Middle Class Part 29: Issues Article 2; Parties, Canadian Political Parties and a Listing of Issues

Habeas corpus: “The name given to a variety of writs having for their object to bring a party before a court or judge.” My writ promises to be in excess of three-hundred pages and has largely concerned “the restraint of liberty by due process.” In the course of my blog manifesto, two parties have been brought to judgment, something that is seldom as comprehensively done, not even at election time. Surely, more able and more adled minds than mine have been more or less equipped to do so, sometimes to less and greater success, respectively. In a land where all men were created equal, I am reminded of George Orwell’s famous Animal Farm quotation- “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” This is the mantra of the pigs in Orwell’s 1945 novella about the animal overthrow of a human owned farm (ahem, see part 28). This is for the purposes of foreshadowing- just a hint- I may bring up particular fictitious pigs in the course of this offering.

James Madison I: I have already referred to Madison’s ability to effectively consider the nature of factions and while I was not able to agree with him on everything, particularly with his Robin Hood mentality of taking from the rich what they have earned, he is too equipped with talent and truth to dismiss. In The Federalist No. 10, he wrote so many profound words it is difficult for me to summarize or choose which quotations to use to communicate my point, to justify the reason for attacking both current major political parties accountable for the nature of politics affecting the middle class. I have chosen two sets of words: “an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have in turn divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other, than to co-operate for their common good.” In addition, I might add, neither do they co-operate for the common good of people who do not favor either side. In between that quotation and the one in the next paragraph, Madison points out the differences between a democracy which he feels is inadequately represented by relatively few men and a republic (which he favors) as considering the views of a far greater number of people, spread over a more vast tract of land. In the former case he was concerned with the “cabals of a few” and in the latter “the confusion of the multitude.” He further writes about the causes, dangers and cures of factions and in one sentence uses the words “desideratum” and “opprobrium,” two words I didn’t know the meanings of until I looked them up; did I mention they appeared in the same sentence? Jeez.

James Madison II: I refer to many American politicians, political party wonks, members of the media, etc. so wrapped up in party politics- election vampires because they steal away our chance to hear issue debate, the life-blood of politics at the time when we most need it coursing through our veins- at election time. Madison wrote: “The friend of popular governments, never finds himself so much alarmed for their character and fate, as when he contemplates their propensity to this dangerous vice [the “violence of faction”]. He will not fail therefore to set a due value on any plan which, without violating the principles to which he is attached, provides a proper cure for it. The instability, injustice and confusion introduced into the public councils, have in truth been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have every where perished;” even though we have been remiss over the course of 219 years to call this form of popular government- a democracy. It is time to flush out the issues, to know the issues and to vote on issues, rather than on candidates who say what they feel needs to be said in order to be elected.

Extended party: Any prospective party beyond the democrats and republicans, an extension of those parties- (ex. third, fourth, fifth parties, etc. as distinguished from the aforementioned parties). Continually referring to additional parties using the latter method would become too cumbersome. “Extended” is also a synonym for a hardship or obligation born of necessity; in this case, the necessity would be to combat the political status quo. The caveat, as I have mentioned a few times, is that any subsequent party would ultimately become popular enough to take campaign finance money and its integrity would also be compromised. The hopeful dawning of various other parties is not unlike the inclusion of additional menu options on the placard of a patron’s favorite restaurant. It is not often that we only enjoy having two food choices when we go out to eat. Why would we enjoy only having two candidates as options for something that affects us much more than how chicken Alfredo is going to treat our digestive system? Consider the potential additional parties as dishes we might order when dining out. Rather than having just two choices, consider that we have five. While it is true that a number of people frequenting a particular restaurant already have in mind what they plan to order, others need to look at the menu to decide and the former might consult the menu to eliminate dishes they might think of ordering, to try something different. Imagine that avenue was not open to them- you now can see what a frustrating endeavor it is for an Independent to order up a politician who is not on the menu. Prices on various dishes at restaurants might go up, this is just as true of the most high-priced democrat or republican seafood item as it is about the rarely chosen meat and potatoes, those dishes with a little more substance (i.e. the Independent choice on the menu). Another untrue cliché when pontificated upon in connection with politics- “you get what you pay for.” No, no you don’t. Voters pay plenty and do not get all that much.

One thing I briefly touched on last time (the number of major political parties in Canada) will set me going on this installment.

Canada’s major parties: Perhaps it is strange to compare the number of parties from which we have to choose when electing our representatives (presidential, congressional as well as state and district reps.) to a country just north of us. We probably dismiss Canada as a country filled with royalist hicks, inconsequential mountie-lovers, unfettered by reason, who haven’t the extensive world-view knowledge that us Americans possess. However, we are further away from the veritable Canadian utopia of multiple-choice political parties than we are to the average Venezuelan coup attempt. Just kidding. Our election vampires* nearly commandeer themselves into political office considering the near political monopoly they have delivered us, preying on the mass of voters who are unable to vote outside the box. We see this in the deal brokering of each party and this year it is especially prevalent with the democrats. Do we seat the Michigan and Florida delegations at the national convention, allow them a ½ vote (guess so). Some have wondered whether Obama’s electoral vote advantage was going to be enough for him to wrest the democratic nomination from a Clinton last-minute super delegate overthrow, even though the majority of primary voters have chosen Obama.

Consider this: Congressional approval ratings have been under 25% for quite awhile and tied an all-time low in mid May of 2008. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video_log/2008/05/congressional_approval_rating.html- Key in the search “congressional approval ratings.” Traditionally, voters re-elect congress-people at the rate of 90%. Now, I am no math major but that sounds awfully like a voting public merely choosing between the lesser of two evils. Are we that afraid of the unknown? Perhaps only the continued use of community mugs at Colonial meetings was more historically detrimental to the cause of rational thought because it made everyone sick. (The sharing of mugs caused all kinds of germs to be passed from one social drinker to the next.)

Canadia: In briefly perusing what is available on the internet in terms of the nature of Canadian politics I saw the same type of political strife, partisan rebuttals, anxiety, frustration and disgust among the Canadian citizens and between their political parties as is found in our America. So, no, having four major political parties and something called Le Bloc Quebecois (a fifth) who want Quebec to be recognized as its own sovereign state, but still derive economic benefits is not going to solve the problem. The Quebecois are pretty much what a pretentious bloated woodtick must feel like when it has funneled all of the advantage of a connection into its system (i.e. blood) without assuming any obligation. In America, we call those people neo-democrats** . . . or we can still just keep calling them woodticks if it is generally understood that we are referring to democrats. In consulting the world map, it looks like if the Bloc Quebecois wanted to separate from the rest of Canada, they would have to bring Newfoundland and Labrador with them- unless they are not talking about a physical topographical split, whereby I should think they are hoping to find a continental plate (plate tectonic) that might deliver them from the torture of being lumped in with those willing to speak a language other than French. (Note: I’ve briefly perused articles written by a couple of sources, one of which was http://www.lilith-ezine.com/articles/canada/the-canadian-political-spectrum.html but any pertinent search such as “Canadian politics” could do the trick. The woman who wrote the article just referenced breaks down the platforms of the parties and I can see that the four parties pretty much encompass what we get out of our two parties. The point- there is cross-over, some blending among issues in Canadian politics- not a lot of blending but some, excepting the conservative party*** (see the Canada eZine article I reference directly above). See the Jon Stewart quote I included last time on how the combination of some of the political issues under the republican and democratic platforms in connection with each other make no sense at all. Canada’s parties seem more fluid, and I think we like a little more stability in our country. It would be great if this stability did not come at the cost of representative status quoism as sanctioned by the media and complacency on the part of the voter. The first three parties she lists in the eZine article seem to have some, but not all, goals in common. There probably will not be a perfect candidate out there for everyone in America, but a voter should not have to make a deal with one devil (i.e. an important issue identified) in order to allow another to prevail. I seem to be relying on the theme of crude blood transfusion metaphors (vampires, woodticks); I would not assume this to be accidental, as elections do have the tendency to suck the life out of those who follow them.

