11, 2001. We continue to fight this enemy, and will continue to fight for some time. The Cold War continued for more than 50 years, and some contend it hasn't even ended. To believe the war on Islamic terrorists will end in five or six years is foolish and shortsighted. That said, we must vote for those we believe will promote the best policies for addressing the issue.
Integrity and vision - something often overlooked, this should be a key factor in your decision making process. Elected officials should do more than speak out of one side of their mouth. They should live the principals they claim to support. All too often, our representatives make claims they believe to be most politically expedient. In other words, they say what they believe you want to hear. Their votes will have nothing to do with what they say, as they have already been elected. Come the next election cycle, they will again "re-mold" themselves into the package for which you are likely to vote. Rather than listening to what they say, find out how the vote and what laws the write. It is all public record. You may find that the person for whom you voted doesn't actually vote the way you believe they do. It might sway your opinion.
Most importantly, vote. Our government was founded as a representative government, which means it represents those who vote. If you stay home on election day, it isn't actually your government. It only belongs to those who vote. But before you vote, learn. An uneducated voter who pulls levers based on what they have been told to do isn't a voter, they're a puppet. Like Pinocchio, we need to cut the strings of those who would control us, and vote for those who will best represent you.
In this post, I have attempted to suppress any bias I hold (and I do have them). While I am more than willing to share why I believe people should vote a certain way, this is aimed at getting people to think for themselves. If you have any specific questions about the various issues, please let me know. 08 junio Another Hydra Head GoneNews of the death of terrorist leader abu Musab al Zarqawi got me to thinking about the mythical hydra. Is this the death that breaks the back of the terrorist groups operating in Iraq, or will another seven heads appear to replace him? The elimination of Zarqawi is a good thing. Only time will tell the impact of his death.
It was only a short time after the news of his death that debate commenced on whether that news is good or bad. Those determined to see every action taken by the current administration in a negative light were quick to point out that Zarqawi's "martyrdom" was certain to result in a surge in terrorist recruiting. The other side, while cautious in their optimism, seemed eager to report the beginning of the end of al Qaeda in Iraq. Neither stance is likely to be all that accurate. While Zarqawi was the apparent leader of terrorist groups in Iraq, removing him from the scene is likely to make room for other influential madmen to step into the role. It was only a short time after Osama bin Laden was forced to flee the relative safety of Afghanistan for a life on the run that Zarqawi stepped in to fill his turban. It seems safe to assume others will be ready to pick up the pieces and fan the fires of hatred bin Laden and Zarqawi kept lit.
The argument that Zarqawi's death will fuel the terrorist recruiting is likewise disengenious. Those people supporting al Qaeda's efforts need little help in feeding their hatred. The hatred exists, and has existed for some time. Killing Zarqawi might be used as justification by those outside the terrorist groups to justify the murderous rampage of those groups. It isn't needed to fuel the hatred.
So, we sit and wait. We wait to see if another "terrorist mastermind" has enough of a deathwish (or desires his 72 virgins) to step into the role of public enemy number one. Or will the death of Zarqawi be the catalyst that causes people to start keeping their heads down? Will his death be enough to make terrorists around the world consider the idea of trying another path, a path with peace as a possible destination?
The death of Zarqawi, just like the death of all others in the region, is regrettable. It is, however, different. Coalition soldiers, Iraqi police, contractors, reporters, and civilians were murdered by terrorist forces attempting to bully the people into submission. Zarqawi was a military target eliminated in an effort to promote peace. Hopefully, the deaths will soon end and Iraq can begin to build an effective and lasting peace. 30 mayo Pots and KettlesIt seems like only a few months ago that Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid was referring to the absolute corruption of the Republican party due to ties to disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Oh, that's because it was only a few months ago. Like Reid, Democrats were overjoyed at the idea of pushing the so-called "culture of corruption" theory before the American people.
Back then, I believe I pointed out that both parties are equally corrupt, and one referring to the other as lacking in morals was idiotic.
And now, it appears that Senator Reid will have his own corruption issues to address. It seems he was accepting ringside seats at boxing events while the provider of those tickets was seeking his assistance in legislative matters. Other senators took different tacts, either paying for the tickets, or recusing themselves from any action on the legislation.
Not Senator Reid. He took the tickets. He accepted them at no-charge. And he pushed legislation aimed at helping those who provided them. And who do we find at the center of all this? Jack Abramoff.
I wonder if Harry Reid will now do what he has been so quick to demand of others. If he takes the advice he has been so free with, we should expect his resignation in short order. Then again, he's a Democrat. He couldn't possibly be corrupt? Could he? 26 mayo Let the Conference Fun BeginWell, it appears the Senate has finally ended debate and voted to pass a bill reforming immigration laws. We should be thankful that they were at least able to work together and pass something. Of course, using that logic, we should also be thankful when a student gets a D, since they at least passed.
The real fun, however, is yet to come. If you're unaware of the process, or unfamiliar with the specific instance, Congress must now go into Conference Committee, as the bill passed in the Senate differs from the bill passed by the House of Representatives. And it promises to be an interesting conference.
The House of Representatives, who's members face elections every two years, passed a bill that deals primarily with the issue of border security, and absolutely denies citizenship to anyone in the United States illegally. In fact, it mandates that those identified as undocumented be transported to their country of origin.