Winds of change: The two parties give us little choice on election day. My belief is that they run rather unopposed for the political offices of their choice. The two major parties are so at odds with each other, just as any two people who have come to so resemble each other; we come to despise most aspects of another whom we detest because they so remind us of our own faults. For our government having turned out as it has we could blame: 1) James Madison (for he was the surrogate father of the Constitution);**** 2) the voter because we too often relent, like a penguin that is treated first as a food source and then as a proposed sexual conquest of an elephant seal (without the formal consent of the penguin- see part 28; I could continue with this analogy but I will move on); 3) the politician for continually skating through elections without addressing the urgent needs of the voter. True, the voter puts signs in their yard and thinks only inside the box when it comes to deciding which virtual leader we shall embrace. We do not force politicians to debate on the issues and we become rather distracted by the sideshows that spring up like the weeds that keep us from enjoying our lawn. The republican candidates never even mentioned the probable insolvency of social security when they debated in Florida, a state that’s per capita total of citizens who wear belts just under their armpits (i.e. where retirees go to die while collecting social security) is the largest in the nation. Candidates speak when their guard is down and their associates (Bill Clinton or Reverend Wright) speak when their dander is up, saying things which echo for far too many news cycles. Politics is a circus and I think that the politicians enjoy the media driven virtual scandal sideshows.***** (Looking for examples? Hillary Clinton’s Bosnia sniper fire comments, McCain’s comment about staying in Iraq for 100 more years if necessary and Obama’s comment about his uncle having liberated the Auschwitz concentration camp.******) Don’t forget about the John Kerry swift boat distraction, or Kerry’s flip-flop controversies of 2004; Bush Sr.’s “read my lips” comment in 1988 was a media distraction and on and on. We are far too easily distracted from the issues by those types of media-driven non-issues. The two parties suppose that they have each side of the major issues covered within their platform, underneath their protective umbrella, but umbrellas are harshly treated by the wind; I will attempt to provide the wind. Keep the windbag comments to yourself . . . or not.

Political weather: Politicians should be less respected than weathermen. I feel as if the weather, for purposes of fact, ought to be given just one minute of time on our local news. They should only be allowed to tell us what the weather was for that day, and provide a quick glimpse into the next day’s weather because they do not know anything else. Politicians know even less. They will not agree on what type of political weather we just had if you consider asking one of the republican or democratic forecaster/historians. An exchange between both parties relative to the likelihood Tim Pawlenty would make a good republican vice-presidential candidate considering his supposed recent treatment of the needs of Minnesota provides just one such example. See Lori Sturdevant’s “Still in a Minnesota State of Mind?” Minneapolis Star Tribune, May 25, 2008 (Opinion Exchange section) where a democrat rails on Pawlenty’s contributions while a republican defends him. Just a warning- not a ton of objectivity from either side. The democrat begins just about every comment with the word "but." Candidates do not want to comment much on the topic of the insolvency of social security or the just as probably insolvent pensions for public workers. Check the Washington Post story: “Growing Deficits [which] Threaten Pensions” (see- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24449812/, May 11, 2008) because politicians do not want to talk about a real plan to deliver the pension money a teacher or policeman has earned, but which they might lose, “ ‘Because the fuse on this time bomb is long, politicians flinch from inflicting tax pain, given that problems will only become apparent long after these officials have departed’ ” wrote billionaire investor Warren E. Buffett. Of course, why tell us the truth about the storm that not too many people see coming. Waiting in hope that the problem will go away is something a man does when he hopes his wife will stop nagging him about household chores, not what a politician should do when a tornado of an issue might touch down on the expectations of those who have earned their reward from toil.

Blame game and Tommy Boy: For those thinking we could blame the media for building up and tearing down candidates in the name of ratings. Or for those desiring to blame Congress for giving us the rather ineffectual Federal Elections Commission for being the equivalent of a 21st Century monarchy and Tommy Boy combined- well, I just don’t think that pig is gonna fly; the FEC, or a regulatory body like it, has never really been empowered to check the malignancy of elections and are merely figureheads of campaign finance justice. Oh, the Tommy Boy component of the FEC. As of January 2008, during the heart of perhaps the most hotly contested race for the presidency in forty years, and considering the collective prospective nominees will have spent, by the time the election is over, more than $1 billion campaigning- it makes complete sense that the Commission has seated just 2 of the 6 positions because of partisan bickering on the part of the senate who vote on a potential member’s appointment to the Commission. The plot of Tommy Boy was less predictable; the American voters are going to need to be sold (Tommy Boy was a salesman) on an improved FEC methodology, for the Commission cannot be made up of any more than three members of either political party- who I am sure are all completely benign in their decisions. Just like we need an ethics committee to protect the country from corrupt politicians once they are in office (see next paragraph), we need an empowered agency to be much more than a glorified accountant. Empower an election regulatory body, comprised of Libertarians or Independents or Undecideds, you know, impartial citizen-judges to help police all types of election-time nightmares to protect us from the set of people all vying for the honor of being the next collection of representatives to fiscally disappoint us at the highest levels of government . . .

For example: Alaska representative Don Young claiming “he did nothing wrong when he secretly changed a 2005 highway act, after it had been passed, to redirect $10 million to a new transportation project favored by one of his wealthy donors!” A footnote from the Common Cause e-newsletter I quoted from goes on to state that the “$10 million earmark directly benefited real estate developer Daniel Aronoff, who helped raise $40,000 for Rep. Young . . . only days before Congress considered the highway act. Aronoff needed the money to build a new highway interchange that the local zoning commission had twice refused to fund because the road would destroy local wetlands.” For a more detailed account of the story see- http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/fbi/young/story/9447181p-9358502c.html “Earmarks, favors: Young used position for funds and his donors' projects,” by Greg Gordon and Erika Bolstad of the Anchorage Daily News, November 11, 2007. I wonder if the two member FEC is looking into an issue that deals with the unauthorized redistribution of American tax dollars in exchange for campaign finance money. Rep. Young reminds me of the sea otter in captivity that consumes its allotment of shellfish as quickly as possible so that it can steal from its mates.

Hoover sucked: I am not advocating voting for a Herbert Hoover of a third party candidate just for the sake of thumbing our nose at the establishment, especially if it is KNOWN that an extended party politician is of the ineffectual variety, like Hoover. Keep in mind- Hoover was elected in part, because voters disapproved of the Roman catholicism of Al Smith (courtesy of Wikipedia). That is not quite as great a reason as voting for someone because they might breathe knew life into old issues and not the kind of breath that further sets the nation on fire but that might minimize the combustible nature of the issues by providing more workable solutions. Politicians should be restricted to making the wrong decisions for the voting public only after they have unavoidably been elected to office (see the paragraph immediately above). We should want to empower a committee with some teeth to pour over not only the financial component of political elections but to hold politicians accountable for the nature of issue debate, or lack of it, for attack ads where only half-truths are disseminated, etc. This political regulatory body would conduct a veritable autopsy on the candidates, not only on their means but on their ways as well. The cumulative aroma of formaldehyde does not so offend us until after we have been dissecting the frog for an hour in seventh grade science class, even if it is a sumo-sized frog training to be the aggressor against man (see part 28). There is an analogy in there somewhere- work for it.

The Independent Bangladesh: I always consider the life of a Bangladeshi (it is the new- what would jesus do virtual touchstone) before strongly putting forth opinions of a political nature- or not. This column refers to a proposed boycott of Bangladesh’s two major parties from the next general election. No comment . . . but you know what I'm thinking. See- http://www.independent-bangladesh.com/200805095165/country/without-two-major-parties-elections-can-still-be-fair-eu.html, May 9, 2008, “Without Two Major Parties Elections Can Still Be Fair,” BDNews24.com. This quotation amuses me- “ ‘The EU [European Union] is convinced that elections in 2008 are essential for securing a sustainable democracy in Bangladesh and securing progress towards the goal of achieving the status of a middle income country.’ ” Sir, when you achieve the goal of a sustainable democracy you let us know. Did I read that right- "achieving the status of a middle income country"? Just checking. Is Bangladesh a place where middle income people can go to die or at best, continue to become irrelevant- or should they stay in America and suffer the tragic fate of a typical old money family out of a William Faulkner novel?

Get Carter . . . to debate: Too often candidates who may become serious contenders are frozen out of the election process because of arbitrary rules or because one of the two major party candidates refuses to acknowledge or debate a third party candidate. I already mentioned that Ron Paul was frozen out of a republican primary debate (see part 17). In 1980- former president Carter “refused to participate in a debate with [John] Anderson, because he deemed Anderson a ‘creation of the media,’ and so Reagan and Anderson debated alone.” (see- http://www.geocities.com/dave_enrich/ctd/3p.anderson.html?200819.) Mr. Carter- if the media never covered you, because they thought that you might be a foreign policy nightmare of a president, who seemed to nervously speak like a high-pitched, dim-witted Georgian seraphim whom they imagined sat on his front porch in a rocking chair all day sipping homemade lemonade, imagine where you would not have been- you would not have been allowed to be president. I visited your presidential library once- prior to my learning how much of a roadblock you were to free elections. I wrote in part 17, and it bears repeating, that Ron Paul a populist conservative was caught in a media and politically devised catch-22: the media doesn't cover him because he hasn't polled very well and he hasn't polled very well because the media won't cover him. We need a governing body, with voting representatives who determine who should and should not be allowed into the debates, at whatever level- for president or state district house member and the RNC and DNC are not those to which we should turn for an objective decision in that matter. The League of Women Voters and the Federal Elections Committee were two such entities that allowed Anderson into the one 1980 debate, but then “Anderson’s poll numbers dropped, and the LWV excluded him from further debates, which were closer to the November election.” (see geocities- from above) The decision on who to include in the debate should not be left to either political party because they make decisions like the BCS geniuses who still can’t get us a playoff system in college football- (see Survivor- Hubris Fantasy Island, Episode IV, the conclusion).

The great debate: The source I quote from above also mentions that “the debate issue took on additional importance, because Anderson was the first credible third party candidate in an election with televised presidential debates . . . [and that] only one third party candidate, Ross Perot in 1992, has participated in presidential debates since.” Now, as a rule, people can keep voting for a democrat or a republican if it so suits them and continue to resist a change that might be good for them and their children, but extended party candidates should be heard. “Where does it stop” says someone from one of the two major parties who stands to lose (they contend) by allowing in additional debate participants, or perhaps because they would like to guard against the election process being made a mockery of. My friends, it is too late to object on those grounds- America hasn't taken politics all that seriously since Nixon left office. Limit the participants vying for office in local, statewide or national contests to 6 or 8 entrants, enough to reduce the likelihood that a viable voice would be silenced by not allowing him or her to be heard, which would reduce the impropriety of the monopoly of the two major parties. Ask the people which 6-8 candidates they would like to hear from and then lengthen the time they have to debate. An extra 60-90 minutes wouldn’t kill anyone. On many radio programs I listened to when the nomination for both parties was at stake, I heard callers asking to hear more about Ron Paul and in every instance the ego-agenda of the host took over and dismissed Paul as someone that cannot win. I do not need the help of any talk-show host in determining which candidates are most worth listening to. The OMI (Opinion Mass Index) of the average talk-show host precludes my being interested in their bloviating and I feel I am better equipped than they, given their ego-agenda of damning the whole of Americans to the host’s partisan ways, to filter through the candidates. I prefer the screed form of my own bloviating. As many people as possible should economically and socially prevail after the election process is over. We cannot continue to attend to the inexcusable clamor of our current American media hegemony and find this urgent need realized. In short, I can do my own political BS vetting- let sound voices be heard and I’ll decide. I am not equating Paul, or any future populist, to a political jesus christ, but maybe he is more like an apostle Paul out there somewhere, or a panda that has some decent English as a second language (ESL) skills and looks good on camera- like Arnold Schwarzenegger. (That was a joke at Arnie's expense- I am not backing him politically.)

A voting conundrum: Here is a confounding conundrum consisting of three completely contradictory arguments put forth by those who are certain that either a democrat or a republican is the person for the elected office up for grabs- 1) the voting intelligentsia find it unconscionable to refrain from voting at all, for any reason. People have fought and died for citizens to have the right to vote- the battle cry used back in the 1770s was “no taxation without representation,” a battle cry that millions could still use today if they so chose. While I understand the sentiment, I can excuse those who are too lazy or too ill-informed to vote. If you don’t know the issues then you shouldn’t cancel out someone else’s well-informed vote. I didn’t vote until the MN gubernatorial race in 1998, ten years after I was of legal age. Ok, so according to the voting Nazis, not voting is not allowed. 2) Further, voting for an Independent, or third party candidate is considered a wasted vote by the voting Gestapo because a politician who is not a member of the two parties does not have a chance to win. That one only works for me if I were deciding which form of death I was forced to choose. Yep, my guy can’t win, so I lose- I choose being smothered in the love of a geisha manatee. When millions decide to cast a protest vote, it can influence an election. I mentioned this before but Bush Sr. lost in 1992 and Gore lost in 2000, because in both cases enough people decided not to vote for either party. So, those protest votes made a difference . . . course, in the case of Gore, having a 4-5 liberal minority in the Supreme Court didn’t help. 3) Lastly- so I decide to vote for either a democrat or a republican, because as I just wrote- I cannot refrain from voting and I cannot waste my vote. So, the candidate I vote for wins the election and is sworn in to achieve at least some of the aims, of which I approved, that he or she promised to pursue. But because they are a pathological liar, are ineffectual in terms of building support amongst their own or the other party, or promised the NRA that they would vote against the ban on assault rifles (i.e. because they are in bed with any number of special interest groups/lobbyists who gave them millions in campaign finance money), they are not capable or allowed to effect change. So, the constituents of the losing side in that election simply deride those who elected the winner. So, excuse me for upsetting the apple cart in the name of real change. The path of least resistance is a dangerous one and the economic well-being of an entire class of people hangs in the balance, not the balance between how many democrats and republicans are seated in congress, but how many other voices can be heard from on the political stage.

Summation and blindness: Not voting and voting for someone many feel does not have a chance to win are unacceptable alternatives to voting for someone whom you will later be blamed for assisting into office. You had no knowledge beforehand, as you are not the blind Grecian prophet Tiresias, that the candidate who received your vote by default would have sex with an intern, be involved in Unconstitutional wiretapping, claim to have seen monkeys flying a UFO, or claimed to have been a production assistant in the 1973 cartoon version of Charlotte’s Web (a movie about a pig, a rat and a spider).******* Makes sense to me. Next you will tell me that a select group of house fly ninjas are training in the country of Bhuton, which is shaped like the eye socket of a rock creature from a fantasy movie, to assassinate members of the termite parliament coalition who have deemed their defection to Vietnam a viable way to lengthen their lives.

Past history: People extending an argument such as mine, that voting for a third party candidate has upset the outcome of an election, often focus on the impact of recent elections and restrict the affect a protest vote might have on Mssrs. Perot and Nader. But they forget that of the 44 elections held after 1832, 29 of them included a third party. While many have ended in utter failure for the party considered the third party at the time there have been other interesting developments. In 1844, James G. Birney of the anti-slavery Liberty Party (clearly the third party to the democrats and whigs at the time) gathered 3.25%, (or 16,000) of the New York vote. The eventual winner, James K. Polk won the electoral vote 170-105 over the whig candidate Henry Clay, but bested him by just 5,000 votes in New York. “If Birney had not run, the majority of his votes would have gone to the Whigs rather than the pro-slavery Democrats, but whether or not Clay would have netted five thousand more votes is unknown.” The state of New York was then worth 36 electoral votes; if Polk loses 36 and Clay then wins the 36, the result of the election is quite different. (Note I: run the search “third parties in past presidential elections” and take a look at the Wikipedia result. Note II: if there had been no history of the existence of a third party up until the present time, that would not be proof that a vast number of voters these days are not entitled to more than two choices come election time.) The past can provide us with apocryphal information or can signal the will of the people by giving us hints of desired change. That is enough- because proof is not always to be found and when it is, it can come too late. It is wise and entertaining to consider many things- wise = clipping your nails before gardening; entertaining = considering the chances that a pig could be a champion sheep-herder to the initial disgust of a border collie. Forgive me- I just watched the movie Babe. Pigs . . . sheep . . . is this guy still writing about politics? Yep. Sometimes a guy can do research while distracting his children. (Hint- politicians = pig, sheep = voter, herding = convincing sheep to vote for a pig.)

Cliché 1: The saying goes- “You can fool some of the people all of the time and fool all of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time”- unless they are republicans or democrats in love with their own state of being an unqualified lemming. Now, in the famous cliché above, replace the word “fool” with “please”. Such is the nature of politics. I am not attempting to justify an approach that would please all of the people all of the time- this is impossible; just as impossible- pleasing them as infrequently as politicians currently do now. The mole that may tear up the rock garden in my back yard this summer if it finds enough grub worms to pacify its appetite displeases me no less than most politicians.

Cliché 2: The most applicable and most easily understood cliché of all time is- ‘everything in moderation.’ This is just as true in politics as it is in ordering fast food. Many people have sought to balance the large fries and Big Mac they order by drinking Diet Coke (good luck with that); we ought also seek a little more balance in our political lives. By this, I do not mean to vote for half of the republicans and half of the democrats on the ballot. Rather, find the balance on each issue, if neither side has the copyright on the truth they are attempting to sell, according to you- then don’t buy it. Don’t take the road on the left or the right, even if they seem the most worn, they are only worn because so many sheep have been led down them, perhaps they had too often been led by pigs.