The Senate bill, which Senators are claiming as "comprehensive," makes a token effort at securing the borders, and then provides a clear and definite path for illegal immigrants to become US citizens. It also establishes a guest worker program, something the House also opposes, though less so than the issue of amnesty (I mean, Path to Earned Citizenship, which is also known as, ummm, amnesty).
The amnesty may well be the silver bullet that ensures we actually have no immigration reform out of Congress. The Senate has bowed to the pressure by non-citizens and lobbyist groups attempting to justify or outright condone the illegal actions of those immigrants. And the House, listening to the voices of voting Americans who will determine whether they return for another session, seems poised to refuse any concessions on the issue. Given an inability to find common ground, the bill dies in conference. And the U.S. borders will continue to be a sieve through which hundreds of thousands of illegal migrants pour every year.
Congress had the opportunity to address the one real issue, border security. If our elected officials had opted to address the real issue, porous borders, the other issues could have been addressed over time. Those illegal immigrants who prove that getting here was their only crime might be offered a path to citizenship (one that should start with them returning to their country). Those illegal immigrants found to be criminal in other areas could be dealt with in the justice system. And those that live here under the radar will continue to do just that.
But there would be an end in sight. With secure borders, the illegal immigrant issue will decline over time. Without secure borders, Congress has only repeated what was done 20 years ago. Renamed all illegal immigrants as citizens, and started the whole process over, again. 21 mayo Total HypocrisyAs the Mexican government threatens to sue the United States government if it takes actions to secure it's borders and deport illegal immigrants, Mexico is placing greater restrictions on immigrants to their country.
This news article just about says it all. It does a good job of detailing the immigration policy of Mexico. If the United States adopted the same policy and stricly enforced the borders, the screams from south of the border would be heard around the world.
It just goes to show that hypocrisy is not limited to the U.S. government. It's a world-wide problem. 17 mayo Immigration Cop-outThe debate surrounding the immigration problems facing the country has picked up in the days following President Bush's address to the nation. Oddly enough, this issue has somehow managed to split BOTH parties. Politics sometimes makes strange bedfellows.
To date, the most annoying part of this whole debate is that we remain most likely to see either nothing or a completely ineffective bill come out of Congress. With both parties divided, any bill that is drafted will most likely be watered down in every aspect. It is sad that our representatives seem so incapable of either seeing the country's best interest or hearing the voices of American citizens. They are too busy listening to the outcry from illegal immigrants, while watching the American flag fly upside-down below the Mexican flag.
Only slightly less annoying is the discussion centered on how to handle the 10-15 million illegal immigrants already in the United States. Those supporting amnesty for those unable to obey U.S. immigration law contend that amnesty is the only solution. They continue to argue that it would be impossible and outrageously expensive to round up and deport 12 million illegal immigrants. I truly wonder how people with such flawed logic manage to become leaders in this country.
This argument, which begs the greater question, simply seeks to focus attention away from the true issue. If the debate can be directed towards the cost of deporting illegal aliens, people lose sight of the cost of NOT deporting them. And they also lose sight of the fact that the supposed costs are based on fielding a massive team of federal agents to go and track the immigrants down and transport them out of the country.
Those opposed to amnesty have yet to present that as a solution. Most want two things. First, they want the borders secured. They want to know that regardless of the rest of the plan, our border will no longer represent a sieve through which a half-million illegal immigrants pour every year. Second, they want to know that those immigrants coming to this country legally receive preference over those who violated the law.
Immigration reform must first and foremost secure our borders. Many of our leaders, the President included, seem to view that as secondary. If they get their heads on straight and stop the flood of illegals coming into the country, they can deal with those already here at their leisure.
At that point, handling those already in the country is easy. If they are found to be here illegally, they can be deported. For the millions who never violate another American law, who pursue those goals which brought them here (work, good pay, security, whatever), and who stay off our radar, they will have nothing to fear. We don't need a police force to hunt down the illegals who need to be deported. They will do all the work by shining the spotlight on themselves.
But again, it seems readily apparent to the most casual observer that Congress is poised to cop-out on the whole issue. They are working hard at legislation that will do nothing. Perhaps they will shock me. Perhaps they will produce a comprehensive bill that will actually fix a national problem. But I'll remain a realist and expect nothing more than history indicates we will get. 10 mayo Border BattleA disturbing fact was recently uncovered in the ongoing saga of illegal immigration. A report in the Daily Bulletin indicates the U.S. government has been notifying the Mexican government of the location of The Minutemen, United States citizens patrolling US borders in an effort to highlight the illegal immigration issue. These reports are, as a minimum, alarming. They border on reckless and treasonous.
The stated purpose of these reports, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection is to protect migrant rights and ensure there is no lawlessness going on at the U.S. borders.
That, in my opinion, shows a complete lack of understanding of both the severity of the issue and the mission of the agency. It should be noted that stated in their name is "border protection." It doesn't state "migrant rights protection." This stance also attempts to minimize that illegal immigrants are the lawless ones. With very limited exceptions, the Minutemen have fulfilled their mission of observing and assisting. In addition to assisting the border patrol, they have assisted illegal immigrants in need of aid. While there have been a few isolated incidents (resulting in the immediate removal of the offending Minuteman) of "lawlessness" on the part of the Minutemen, every instance of illegal immigration is lawlessness in and of itself.
More importantly is the fact that the United States government appears to be working with the Mexican government to aid illegal immigrants in the process of violating U.S. borders. All while circumventing U.S. citizens attempting to shed light on the relative ease of securing those borders.
What will the US Customs and Border Protection agency do when 1 million U.S. citizens descend on the borders to seal them? Perhaps that is what is needed. Instead of 6000 Minutemen, let's organize 100,000 or 1,000,000 of them. When the entire Mexican/U.S. border is blocked by a wall of concerned U.S. citizens, the only statement the U.S. government will have available is, "Mexico, stop your people from heading this way. The U.S. citizens have made it abundantly clear that legal avenues of migration are the only ones they will accept." Or, "The present location of the Minutemen is from the Pacific Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico covering the entire border."
In addition to covering the border, this would let the U.S. government know that the citizens don't appreciate our government helping foreigners violate our policies and laws. 03 mayo Caving in to the Soda ScareThe beverage industry announced today that it has finally caved in to the junk science being used to scare parents about obese children. Okay, they didn't word it that way. That is what it is, though.
The actual announcement is that the American Beverage Association, which includes industry giants Pepsi and Coke, signed an agreement to stop selling certain drinks in U.S. schools. The general thrust is that sweetened soda will no longer be available to kids in school.
Allow me to start by stating that I'm a bit old school. I grew up in an era when soda wasn't available in school, period. There weren't vending machines all over the building, and we got our food and drinks through one of three methods. We brought lunch from home, we bought lunch in the cafeteria, or we raided the stores before school to stock up on junk. The thought of kids being unable to buy sodas at school is of little concern to me.
What is of concern is the wholesale disregard of facts and statistics in this move. The agreement is aimed at reducing childhood obesity. That, of course, begs the question of what is actually causing increases (if any) in the level of childhood obesity.
First, the science completely fails to support any link between soda consumption and obesity. Research continually proves that, while important, diet is, at best, a minor culprit in obesity. And soda plays only a very minor part in the diet statistic. Of far greater importance is the presence or lack of physical activity.
Second, this agreement only addresses the sale of sodas. Though it discusses limiting sales to unsweetened juices and diet sodas, specifically allowed are sports drinks. As a runner and triathlete in training, the logic of that decision completely misses me.
While there are sodas in my house, sports drinks are far more prevelant, as that is the drink of choice for exercise. Sports drinks, in general, have fewer calories per 8 ounce serving. They also tend to come in larger containers than soda. A vending machine dispensing 12 ounce cans of soda spits out 150 calories per actual serving (being one can). A machine with sports drink will spit out about 140 calories, as they tend to come in 20 ounce bottles.
So, the children that are unable to purchase 150 calories in the form of soda can still get 140 calories in the form of sports drinks. The same calories could be burned off by making the child walk a few hundred feet to get the soda. In otherwords, it's pointless.
As mentioned before, I grew up in schools without vending machines. That never prevented anyone from having soda, candy, or any other junk food that was desired. There are plenty of stores in the city. Preventing the sale of soda in schools, today, might be a good move. But I'll make the bet now that it has absolutely zero impact on the state of childhood obesity.
That problem will only be resolved when we get the kids off the couch and out of the house. With the understandable exception specific medical conditions, most childhood obesity can be solved with a disciplined exercise routine.
I know it worked wonders, for me. 02 mayo Protests in PerspectiveOn Monday, an estimated one million immigrants participated in the "Day Without Immigrants" protests across the United States. And a million is a lot of people. We shouldn't, however, lose perspective of the big picture.
The U.S. government estimates there are 35 million immigrants in this country. Of that, approximately 10-15 million are here illegally. The total U.S. population, based on census estimates, approached 300 million in 2005.
That allows us to put the protests into proper perspective. This analysis assumes the government estimates to be reasonably accurate (which my be a stretch, but it's all we have).
First, let's consider the million protestors from a strictly "illegal immigrant" standpoint. Given that we have greater than 10 million illegal immigrants in this country, yesterday's protests drew less than 10% of that population. Far less if we consider that many of those protesting were either legal immigrants or United States citizens. Regardless, more than 90% of those here illegally did what they do most frequently. They kept their heads down, acknowledging that their ability to stay here is put at risk if they stick their necks too far out.
In a country governed by majorities, garnering less than 10% vote is insufficient to force change, and barely sufficient to influence change. Both the Reform and Green Parties can attest to the challenges of effecting change with less than 10% of the populace.
There is still a bigger picture to consider. That picture accounts for the total immigrant population. Using 33 million immigrants, the May 1st protests drew less than 3% of the total population. That leaves 97% who for some reason failed to support this movement. Some of those may have been fearful of reprisals. Others may have been more interested in the money from the jobs they broke immigration laws to get. And still others counter-protested, stating their opposition to the voices calling for liberalization of the immigration policy.
Finally, we have to consider the total U.S. population of 300 million. These protests drew about 1/3 of one percent of the total population. More than 99% of Americans (both legal and undocumented) stayed home. And while compared to the civil rights movement of the past, this movement seems to be losing traction. Elected representatives received considerable guidance from their constituents during their two week recess. Though some of that advice voiced opposition to further criminalizing illegal immigration, most of it voiced strong opposition to anything that smells of amnesty.
There were a million loud voices in the streets on May 1st. They screamed for justice. They screamed for their rights. All while disregarding the justice and rights due others taking the legal paths to U.S. citizenship.