Issues 1: Consider the list of issues below. It isn’t a complete list and I may not have accurately depicted where the two major parties stand on all of them. Certainly, particular politicians may be a republican and be pro-choice and certain democrats may be for the war in Iraq and may have always been. Finding out how one politician feels on an issue can be difficult because many of the issues have more than two sides to them, which again would be why having more options at election time would not overwhelm any American with an IQ above that of a fifth grade mosquito. The abortion issue is a suitable example of this- what about partial birth abortions, cases of rape, incest, economically unsuitable parentage, etc. The smoking ban is another example- to allow or not to allow smoking in bars, restaurants and public places is not the only option. Should theater nights be allowed in bars and restaurants? Should smoked pork be served (i.e. pigs with emphysema- which is a medical malady and not a combination of the words “emphasis” and “Zima” used to describe the important desire someone might have of consuming a strangely popular girlie drink of the early 90s.) The two examples above, prior to the lame Zima joke, may seem harmless to some and be considered mere social issues which wouldn’t seem to affect any economic class on the surface. But consider how a woman who produces three children in an economically disadvantageous situation creates a strain on all other taxpayers who may have to incur the cost of being socially, and thus economically, responsible for her children who are born into a broken home, should her religion keep her from condescending to use birth control. The smoking ban affects bar owners and employees whose economic well-being depends on paying customers more likely to eat out if they can pollute their own, and other’s, lungs with toxic carcinogens. Often, the best approach on any issue is to choose the better option between the ridiculously partisan choices desired by both major parties. The mind of the modern voter is more dynamic than that. And I wonder that we shouldn’t vote for issues via a referendum than for candidates to begin with. I’ll get into that down the road. In the meantime . . .

Issues 2: FYI- head to http://www.ontheissues.org/republican_party.htm (and substitute democrat for republican in the preceding URL) for more information on the widely considered issues at hand or should you have opposable thumbs, unlike a pig, there are informative lists about issues all over the internet. I have highlighted the side of the issue I favor and when I find that neither side has provided an acceptable viewpoint, I have highlighted the issue. People are always going to disagree not only on what the issues are, but will also consider the relative importance of one issue as compared to the others. The three issues at the top I had previously identified as the most important. If the top three were resolved, it would go a long way in fixing the inherent problems of the cluster of 11 (from education to litigious society) which immediately follow. There is not much separation in importance between the top three and the next eleven, but there is some- in my opinion. Almost all of the issues are at least to some degree connected. Free trade cannot be discussed without job outsourcing and global warming cannot be investigated without the detail of carbon credits, peak oil and polar bear extinction; connecting free trade with polar bears is probably more difficult, considering how pissed polar bears have been lately about the melting of the polar ice caps. Without further ado, for there has been enough ado already, here are the issues:

Key: D= democrat, R= republican. I had wanted to do a column intensive listing but will have to settle for a paragraph style delivery due to formatting and unavailable presentation limitations in this electronic format or because I am just not bright enough to figure it out.

Campaign finance reform: D=ok with excess; R= Unconstitutional
Immigration: D=here, have our country; R=no amnesty, build that wall
Taxation: D=tax the rich and middle class; R=tax the poor and middle class

(Note- $1 billion collectively will have been spent by the candidates running for president in 2008; 1.1 million illegal immigrants cross our border each year; if the Bush tax cuts, which never helped the middle class as much as they helped the rich, aren’t extended in 2011 we’ll have an even bigger problem being able to afford education, health care, gas, saving for retirement, and purchasing necessary cost items- etc.)

Education: D=favor govt control; R=controlled by the state govt
Health Care: D=favor government control; R=leave to the industry of medicine
Society/Amer. Culture: D=let it go to hell; R=protect it
Civil liberties/Rights: D=only for non naturalized citizens; R=protect those here legally
Corporations: D=anti tax shelter; R=pro tax shelter
Oil supply: D=probably in bed with big oil; R=definitely in bed with big oil
Free Trade: D=more regulatory; R=carte blanche
Medicare/social aid: D=as much as we can give to poor; R=forsake the poor, favor the rich
Military: D=reduce the military budget; R=increase the military budget
Gun control/street violence: D=anti-gun; R=pro gun
Litigious society: D=allow it; R=allow it

Judicial Appointments: D=Interpret the law (criminals walk); R=enforce the law (criminals pay)
Judicial Elections: D and R: why not? we finance politicians for their vote, why not finance judges for their verdict
Social Security: D=must have it; R=privatize it

Strong Federal Govt. v. State's Rights: D=strong federal; R=pro state’s rights
Crime/capital punishment: D=go easy on ‘em; R=pro capital punishment
Global warming: D=very real probability; R=not a chance
Environment: D=tree-huggers; R=tree-cutters

Mortgage crisis: D=help them all out; R=the buyers made their own bed
Energy (heating oil, electric) D=promote renewable energy; R=scoff at renewable energy
(renewable, solar and air, etc.):
Foreign policy/Terrorism: D=more laissez faire; R=go get ‘em
Religion: D=more secular; R=in god we trust

Federal reserve: D=inconclusive; R=what ya’ gonna do? (I don't know what the hell to think about the Federal Reserve.)
Church and state: D=separate but . . .; R=joined at the hip (Pledge of allegiance in school- hell yeah, president acting as if his every desire has been mandated by god- no good.)
Drugs: D=fewer regulations; R=strict controls (Legalize medicinal marijuana)
Jobs-outsourcing: D=various and sundry; R=various and sundry
National ID/Real ID: D=not in favor-illegals should vote; R=violation of individual liberty
Smoking ban: D=can’t stand the smoke; R=individual liberty violation
Abortion: D=pro-choice; R=pro-life
Same sex marriage: D=legalize; R=dismiss

I have about twenty others in mind but have decided to reveal those in a later installment.

Oink: If there were extended parties to choose from on election day, whose candidates have natural inclinations which cause them to seek solutions to issues that fall somewhere between the polarizing options indicated above, which better represented the complex desires of the voting public, we would be better off. I do not imagine a utopian community where those who are mortal enemies now would hug each other on the street, but a better country is in the offing with an improved political climate that allows an extension of political ideals, not a smothering of them. Perhaps that sentiment is an echo of Hamilton who wrote more succinctly in The Federalist No. 1- “we are not always sure, that those who advocate the truth are influenced by purer principles than their antagonist.” We have been at issue debate so long in this country that I would not still contend that the truth of an issue is really what we are still debating. We are debating about which side is more right. Problem is, we all lose if we wholly embrace either party. Continuing to vote for one candidate over the other because he or she supports the somewhat randomly collected agendas listed above, and being proud of it, is downright (and not virtually) pig-headed.


* I am not accidentally comparing the nature of our election process to that of a country where a general stages a coup attempt and am only being a bit fecicous. I could include a number of historical instances, that we know about, that would make our election process not seem as democratic and pristine as both major parties pretend- one example three words- Kennedy . . . 1960 . . . Chicago. So when I compare that to something like this maybe I am not too far off: “Chaos Looms as Thailand's Prime Minister Sweeps Vote Unopposed,” to find out more about election vampires such as Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra who was called upon to quit over corruption allegations. Words like these are included in the article- “authoritarian style” “urban rage” “retains loyalty among impoverished rural voters,” “boycotted ‘pseudo-election’ ” “tyrant” “cronies” and “undermined democratic checks and balances.” Wow, sounds like they are referring to Alexander Hamilton (excepting the rural voter part), or dozens of the politicians whose reelection would be contingent on their being able to complete a word jumble and given the hint that the above words were associated with either their initial election or how they have conducted business since. Let your super-ego complete the word jumble. The article was written by Jan McGirk in Bangkok, April 3, 2006. (See- http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/chaos-looms-as-thailands-prime-minister-sweeps-vote-unopposed-472547.html.)

** Though I have never heard this term, we ought to bring about its use to differentiate old-school democrats from the new version. A neo-democrat would be someone who gains by another’s toil and is not shamed by it. Too many people feel entitled to social aid, to Welfare, to unemployment compensation, to abusing taxpayer contributions in order to assuage their grief over misfortune that’s statute of limitations should have been long gone. Playing the victim is the game of the neo-democrat. Yes, “the meek shall inherit the earth” by whining until someone puts a rich man’s earnings in a poor man’s hands.

*** I think it humorous that the woman who wrote the article writes that only 25% of Canadians would fall under the Canadian version of the conservative party. If you read the broad platform goals of this party, otherwise known as “ ‘The ConservaNAZI Party’ because of their right-wing values [which are according to her] borderline racist and discriminatory.” Guess they have many of the same problems we have concerning political parties. Thing is- a lot of what is listed as goals of the Canadian Conservative party is pretty much what our republican/conservative party has on their wish list.