But there were many more voices taking a different approach. They weren't yelling and screaming for rights that don't exist. They were calmly letting their representatives know what to expect if the immigration fiasco isn't handled in a fair and reasonable manner. And those are the voices that have access to the voting booths. Those are the voices that represent a true threat to those in Congress. Perhaps our elected officials heard what was being said. 01 mayo Circular Immigration ArgumentsThe flawed logic used by those arguing in support of general amnesty for illegal immigrants continues to show as they promote protests around the country. One situation from the news wires, this morning, stood head and shoulders about the rest.
Forgive me for being remiss with names, I don't remember. The gentleman would probably prefer to remain unnamed, anyway. The circular arguments he presents are something I would certainly not want associated with my name.
In one interview, this widely known immigrant rights supporter protested quite vehemently that the term illegal should be removed from the discussion. For two reasons, he objects to the term. First, he believes those immigrants here without legal status are in no way violating the law. Second, he feels that labeling them "illegal" is based only upon the misguided belief that those immigrants don't have a right to be in the country. He feels that anyone desiring to be in the United States has a right to be here.
In a second interview, he blasted the legislation presented by Representative James Sensenbrenner (R-WI). He stated that any legislation that does not offer a means to legalize those immigrants already in the United States is unacceptable.
That was the statement that caused mental gymnastics in my head. Immigration reform must contain provisions to legalize currently undocumented immigrants? I thought they weren't "illegal." Perhaps he knows the truth of the matter better than he'd like to admit.
His protests seem to disregard one fact, anyway. There already exists a means by which foreigners can become United States citizens. Or, barring the desire to be citizens, there is a means for entering the country to work, often for years, even decades. What is this "new" means the protestors are seeking? Call it what you want, it is amnesty. They feel they have the right, as non-citizens, to demand that officials elected to represent the American people bow to their wishes. They do not have that right.
The right they do have is to enter this country through the processes already in place. I would argue they even have the right to voice concern over that process. Many Americans would agree that the current immigration, naturalization, and guest worker programs are ineffective at best. American citizens who feel that amnesty programs are bad policy are justified in their beliefs. We are a nation of immigrants. Most of those immigrants came to this nation through completely legal and normal channels. Those who came here or remain here in violation of US policy thumb their noses at the rest of us when they say anyone who opposes illegal immigration are somehow "anti-immigrant." It is quite possible to support immigration while asking it be done legally.
So, the circular arguments will continue. And it is increasingly likely that what we will get in the end is more of the same. We will continue to have porous borders allowing hundreds of thousands of foreigners to enter our country illegally. We will continue to provide public support for those already here. We will continue to face the difficult decision of how to handle illegal immigrants with US born children (who are therefore legal US residents). And we will continue to face the question of how to handle 15 million illegal immigrants every 20 years. 19 abril Rank DebateIt appears the high school from which I graduated is caught up in a ridiculous phenomena sweeping the nation. The school board in Neenah, Wisconsin is debating the idea of eliminating the class ranking system for graduating students. It is a practice that is growing in popularity. And it is a practice sure to do more damage than good.
The common argument for eliminating the class rank structure is that such rankings damage the self-esteem of those students who rank lower. This somehow damages them in the future. A second argument that occassionally rears its ugly head is that ranking systems can be inherently unfair when course load and course difficulty are not considered. Both arguments are flawed, and pressure needs to be applied across the country to ensure that our young adults face the prospect of being compared to others.
Much of what we do in life subjects us to ranking. Some would argue that ranking students is bad. Yet how prepared will students be for real life if they have never competed against their peers? While in the Navy, my promotions were very much a function of my performance compared to that of other electricians in my field. When applying for jobs, whether one is hired is a direct result of competition with others competing for the same position. Elected officials face the prospect of votes every election cycle, a very public means of competing against others.
All through our lives we face the prospect of being measured against our peers. Yet the movement in the school system is to ensure we avoid anything that might affect the self-esteem of students. The last time I checked, we still keep scores at sporting events, we still determine winners and (gasp!) losers at debate tournaments, and there is only one state champion in any given event. All run the risk of having a negative impact on those who aren't "number 1."
The second argument is likewise silly. Truthfully, there are thousands of students every year ranked below students with less academic ability. In my high school, they used a straight 4.0 GPA scale, with no adjustments for honors courses. Students struggling through college level courses often found themselves ranked below students enrolled in all "basic" courses. Even so, it is the scale that is flawed, as opposed to the ranking system. Had my school simply used a 12.0 point scale with adjustments for honors courses, the ranking system would have been accurate.
And the "flawed" system used by my high school had no lasting impact on my career. Those who care about my academic record took the time to examine the entire picture. And my psyche somehow managed to recover from the extreme damage to my self-esteem.
The movement to eliminate all ranking from our lives is part and parcel of a movement to attempt to make "all things equal." In my mind, it is an insidious attempt to convince our youngsters that nobody should consider themselves as better than another, or deserving of more. If the children can be convinced that the hardest worker is the same as the laziest slug, then the push to redistribute other benefits of labor becomes easier.
All things are not equal. Some work harder and do better than others. And they deserve the rewards of that effort. And being at the back of the pack doesn't destroy the average person. As a runner, I can tell you a lot about being at the back of the pack. There is absolutely no chance of my ever winning the Chicago Marathon. But I keep running it. And I don't expect the winner to share their earnings with me. School is no different. Students should be aware of how they are performing when compared to their peers. If they don't face that in school, they are in for a very rude awakening when they enter the work force. 15 abril Great Divide - National SecurityOne of the key topics of debate amongst liberals and conservatives is national security. It is also one of the more contentious issues. It is interesting how both sides claim to have the stronger claim on security while accusing the other of being bad for the nation.
The question at hand, though, is whether a great divide exists in the United States on the issue of security. For the sake of convenience, issues such as loyalty, patriotism, and other similar topics are considered part of the national security debate.
In the days after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans came together as a united people. Ideology was set aside, as the attacks were on Americans, not a particular subset. There was little debate on the appropriate response, and nobody found their patriotism under attack.
As the focus shifted from just al qaeda to the overall war on terror, that unity began to disentegrate. And when the case was made for action against Saddam Hussein and others who controlled Iraq, debate started in earnest. Quite often, that debate has focused more on the person than the facts. And sometimes, facts are completely irrelevant.
Conservatives leaders question the support for the military of liberals. Patriotism is called into question on a regular basis. If one's patriotism is better unquestioned, other aspects come into play. One perfect example is the campaign by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth during the last presidential campaign. Conservatives loved hearing people call Senator John Kerry's loyalty into question. Liberals were quick to point out the discontinuities in the stories presented by various parties. Many just wanted the whole situation to go away.
When the cost of the war is questioned, some are quick to say the person raising the issue doesn't support our military. Those who oppose the conflict in Iraq claim that supporters of that war are the ones who fail to support the military as our resources are stretched ever more thinly.
Even border security has been brought into the mix. There are those who claim our borders are the next great threat to nation and anyone opposed to sealing those borders is weak on security. While by no means a stretch of the imagination, the intelligence this administration placed such value on when monitoring Iraq has claimed no such threat exists.
The discussion could continue for days. But we can go back to the original question. Is there a great division in this country when it comes to national security? I say there is not. Liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat, nobody wants to see another terrorist attack like we experienced in 2001. Neither party wants to see American lives lost in foreign conflict. Everybody wants to see our troops supported and opposes those few wack jobs who find pleasure in protesting our fighting forces.
The patriotism of those who serve this nation is difficult to question, whether that service is in the military or in elected office. President Clinton never served in the military, but I believe him to have a great love for this country. Elected officials lacking a sense of patriotic duty are likely to find their tenures short lived.
So, where is the divide on the issue of security? It is in policy. Extreme conservatives have one approach to security (hit the enemy somewhere else, and define enemy in broad terms). Extreme liberals have another approach (use only diplomacy, and treat terrorism as a civil issue). Most Americans, whether left of center or right of center want wars fought somewhere other then on our soil. Most Americans want some amount of restraint shown when using military force. And most Americans want military action justified. But where they stand sets the standards they apply when making those decisions.
I believe the average American understands the views of those with different ideology and accepts the right of individuals to hold those views. And while they may disagree, there is no enmity on either side. The extreme (and very vocal) left and right are the ones creating this perception of a great division. 13 abril The Great Divide - IntroIn the ongoing political struggle between the left and right in the United States, a new tactic has come into wide use in the past few years. Barely a day passes without American citizens being told about the divisive nature of today's political scene. If reports out of the major media outlets are to be believed, the American electorate is an bitterly and evenly divided people with little hope of coming together on any task.
The concern over these divisions begs one very serious question. Does such a divide exist? While some consider this an easy question worthy of a snap response, the answers vary. Some see a serious division in America. Others see political disagreement and have no issue with that. And some would contend there is no real division and that most of America is dispersed in a fairly narrow band from just left of center to just right of center.
So, this site will be featuring a series on "The Great Divide." We will examine some of the key issues affecting America and discuss where Americans stand on those issues. The exact nature of these divisions will be considered, as well. Questions and comments from the peanut gallery will be welcomed and beneficial. The viewpoints for each topic are my own, and everyone should feel free to point out any errors, omissions, or logic flaws.
After covering the biggest issues of the day, we will address the question so frequently glossed over. Is the United States bitterly divided? 10 abril Immigration Myths and LiesThe immigration debate seems to be heating up, though much of the discussion is focused on flawed logic and outright lies. A difficult subject, this debate must focus on facts and law. If we resort to emotion and political gamesmanship, everybody loses.
One of the most common misstatments being made is, "We are not criminals." Carlos Carrera, an illegal immigrant protesting in Atlanta had a banner stating, "We are not criminals. Give us a chance for a better life." Those familiar with United States immmigration law understand the dichotomy in the statement. Carrera has been living in the United States illegally for 20 years. Despite his claim to the contrary, his very presence in this country makes him a criminal. The circumstances and severity of that crime can be debated. That he is breaking the law with his presence is undeniable.
Another tactic being used by those who oppose tighter controls of the immigration issue is to claim it is a civil rights issue. Reverend Lawton Higgs, a United Methodist minister, stated, "We've got to get back to the civil rights movement, because that's what this is about." Interestingly, this is yet another example of individuals attempting to grant rights provided to American citizens to people who not only are not American citizens, but broke the law to get into the country. While certain human rights are guaranteed to these people, civil rights apply to citizens. And there is no guarantee anywhere of the right to be a citizen of the country of one's choosing.
Supporters of immigrant rights have also adopted the technique of identifying anyone supporting reform as "anti-immigrant." This characterization is both unfair and widely untrue. While the idea of reform and tough new immigration laws may garner the support of those with racist or separatist views, most Americans openly welcome immigrants. We are a nation of immigrants. We are also a nation of laws. If the estimated 12 million immigrants here illegally had come to the United States through proper channels, I would be right there marching in the streets to defend their rights. They did not do so. Instead, they thumbed their noses at U.S. law, and now want to mischaracterize American sentiment. Legal immigration has nearly complete support of the American people. Illegal immigration has the support of a very limited group of people.