**** I refer to Madison as the “surrogate” father of the Constitution to be both a contrarian- because everyone calls him the “Father of the Constitution” and because I cannot believe that a man who wrote so thoroughly in his near 30 contributions to the Federalist Papers series could have left so much out of the
Constitution, which is expected to be a living, breathing guide to the country’s citizens and the citizen’s representatives, but because what he included reminds me of Hamilton. I would explain, but again that may be outside of the overall topic at hand; hey, something has to be.

***** I could put virtual in front of all kinds of things- I am writing about politics- virtual hope and virtual change are the name of the game.

****** The man said it was his uncle that helped liberate Auschwitz. In actuality, the Russians did that, without the assistance of Obama’s great uncle at Buchenwald. Running for president Sir, try not to make this stuff up as you go along. At this rate, we may as well have Tommy Flanagan file as an Independent in 2012- Flanagan: I was in the military . . . yeah . . . I was the military . . . I am the one who liberated Japan from Godzilla, the bad Godzilla- that’s the ticket; I was allies . . . with Mothra- yeah.

******* There is an analogy to politics in there somewhere.

Middle Class Part 28: Issues Article 1; Political Casserole (Political Issues and Parties)

Political casserole: I have not carried on about future middle class economic woes because it is what people want to hear- (which is the conservative contention the second anyone mentions anything bad about the economy). No sense in not telling the crew the ship is sinking. I don't think the American ship is sinking, at least not yet. However, I will not simply tell people what they want to hear. The last time I actually did so was when I was 12 and told my mom that I liked this casserole that I didn’t like in order to spare her feelings. I then think she made that same hot dish once each month for the next two. The fact that the casserole offended senses I didn’t even know I had was a clue that telling even innocent lies is a counter-productive approach to inter-personal relations. She was not the party responsible, as she did not over or under cook the meal. I am not a fan of onions and peas, so chances are pretty good I won’t like a concoction that attempts to mask the consistency, appearance, or flavor of either, even if chocolate, peanut butter and caramel are the only other ingredients. Politics is like casserole- many throw in what they believe are good ingredients for a recipe we concoct in our head and expect others to swallow it. If you are a die-hard republican or a die-hard democrat and serve me up ALL of what you've been eating, I will spit it back in your face. Some casseroles, like plenty of issues, are spicy, some are beefy, some are energizing which feature an ingredient like elbow macaroni and some are downright onionous, in that they are many-layered, like a typical casserole, and plenty nasty if you don’t happen to like onions/the compromise your party relents to after changing the recipe. Am I still talking about onions?

That’s offensive: People loathe being offended and seek an apology when they have been; some seek to be offended. In order for things to change politically, in order for any issue to be resolved, I may be wholly necessary that the first thing to do is to offend the hell out of people who blindly worship at the altar of either of the political parties, which isn’t a violation of the categorical imperative or J.S. Mill’s contention about individual freedom if you restrict your efforts to shaming the ignorant into submission. Massaging their ego and giving them an aural participation trophy, granting them the right to their own opinion, which debilitates progress on the issues, has been tried- in youth sports in the last two decades, and where politics is generally concerned. Then, who should rule? Get back to me on that after I finish apologizing to people who have rarely held jobs, watch the Library Access channel, have rarely driven a vehicle outside of their own county and know no more about the real world than that Kendra chick on “Girls Next Door.” Self- I am sorry.

Anarchy- It has begun!: All over the world there is an inter-species war at hand and the animals are losing. I have been sneaking in comments here and there, disavowing my aggression towards certain animals in each of my columns, often mocking animals and assigning many a medical malady, hopefully for comic effect. Seems I have started a war between people and animals that could have disastrous results. Joseph Pullitzer and William Randolph Hearst would be so proud. Serves the animals right for stepping out of line, or deigning to finish second at the Kentucky Derby, for the runner-up in that race- Eight Belles was euthanized on the track for being the first loser. Kidding, the horse was actually put down for agreeing with the Budweiser frogs about something I am not at liberty to discuss, given the treaty we people signed with the cold-blooded reptile contingent of the Animal party. Word is the horse was put down for breaking its own leg (riiiight!) and boy were the insurrectionists against the human cause known as PETA upset about that. PETA is choosing to focus on the whippings horses receive in races and ought to put their full powers into protesting the animal v. human war crime of stud-farmers who take hundreds of thousands for inbreeding thoroughbreds for speed, which sacrifices strength. Consider these animal v. human encounters- shark attacks, man throwing cat against wall, coyotes clamping onto an infant’s skull and attempting to drag it into the woods so that we fight back; also consider these stories:

Ar, Ar, Ar: Sea lions were shot dead because our allies, apparently the salmon, were being eaten in mass quantities- Associated Press, May 5, 2008- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24457199/ “Sea Lions Found Shot Dead on Columbia River.”

Big ones: Take a look at this collection of pictures courtesy of Newsweek- http://www.newsweek.com/id/42379&GT1=43002. They show a number of animals- a cat, fish, rabbit, roach, squid and hog, etc. beefing up for what must be a planned animal offensive against us. Luckily, they were all detained for questioning and while we had them in our sights, we let them go . . . just like with Osama Bin Laden. Hopefully these animals will never get as organized as the smiley-faced killer. My neighbor tried to tell me that there was some newly formed animal sumo-wrestling league. I almost bought it until he told me there was an aquatic division. Then I did buy it after a heavyweight, a seal, tried to “mess” with a penguin . . .

“Seal Tries Sex with Penguin: First Known Example of Sex Attempt Between Mammal, Other Vertebrate.” (See- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24585481/ a Live Science article written by none other than Charles Q. Choi). Choi writes: “The hapless bird of unknown sex struggled, rapidly flapping its flippers and attempting to stand and flee, without luck.” Now I know how I would feel if Queen Latifah tried to have sex with me. The story indicates that the perpetrator- er, seal, is an elephant seal. Well, Choi writes that “this seems to be the first known example of a sexual escapade between a mammal and another kind of vertebrate” (excepting all of the farmers who have taken a run at sheep). If that is to be believed then how was such a creature as an elephant seal derived? Did it merely hyphenate its name like some hybrid-driving, granola-eating elementary school teacher, who had grown over-fond of her maiden name? Perhaps seals have, in the past, attempted to sexually abuse elephants, to mixed results in the procreation area. When asked for a comment, the seal who apparently had grown tired of the unrequited love of a dolphin, said that the penguin had led him on. The penguin, which refused an on camera interview, simply held up its flippers in a way that led observers to believe he was critiquing the size of the seal’s penis. Either that, or the last march of that penguin, after it was violated, will lead it first to the flightless bird emergency room, necessitating the use of a rape kit- (I sure hope the penguin is not an illegal penguin- see parts 22-27). Or maybe the penguin, who just wanted to put the event behind him, was referring to the size of the krill it had most recently consumed. This story gives a new meaning to the phrase- “flipping the bird.” The rationale for the encounter from a scientific perspective is that the seal originally intended to eat the penguin, but seeing as it was the end of mating season, perhaps the sexually frustrated seal “channeled into its sex drive.” Thankfully, penguins were not made available to me during my pre-connubial lean times. A penguin’s waddle is very, very sexy. How I could go on . . .

I love a good stop sign: The mayor of Oak Lawn, Illinois, who had a hand in allowing cute phrases to follow the word “STOP” on the signs of his fair city, apparently has the IQ of a bovine, which is actually an insult to bovine everywhere. We humans know that cows are the Switzerland of the geo-political animal war; everyone loves a good bovine pacifist- especially tucked carefully between a whole wheat bun, doused with ketchup and served with fries. At any rate, Oak Lawn’s fine mayor decided that removing the distracting stop sign addenda, such as- STOP- “and smell the roses” was a good idea because the “signs violated the federal Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices” . . . and that “the city could have lost federally funded projects.” The acronym for Illinois’ Department of Transportation- IDOT . . . the well-placed addition of the third vowel in that acronym would punctuate the story well. The Associated Press article- “No More ‘Love’ in Stop Signs, State Says,” http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24425735/ tells the whole story. Ok, that story wasn’t so much about animals per say, but rumor has it that there was a deer crossing sign not a quarter mile from at least one of the enhanced stop signs. Usually the most guilty are those that have the most to gain.