The final straw man argument that needs to be addressed is the cost of dealing with illegal immigration. Opponents of reform have begun to cite the estimated costs of rounding up and deporting the millions of immigrants here illegally. That, of course, would be somewhat dependent upon a concerted effort to round up and deport them under a specific program. Proposed reforms to the immigration policy focus more on minimizing future illegal border crossings and enforcing existing legislation. Once we stop the flood of immigrants coming here illegally, we can address those who are caught inside the borders.
In fact, this site has stated previously that if the floodgates of illegal immigration can be stoppered, the idea of granting amnesty to those already here would be more palatable. An amnesty program without a viable plan for assuring we won't have 15 million new illegal immigrants in 20 years is pointless. Regardless, the argument about cost is a straw man argument that reform opponents throw out and immediately set on fire.
Immigration reform is a difficult subject. If easy, it would have been addressed decades past, and we would not be facing today's challenges. It affects real people with real needs and dreams. It affects American citizens and non-resident citizens alike. It affects employers, families, taxpayers, and elected officials. And there is no single solution that will make everyone happy.
Those here illegally have a vested interest in reform that grants amnesty or does nothing. Their goals are obvious and understandable. They do not, however, make any of the arguments being used logical or acceptable. Any legislation must first consider the needs of the United States. Once those needs are met, the needs of foreign citizens can be addressed. 06 abril Elephants, Donkeys, and PigsThe government watchdog group Citizens Against Waste released it's annual Pig Book on Wednesday. It was good news for just about everybody. An ironic, remark, I know. Allow me to explain.
The Pig Book details "pork barrel" spending by the federal government. Congressional representatives have, for decades, attached earmarks to appropriations bills that fund various pet projects that benefit lobbyists and constituents in their districts. Long decried by Republicans as a means for Democrats to hold onto the majority. Conservatives are now becoming increasingly frustrated by Republicans seeming to use the exact same tactic.
Now, on to explaining why the Pig Book is good news for everyone.
First, the Republicans (and yes, Democrats) guilty of using pork barrel spending to hold on to their seats. The Pig Book for 2005 details record spending on earmarks. Elected officials guilty of hoarding from the trough of taxpayer money were responsible for the largest spending orgy ever. The beneficiaries of their spending spree should be well pleased.
We can then move on to the national parties. This report is good for them, as well. For Republicans, even those who refrain from excessive spending, they have the benefit of the perhaps keeping some of those seats in congress. Pork spending does have that effect, despite the outrage most Americans express over the practice. Democrats can now assume the role of finger-pointer, highlighting the outrageous excess of the majority party. Of course, Republicans will be holding mirrors, so that at least some of those fingers point back at the Democrats.
And the report is even good news for those of us abhorred by the gross abuses shown by congress as they steward our tax dollars. As congress and the country wrangle over issues such as tax cuts and funding much needed programs, another $30 billion has slipped away. That amount certainly won't end the financial woes of the country. Over 10 years, though, it adds up.
At such time as the economy is booming along, tax revenues are skyhigh, budget deficits are eliminated, national debt is being retired, and bankrupt programs like social security and medicare have been propped up, congress can start spending on goofy pet projects. Until then, voters should hold representatives accountable. And that is dependent of party. A Republican who has lost sight of the voter's interests should lose his job as quickly as a Democrat. Conservatives are supposed to believe in limited government. So the Republican should probably lose his job even quicker.
This is yet another opportunity being provided to the Democratic Party by the Republican majority. In the long run, it can hurt us all. We know how liberals tend to pay for budget deficits and excessive spending. 05 abril Capitalism Loses in AppletonThe city of Appleton, Wisconsin had a referendum on the ballot for this year's spring elections. It was a second visit to a controversial ban prohibiting smoking in any public facility, including bars and facilities rented for private events. Enacted last year, this ordinance has been the center of a great deal of debate and the cause of severe financial strain on a great many businesses.
This year's referendum was an attempt to change the wording of the ban to allow smoking in bars, facilities rented for private use, and in private vehicles used for public transportation. The anti-smoking crowd argued the changes would be detrimental to public health.
As a conservative who values the capital system of our economy, I consider the wording of the revised ban unacceptable. It leaves in place constraints on a legal activity in legal business establishments. The changes, however, were an attempt to alleviate some of the constraints placed by the existing legislation.
In the end, capitalism lost entirely. The referendum drew an amazing number of voters to the polls. Nearly 50% of registered voters cast a ballot in this off year election. Generally, anything over 20% is considered heavy turnout in such an election. In a 53%-47% vote, the existing total ban on smoking remains in place. Business owners have been told that they no longer have the right to run their business as they deem most effective. That many of them have seen 70% drops in business since the ban went into effect is of little consolation. Apparently, those who support the ban don't frequent bars.
Just to keep things in perspective, I am not a smoker. In fact, I was diagnosed with a pulmonary condition that makes cigarette smoke particularly hazardous to my health. While smoke itself doesn't bother me all that much, it is rare that you will find me around smokers. My dismay at this vote has nothing to do with a desire to smoke, or even the belief that smokers have some inherent right to smoke any place or time the see fit.