Joe Camel: Finally, “Man Arrested for Allegedly Punching Camel.” Naturally, the man did so, having been dared by a friend at Six Flags Discovery Kingdom. No word yet on whether it was a double dare or if this was some form of animal assault roulette where the next step would have been the darer upping the ante by agreeing to flick a duck on the beak. Perhaps it was a bacterian camel . . . a gut bacterian camel.* Charles Q. Choi has been assigned to follow the story- (see part 27). Follow the complete story- just Google- camels and pugilism. Maybe the guy just didn’t like the fact that a cigarette company’s mascot could put so many lives in danger simply by being cool. These animals are subtle, sneaky creatures. See- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24474349/.

Ok, on with the show . . .

Introduction to issues 101: Political issues are the food of the attentive masses. Never has so much time been wasted in discussion as when politics is the subject, often enough by people who do not know what the hell they are talking about. Hell, I've spent 28 posts proving I don't know anything about politics. Issues such as campaign finance reform, immigration, taxation, free trade, military spending, education and social aid programs (social security, Welfare, Medicare), etc. are what feed my anxiety about the potential future middle class economic woes. All is well in our country according to the republicans, excepting that the democrats keep stealing all their money; all is lost in our country according to the democrats, excepting that the republicans make too much money. Neither statement is true. But I think it is important for each party to vehemently continue to be frustrated with the other so that none of the issues I will list next time will ever be resolved, for them to continue to offer platitudes, to lie to the voters, and to intellectualize the issues without resolving any of them. This was more comically expressed in Jon Stewart’s book- “America”:

“The Republican Party is the party of nostalgia. It seeks to return America to a simpler, more innocent and moral past that never actually existed. The Democrats are utopians. They seek to create an America so fair and non-judgmental that life becomes an unbearable series of apologies. Together, the two parties function like giant down comforters, allowing the candidates to disappear into the enveloping softness, protecting them from exposure to the harsh weather of independent thought.” (pg. 107)

The “harsh weather of [I]ndependent thought.” Quite right.

Through the Mill: Another John put essentially the same sentiment more succinctly, though without mentioning our two major political parties- “In all intellectual debates, both sides tend to be correct in what they affirm, and wrong in what they deny.” This man’s name was John Stuart Mill. Hm. While I agree, and do not believe that I argue from a position of absolute knowledge, I would like to Photoshop a volume knob and on/off switch on people who blindly follow the mandate of either of the two major political parties, after playing back to them their own opinions of course. I wouldn’t want to censor anyone. Thing is, those critical of people like me, who are in earnest in their demand for political party alternatives probably think that MapQuest is the only place to go for directions.

Milton Friedman: Plenty of citizens, politicians and economic specialists have been aligned more closely with one political party, only to switch allegiances at one point in their lives, once they have expanded upon their knowledge base and can better stand new, unrecognizable BS of the other party rather than the old familiar BS toward which they were initially drawn. A serial-dating crab takes the same approach- divesting itself of the old shell for the new one, sometimes hoping to avoid romantic entanglements with a lobster that became overly attached after just one fling; a crab’s instinctive nature is distinguished from a human’s reactionary political stances in that the crab has actually grown, which necessitated the exchange of shells. Politics, after all, is a shell game. The late Milton Friedman was an individual who changed sides, having stood with F.D.R. during the New Deal era, but who later became more conservative. He falls under the economic specialist category I mention above. Now, I don’t know enough about economics to dismiss even half of what he wrote and would defer to him on many economic matters. The first thing I would have corrected him on is the title of his most well-known book- “Capitalism and Freedom.” If his intention was to demonstrate in what ways capitalism might lead to freedom, in that our government would become more decentralized and with that, the people would enjoy more liberty- I would beg to differ. By “freedom,” having read the book- Friedman means democracy- that those who enjoy the reality of capitalism will in turn find that America’s brand of democracy could work pretty well- if every single entitlement program were wiped from the minds of liberals and that there would be virtually no regulation of free-trade. My contention is that we are not now, nor have we ever really lived under a democratic government- and I wrote as much in part 22. I wrote that capitalism is working fairly well; capitalism wouldn’t be working so well for the rich if democracy weren’t working so poorly for the indigent. Our brand of democracy clearly does not deserve the name- unless we change the definition. “Democracy” is a Greek word- they probably wouldn’t mind. I provided definitions for the words oligarchy and democracy and left it up to the reader to decide under which type of government business in the United States has always been conducted.

George Bush’s monopoly: Our current president would put the issue more succinctly still. The American people might hear these words coming out of the president’s mouth: “I’m a uniter, not a divider.” Our resident backward speech technicians who record the speeches of others and play them backward looking for clues into what important personages might be hiding in their spoken words, found that the president said this: “My politicians do monopolate the people.” I touched on the odds makers/politicians (see parts 12-14) running our government who, either accidentally, or with euphoric complicity, seem like a well-oiled machine of collusion, checking and balancing us to death and ensuring that we quibble amongst ourselves defending and attacking each other. What we ought to do is combine forces which would signal the ruination of the oligarchy that has been in place these 219 years (since the Constitution was fully ratified). Until we decide to do that, each party can plausibly deny that the stalemate the American people have been treated to is accidental. Course, I am being a bit fecicous. Jefferson and Madison made several inroads into the political power structure, checking the Federalists, just not enough for me to notice. More on that below.

Invisible hand: Over two-hundred years ago Adam Smith wrote a book, “The Wealth of Nations,” which was far more groundbreaking than Friedman’s. Perhaps the most quotable line from Smith’s over 900 page economic yarn is the invisible hand line which appears in a Janus-like long paragraph. I believe the most pertinent words from this paragraph are these:

“By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he [each individual laborer] intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was not part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good.”

The issue of free trade: Sometimes people might wish to employ the invisible hand to smack me across the face, given my irreverence, but many have sought to apply Smith's "invisible hand" analogy in ways that he had not intended. Its application should be restricted to thoughts on foreign trade as it equates to industry, capitalism, etc. Having learned this, dozens of people who know me are scrambling to determine if Smith ever made use of an invisible foot metaphor that’s application was more far-reaching. Wikipedia tells me that Smith’s use of the “invisible hand” metaphor is rather for the purpose of natural inclination and not a social mechanism. I can see using it to make the logical leap- seeking to apply it to the survival of the economic fittest, ala social Darwinism. My contention however will remain that though private market forces and the laws of supply and demand are always at play in the free market, the prices on necessary costs are rising far more steeply than payroll increases for the middle class- something that Smith was ill-equipped to comment on in 1776. Until corporate tax loopholes are closed and the government and corporations are held responsible for taking advantage of the dearth of free market laws and illogical free-trade practices, we will have a problem.** The natural connection to free-trade would lead us to the topics of taxation, necessary costs, prices on medicine, co-sourcing and immigration (for free-trade includes the ability of corporations to employ cheaper wage labor) to the benefit of corporations and the detriment of any class of people, including the rich (think competition for wages and lost jobs, and consider that a portion of a doctor’s MRI duties could be off-shored- Google it!). Again, prove to me that the benefit of cheaper products, given the controllable cost outlay of corporations for outsourced labor overrides the loss the same people paying for those goods are losing in their paychecks when wage and job competition is entered into the equation. Health care is up 52% the past six years, and college tuition is up 5-7% most any year and has risen each of the past 26 years (Schumer, part 18). It so happens that the publication of Smith’s “Nations” was overshadowed, at least in this country, by the slightly more important issue, that same year, of gaining our national independence from Britain. The right to trade freely without being burdened with excessive taxes was just one of the Colonist’s complaints. Colonials like John Hancock were called smugglers for circumventing British tax laws without their being represented in the home country. Things have come full circle- with Colonial Americans having found fault with what they were denied and contemporary Americans beginning to find fault with what proponents of unregulated free-trade allow.

Invisible hand alright: So, as I clarified what Smith meant by the “invisible hand” metaphor, I will bastardize his intention just like everyone else. We have two invisible hands working in this country. These hands are working unbeknownst to us- to some of us. If only the workings of democrats and republicans in government were as transparent as their efforts at winning votes, (playing pool, holding babies, adopting speech impediments while at an American stutterers conference), we wouldn’t have so many pundits and talk-show hosts having to defend them. Conservative talk-show hosts can defend the motivations of their political party and continue to say that there is no proof that the parties act to the detriment of the public in concert, which somehow is adjudged by pundits as slightly better than both parties acting falsely accidentally. I would chastise a liberal talk-show host but they are so awfully hard to find. It seems to me, that the old cliché- "the right hand [the republicans] doesn’t know what the left hand [the democrats] is doing" (and vice versa), at least in the case of politics, isn’t true. They both are all too familiar with what the other is doing. That being said, considering that we are not privy to any number of things, we are being ill-treated by two invisible hands that are far more guilty when put in motion as when they inconceivably remain at rest. The old cliché, - “Idle hands do the devil’s work” is a cliché I don’t have space to get into, but its manifest influence on the state of the country compared to the left hand v. right hand cliché is one quarter the problem when it comes to political intention and intervention; the actions of a murderer get all the headlines while the inaction of someone who willfully denies to act to save a life is back page news by comparison.

Some examples: 1) the republicans are getting nailed for keeping us in a war the public is becoming increasingly against, though plenty of democrats were initially for the war (action); 2) the democrats are largely skating for continuing to allow the abuse of the Welfare system (inaction); 3) it is likely that both parties are to blame for a ridiculously unregulated free-trade policy (inaction); 4) both parties are failing us for not having enacted meaningful immigration legislation (inaction); 5) further campaign finance reform (in addition to McCain-Feingold) may never become a reality because of both parties; 6) the democrats allow the subjection of our culture and values because of a minority's right never to feel violated, even when their expectations are completely unreasonable (both action and inaction, considering some of the legislation that has and has not been passed protecting the rights of naturalized citizens). Note: These are the general practices of both parties, though individual members might differ from their party now and again. So, while action may get more headlines, inaction can be just as troubling. Someone remind me again, which is the party of Jefferson and Andrew Jackson and which is the party of Hamilton and Lincoln- because I am all kinds of lost.

The good and bad: Politicians have also done a number of decent, acceptable, necessary things. However, I do not believe that the good and the bad done by elected officials are in any way near equal. I am not alone in holding that view. I do not often hide in the comfort of numbers and am hesitant of the reason of mob majorities. I am not alone in my concern for the role of the public in matters of issue resolution. In a recent Citizens League survey where the perceptions of both citizens and public officials were considered- 27.2% of the general public thought there was ample opportunity for their view to be heard, contrasted with 75.6% of public officials claiming a citizen has a right to be heard. I would side with the public officials- although not to the tune of 75.6%. The problem is not whether a citizen can be heard but whether a collection of them are listened to. I am pretty sure my daughter hears me when I ask that she bring her plate to the sink, but her deciding against that course is a pretty sure indication that she hasn’t listened to me. The survey, printed on the OP5 page of the Opinion Exchange section of the Minneapolis Star Tribune on May 11, 2008 indicates the results of only five questions from that survey. One of the questions which seems to me to be absent from these reprinted results would concern how often the public and public officials believe the public’s desires are taken into consideration by the officials. I’ll probably bring this up later, as it goes a long way in determining why incumbents are so often re-elected to office.

Resolve to do nothing: I would not expect that a government populated with natural adversaries could solve all of the issues I hope to list comprehensively next time. Given the intricacy of the issues, the pig-headedness of each political party, the moral high ground each affects, and the pompous dismissal of dissenting opinions, because everyone knows better than the next guy, there are just too many variables to overcome. What I would expect is that maybe just one of the issues could be resolved, just one; that is not unreasonable. I wouldn’t be satisfied with just one, but it would be a start. Please treat just one of the issues like a Six Flags camel rather than continuing to treat us like that elephant seal treated the penguin.

Founding fathers, sons of liberty: Everyone knows of the word “factions” who has done any reading of American history, particularly of the early years of American politics. This was probably what the founding fathers feared most as having an impact on the auspices of government. Money is that which divides people into factions to begin with, because it is the property with enough flexibility and power to bring us, given that we have enough of it, just about any other piece of property we might be inclined to own- especially if we are the governor of N.Y. and only want to “own” something for a few hours (i.e. Eliot Spitzer). I am sure that the Jeffersonians would have chided the Federalists in this manner way back in the 1780s:

“Come on, come on, lovin’ for the money.
Come on, come on, listen to the money talk
Come on, come on, lovin’ for the money,
Come on, come on, listen to the money talk” (AC/DC cannot possibly claim full copyright on these lyrics)

But instead they were ruled by the droll, assuming, Big Bad Wolf known as Alexander Hamilton who had many things to say about representative government, virtue and wealth- among them are these words:

“It is a harsh doctrine, that men grow wicked in proportion as they improve and enlighten their minds. Experience has by no means justified us in the supposition, that there is more virtue in one class of men than another. Look through the rich and the poor of the community; the learned and the ignorant. Where does virtue predominate? The difference indeed consists, not in the quantity but kind of vices, which are incident to the various classes; and here the advantage of character belongs to the wealthy. Their vices are probably more favorable to the prosperity of the state, than those of the indigent; and partake less of moral depravity.”***

No wonder Aaron Burr shot and killed this guy. Where a poor man will steal your wallet, or your car, a rich man will steal your soul and too often does so within months of your having elected him. I have argued for years that alcohol allows people the luxury to act as if they were blameless, though if their sober intentions were known we would not assume the consumption of alcohol was their biggest problem. Men drunk on money are far more dangerous than those who have never had much of it, because the latter has never had as much to lose. To put it another way- a poor man with a match can do less damage than a rich man with a flamethrower- course, the evil that rich men might do could be wholly dependent on how far they can throw a flame such as a sexually confused elephant seal.

Half right: About half of what Hamilton spoke on that day, of which the above quoted words were included, was just fine. But he was more often in the right when speaking about man’s proclivities generally and not so much when he imagined a representative’s potential specific intentions. Hamilton attempted to dismiss a representative’s ambitions. Nice try. Essentially, he felt that a smaller number of representatives were suitable for a large number of people within any given state, despite the number of differences that can be found between one portion of a state and another. He rightly contends that there ought to be “the most intimate conformity between the views of the representative and his constituent,” but contradicts himself by saying that a rich man’s vices are preferable to a poor man’s. A guy has a better chance of convincing Elaine Benes that he is sponge-worthy than that sneak Hamilton had of buttering up those he intended to lull into favoring the type of monarchical and aristocratic government of which Americans had just ridded themselves. What’s that- the American government has been run by rich landowners since its political inception over 230 years ago. Huh, better trim those side-burns boys . . . Seinfeld reference.

Rich man, poor man: A rich man representing a state of poor men is a fairly predictable precondition for misrepresentation and was completely at odds with the Jeffersonian view of a smaller federal government and a nation of farmers. It is possible that the rich can serve the needs of the poor, but perhaps better in the private (by donating canned goods and volunteering for Habitat for Humanity) than in the public eye (when lifestyles may be affected by pension funds and tax brackets). Hamilton writes: “As riches increase and accumulate in few hands; as luxury prevails in society; virtue will be in a greater degree considered as only a graceful appendage of wealth . . .” An appendage of wealth with an invisible hand whereby the rich might reach with over-exuberance in the pursuit of more wealth at the expense of the poor. Hamilton, at one point, disavows knowing the definition of the word “aristocracy” and asks “Where do we find men elevated to a perpetual rank above their fellow citizens . . . ?” The answer: in politics- where the money is. Sheeesh. This is a man, just like any other son of liberty that read Aristotle and the Greeks and Cicero and the Romans and was quite familiar with the philosophy of Montesquieu, John Locke and Isaac Newton. In reading some of Hamilton’s work, it does not appear he was all that capable of expressing himself sarcastically and as an expert pamphleteer successfully obtained for the rich, according to him, their rightful place at the head of our government, though he would have us believe the rich are more benevolent than the poor. It was no different then as now. The economic stratification of millions of people is an acceptable hazard of capitalism. Unfortunately, Hamilton’s agents of wealth prevailed, despite the best intentions of Jefferson and Madison. The rich more moral than the poor? Hamilton would have the nerve to attempt to assuage the pain of bronchitis by describing to a patient the merits of the sweet misery of the onset of pneumonia; quite a charmer. I think John Adams accused him of having a Type-A personality; if you spilled mutton on his frock coat he would probably have placed you in irons; if he were a citizen of New Delhi he would have participated in a display of snake charming . . . he would have been the snake.