My concern is that the people have forgotten what freedom and capitalism mean. I have often wondered why there hasn't been a mad rush to open smoke free bars around the country. There is such a push to have them, it would only make sense that there is a demand for them. If that is true, why is there a lack of smoke free facilities except in those cities that have bans in place.
It is because restricting smoking has the same impact in cities that don't ban smoking as it does in those that do. People stop going to those businesses. Despite claims that there will be a flood of non-smokers flocking to the bars and restaurants, businesses lose significant portions of their business. Owners know that voluntarily prohibiting smoking is a fast way to destroy a business.
It also opens the door to other issues. If smoking can be limited for health reasons, why not certain foods, alcohol (which we've tried before), or other items that carry significant societal burdens? If smoking can be banned in restaurants and bars, how about the streets? (On a side note, when smokers can't smoke inside, they go outside. That puts them right on the sidewalks where I run, exposing me to smoke I would have otherwise avoided by choice).
Appleton voters cast a ballot in direct opposition to the economic system upon which this country was founded. They voted to remove the right of business owners to make sensible decisions. As a resident of Appleton, I can only hope that the sucking sound of businesses leaving (or going under) the city doesn't lead directly to my wallet. After all, the city will have to replace lost revenue somehow. 30 marzo Vanishing ResolveIt can be very interesting, if not just plain comical, to watch the days political wrangling. Lately, both parties have been fairly useless, and intellectual honesty requires a response to the stupidity of my favored party.
What shall we talk about? Well, how about the two hot topics of the week. Immigration and lobbyists. That sounds like two areas in which the Republican Party can stand some refresher training.
The scandal surrounding super-lobbyist, or shall we say Prisoner 10259, Jack Abramoff was a sight to watch. The investigation into his actions caused a great deal of bun clenching in the capitol. His plea bargain caused even more anxiety as politicians sought to evaluate their interactions with Abramoff, and to distance themselves from him. Many outside Washington, D.C. saw the opportunity for significant and much needed reform in the way lobbying is conducted.
Congress is now pleased to announce that much sought after reform. Well, at least what they would like to call reform. Granted, some changes will be coming. Mostly in the realm of gift giving. Lobbyists will now be prohibited from providing meals and first class travel arrangements. They will also be limited on the giving of personal gifts. Of course, they were in the past, but don't let your Representative or Senator know that. It might shock them. Not to worry, though. Congressional representatives will still be able to fly in style, so long as it is a private jet and not a first class ticket. Apparently, flying first class is more valuable than travel by private plane.
One glaring omission from this reform is the limitation on earmarks that was promised. Earmarks are the most common tool lobbyists ask members of Congress to use. Earmarks allow bills in the legislative process to have funding for other projects attached. Pork isn't just for federal projects, anymore. Limiting or outlawing earmarks would have resulted in a significant vacuum forming in Washington as lobbyists left the area.
So, as far as lobbying reform goes, we got pretty much a shuffling around of laws that already exist. No signficant changes, just minor tweaks. Barely enough to cause a blip on anyone's radar.
Of course, for true excitement, we can move on to immigration reform. It has been loads of fun listening to members of Congress attempt to explain how the amnesty program being proposed is somehow not amnesty. "Well, they have to pay a fine." Or, "They have to go to the end of the line for citizenship."
Consider that current laws state that any foreign resident here illegally is to be deported to their country of origin. Under some of the proposed laws, they will now be able to stay here, though they will have to pay a fine. I guess we can call that a "citizenship lease, with option to buy." Either way, the proposed laws are more lenient than existing law, and provide an avenue to citizenship that doesn't start with, "Go home, then apply for citizenship properly." Paint it any color you want, it's amnesty.
Of course, most of the proposals attack the issue from the wrong end. Dealing with those foreigners already here illegally (whether through a blanket amnesty program or draconian search-and-deport programs) is pointless unless we resolve the means by which they get here.
Consider that they estimate there are roughly 1/2 million new illegal aliens coming into the country each year. We always seem to have these immigration issues come to a head when we get an estimated 10-15 million illegals, total. Oddly, that about directly corresponds to the fact that we wind up legislating some sort of "not amnesty" program that makes illegals legal putting us back at zero every 20-25 years. Half a million a year, 20 years, 10 million illegals. Neat math.
Well, that's where we are, with the last mass amnesty granted in 1986. Twenty years later, we are once again facing the same problem. See what happens when you grant amnesty without controlling the borders?
Here's a solution that hasn't been offered. Lock the borders down. Make it extraordinarily difficult to enter the United States any way except via a controlled entry point. Ensure that neighboring countries understand that attempting to sneak in is likely to result in death, as sieve-like borders no longer exist. Once that is accomplished, initiate phase two.
The second part of a comprehensive policy is two pronged. First, establish a clear and logical process to gain entry and/or citizenship to the United States. If desired, grant amnesty to everybody currently in the country, so long as they meet the requirements of that program. And yes, fines for being here are part of that plan. After a set period of time, any foreigner not documented is now an illegal alien. If they come into custody of any American civil authority, they have two options. Exportation to the home country, or exportation to the country of their choice. Barring that, they are in felony violation of US Immigration laws and subject to imprisonment for those violations. Once that sentence is complete, they have the same options.
The second prong of this program involves making it highly unprofitable for companies to employ foreigners here illegally. Fines will be based upon the annual salary of the highest paid employee in that company. For every illegal in their employ, they will pay fines equal to some multiple of the annual salary of that highest paid worker. Fines of this nature will remove the cost effective idea of hiring illegal aliens.
When it becomes counterproductive to hire illegal aliens, companies will seek people who are here legally. And when that happens, the incentive to come here illegally will no longer exist.
Instead, what we will get is another amnesty program. Or nothing. Conservatives are deeply divided on this issue. That makes passing of any legislation unlikely. And passing of any substantive legislation impossible.
Republicans in Congress need to start paying attention. These two issues are important to their conservative base. While those voters are unlikely to find a Democrat for whom to vote, they might certainly stay home on election day as a means to voice their displeasure. In that event, the Republican Party will deserve the outcome. 24 marzo Taxing QuestionsA recurring theme is beginning to show up in Wisconsin politics. It is a theme that has reared it's controversial head in other states, as well. It goes by many names, and the best known name in Wisconsin is the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights.
The Wisconsin version is an amendment to the state constitution, and has gone through several versions. Common to all are limits to spending based on tax revenue. The goal is to rein in out of control spending and prevent massive budget deficits.
This is a topic that causes lively debate in my head. The arguments for a taxpayer's Bill of Rights are many and reasonable. Government should live under the same constraints as those who fund its operation. Constantly raising taxes in order to fund an ever increasing government that appears to be increasingly inefficient is a poor excuse for budgetary policy. No person or organization can long survive if they constantly spend more than they earn. The state is no different. Establishing measures to control that practice is a reasonable request.
There are, however, very logical and reasonable arguments against such legislation. Ignoring the senseless arguments posed by various groups (most often unions, particularly state worker unions), several valid concerns remain. First and foremost is that taxpayers seem bent on demanding more and greater service from a government already strapped for funding. This while demanding lower taxes. Enacting a policy that limits attempts to increase revenue without establishing similarly limiting demand on the system is pointless.
Another very valid argument is that fiscal accountability should be handled at the ballot box. Not by passing an amendment limiting spending, but by voting against elected officials refusing to limit spending. When voters remove from office those representatives with an overzealous passion for spending taxpayer money, things will begin to change. Government will be forced to become a better steward of our money. Of course, voters must also acknowledge that forcing officials to make hard choices may have consequences that will be difficult to swallow.
One argument that has been made from an emotional and irrational stance is that a Taxpayer's Bill of Rights is somehow undemocratic. It really made me question the sense of the group making the argument. While direct legislation often creates challenges as ill-informed voters cast ballots, allowing the vote is the most democratic means of government available. In fact, whether local, state, or federal, some of the most controversial and difficult topics are presented to the people for a vote. Constitutional amendments require a vote of the Congress, followed by ratification of the states. Most states seek the voter's will before ratifying or rejecting an amendment. Most local governments place difficult decisions in the hands of the people by holding a referendum on the topic.
Do they do so because they want to be undemocratic? Hardly. They do so because some decisions are best made by the public. I remain torn on the idea of placing legal constraints on government. No similar division exists on the subject of a ballot initiative on the subject. If a majority of the people feel such a law is good, so be it. If a majority feel it is bad, that's fine, too. 23 marzo Lafave WalksOn Wednesday, the final charges against ex-teacher Debra Lafave were dropped. The charges against her stemmed from a sexual relationship with a then 14-year old student. A relationship she admitted having. Charges in one county led to a plea bargain resulting in three years house arrest and seven years probation. The judge in the second county refused to accept a similar plea. The prosecutor refused to pursue a trial as the mother of the victim refused to allow him to testify.
There has been a lot of debate on the outcome of this case. It is understandable, as I can view this situation from several logical angles. Each leads to a different response to the results of yesterday's court hearings.
The most "wishy-washy" of these opinions takes into account the alleged mental illness of Lafave. Her doctors have diagnosed her as bipolar, which can admittedly result in hypersexuality and an inhibited sense of right and wrong. In other words, she desired increased sexual contact and that the target of those affections was a 14-year old student failed to set off internal alarms. Not being bipolar, I'm leery to pass to harsh a judgment. Being a proponent of "guilty but insane" pleas, I dislike the notion of allowing admittedly criminal behavior go unchecked. If she is bipolar and a threat to minors, she needs to be in a secure facility.
The "double standard" position holds that Lafave got a pass because she is an attractive female who took advantage of a boy. Were this a man taking advantage of a young girl, jail time would be almost completely assured. Despite all the arguments to the contrary, there is at least the appearance that a double standard does, in fact, exist. Having worked with eighth grade boys for the past seven years, the theory that the boy might have been a willing participant is plausible. But we have laws protecting young victims for just that reason. They are easily swayed and sometimes need to be protected from those who take advantage of that fact. The gender of the perpetrator and/or victim should be irrelevant to the case. Consider how we might have reacted if the perpetrator was a man with a male victim. History shows we wouldn't use the same "willing participant" argument that was used here, regardless of the sexual preference of the victim.
There is one very interesting point to the whole debate. Many who have consistently insisted that boys and girls are the same must now rethink that position. If boys and girls are the same, the same standard should be used in cases such as this. To imply that boys somehow react differently to sexual predation of this nature must inherently imply that boys and girls are wired differently. And that, at least, is a good outcome of this case. Those who have argued that there are distinct differences between the genders have gained allies with this story. I happen to be one of those. That is why it is easy to understand when people say they view things differently if the victim is a girl, instead of a boy.
One thing is certain. The debate over this case is sure to linger on. We will be forced to evaluate both our justice system and our view of gender. Because both need review. |
|
|