Rebuttal Mr. Madison: James Madison is recognized as the father of the Constitution (ah, so we have him to blame). Couldn't he have snuck in just one phrase about how mutable his intentions with its contents might have been? Madison also helped pen about thirty of the Federalist Papers, which were written in order to convince the colonies to ratify the Constitution. He offered his opinions on how to suffer through the inevitability of political parties and how to handle a difference of interests among them . . . by continually attacking the other side. Oh, how we’ve grown since then. He was a gifted writer and statesman, who like many other gifted writers and statesmen, is convinced that his own side is true and his opponent’s is false. He spent his words critiquing the natures of the Federalist and Republican parties and noted the undeniable differences between them. Unfortunately, he did not spend as many words on what a citizen might do and think in a society where both parties are essentially the same. With that, we could use his help these days. Much more of Madison is worth quoting than this: “The great objects [of combating political parties] should be to combat the evil . . . 2. By withholding unnecessary opportunities from a few, to increase the inequality of property, by an immoderate, and especially unmerited, accumulation of riches 3. By the silent operation of laws, which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigence towards a state of comfort.” ****

Critique of Madison: 1) this could not be done without “violating the rights of property,” for once someone owns something they become very aware of its having been removed from their possession; 2) it should not be done, because by-and-large, someone who owns something has worked for what they have obtained; 3) the definitions and interpretations of words such as “unnecessary” “immoderate” “unmerited” “extreme wealth” and “comfort,” (words with which Hamilton might pretend to be unfamiliar) are always inadequately defined according to those that lose what they had previously owned, or stand to gain what another could lose. One single mother called into a radio program a few months ago and complained that she had to pay the same price for canned goods at the grocery store than her well-off dual-income neighbors- nonsense! 4) All Llamas are afraid of the dark. I would never promote the Robin Hood mentality of taking from the rich to give to the poor until all government wasted money is identified and properly reallocated and this of course includes economic boondoggles of both the conservatives (ex. Military) and democrats (ex. Welfare). The remainder of Madison’s thoughts on parties, in this offering alone, is well worth quoting, but I have a length limit and I have another Jon Stewart quote to get in. Madison was quite a prodigious writer. I am sure he at one time referred to Llamas as the Wal-Mart of camels; the man seemed to think of nearly everything . . . excepting the fact that there would be a time when both parties were essentially the same. (Hint- I am referring to the present time.)

Madison v. Hamilton: Madison and Hamilton worked together to convince the states to ratify the Constitution, each writing numerous articles that comprise the Federalist Papers, published serially in the late 1780s. In the 1790s they were on opposing sides of the political influence of public opinion v. the political elite debate. We do have citizens who participate in politics (Madison’s hope), but in far too many cases our contributions are negligible, compared to the machine of politics (Hamilton’s desire). Unfortunately, Jefferson’s and Madison’s Democratic-Republican efforts to keep the power in the hands of the voting public were about as ineffectual as the white crayon as the color to be used to best color in the outline of your average cartoon character in any coloring book ever manufactured. Madison, the Republican,***** had this to say of the Federalist Party of Hamilton, today’s democrats and republicans:

“those, who from particular interest, from natural temper, or from the habits of life, are more partial to the opulent than to the other classes of society, and having debauched themselves into a persuasion that mankind are incapable of governing themselves, it follows with them, of course, that government can be carried on only by the pageantry of rank, the influence of money and emoluments, and the terror of military force . . . [and the wealthy hope] that the government itself may by degrees be narrowed into fewer hands, and approximated to an hereditary form.”****** (See Richard Hofstadter’s, “The Idea of a Party System: The Rise of Legitimate Opposition in the United States, 1780-1840” chapter three- a good background source)

Related thought: Canada has four major political parties and while I am not qualified to comment on the legitimacy of the least of them- (the Green Party gained 4.5% of the popular vote in the 2006 Parliamentary Elections, while still being unable to grab one seat), I do think that is something to shoot for. I believe that additional parties will be just as beholden to money, corporations, campaign finance contributions, lobbyists and special interest groups, but it is a start. Just as I don’t believe that the immigration issue can be resolved by adopting just one solution, neither can any of our issues be resolved without enabling other progressively moderate viewpoints to be accepted by the majority- of people- not of elected officials. I don’t believe the desire for additional political parties can be dismissed because it has never seemed to work. It can work, if a number of issues in concert are amended to meet the needs of the many rather than the few. Someone wrote to me that the Independents don’t have a chance because they stand alone. I would rather be a well-informed solitary member of an ill-defined political party than a sheepish bore in the march of ineptitude, being led into the city of Sacrafice-ville by two parties that stand to gain by your loss and stand to lose with your gain. The republican and democratic political shepherds are outsourcing the futures of middle class kids to the highest bidders, so forgive me if my political leanings dictate that I pretty much stand my ground. This was more comically expressed by - Jon Stewart- (not that Mill guy- the guy from the Daily Show):

“Each party has a platform, a . . . menu of beliefs making up its worldview. The candidate can choose one of the two platforms, but remember – no substitutions. For example, do you support universal health care? Then you must also want a ban on assault weapons. Pro-limited government? Congratulations, you are also anti-abortion. Luckily, all human opinion falls neatly into one of the two clearly defined camps. Thus, the two-party system elegantly reflects the bichromatic rainbow that is American political thought.” (pg. 108)

I would rather stand pat and stand alone in protest having seen that the masses are blind to the nature of change and who rule out the idea of punching a camel in the face just for the hell of it. Be careful of the suspected martyrdom of miniature pinschers and the pariah-ness of prison inmates that might risk escape, in order to curry favor (or sympathy) by risking their lives for a shot at freedom from a New Orleans prison though a once-sighted, shy black bear, not employed by the prison, may be roaming the woods acting as the final obstacle to the freedom of men. (See “Driver Kills Dog, then Sues Owners for Damage,” Associated Press, May 8, 2008- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24530214 and “Inmates Think Twice about Escaping from Here,” Associated Press, May 5, 2008- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/24472774/ respectively.

Other notable evidence of an animal insurrection: “Beetlemania at Pennsylvania Post Office” (http://www.msnbc.com/id/24631558/, Associated Press, May 14, 2008)- short story: “Customs agents seized more than two dozen giant beetles—some the size of a child’s hand—from an overseas package after postal workers heard the insects making scratching noises.” AND “Ants Swarm over Houston, Fouling Electronics: ‘Crazy Raspberry Ants’ emerging by the Billions with Onset of Humid Season” (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24620246/, Associated Press, May 14, 2008)- short story: “voracious swarming ants that apparently arrived in Texas aboard a cargo ship are invading homes and yards across the Houston area.” Perhaps I’ve been taking pot shots at animals, birds, and insects for a reason, for their continued, violent, sinister planning to take over the world. So we respond by having a red neck throw a cat against the wall http://www.topix.com/city/st-paul-mn/2008/05/st-paul-man-arrested-for-killing-girlfriends-kitten. This from the state department- “U.S. Lists Polar Bear as Threatened Species.” Yes, we have resorted to threatening polar bears. Apparently we are keeping lists of which animal species we threaten. When will it end? Not here- look at this list of “Exhibited Animal Attacks”- . . . http://www.api4animals.org/popups/a1a_exhibited_animal_incidents.php. I think Dorothy (from the Wizard of Oz) was onto something- “Lions and Tigers and Bears, oh my.” Perhaps if I can get this version of yellow journalism going, (people v. animals) this will have the same effect as the sinking of the USS Maine had on the Spanish-American War. We cannot give up without a fight.


* Yes, I know, it is actually spelled Bactrian- just taking creative license.

** While this example may not directly fall under the broad heading of free trade or NAFTA agreements, the Close Brothers, who still are not identified in the story, are taking advantage of the current tax laws to avoid paying Medicare and Social Security taxes. See- “U.S. Defense Contractors Seek Off-Shore Havens,” Associated Press, May 7, 2008- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24510512/. This is just another example of America’s largest corporation, the military, taking advantage of the American taxpayers, and all kinds of shell companies trying to “circumvent U.S. law.” For surely, surely, we wouldn’t need to pay in as much tax should loose ends such as these get tied up- to the tune of “about $846 million in revenue over 10 years” or more. The article also addresses the widespread nature of this tax haven mess, including how defense contractor groups attempt to justify how tighter controls will cost them money in a competitive global marketplace. Huh, that sounds like capitalism to me; if we can’t regulate free-trade (generally), the housing market, the oil industry, or aggressive bikers who think they own the road, you may have to lower some of your prices. Start getting some of your uninspected steel from China, and perhaps that would lower the prices of your bids which would make you more competitive. Google- “cheap steel from China” and eventually you will figure it out.

*** Hamilton made the address on June 21, 1788 to the New York Ratifying Convention, where members of the state government of New York gathered to discuss potential ratification of the Constitution. See- http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch13s38.html.

**** Just do a search on- “In every political society, parties are unavoidable.” If you get hooked on Madison, it will not be because of his thoughts on “Population and Emigration.” Don’t read that one out in nature where you may fall victim to selective narcolepsy and be subject to an attack by a wren, robin or giant frog, especially should they be jealous of your not having muscle compartment syndrome or an inconsistent urinary stream- like them.

***** Many have put forth the view that Jefferson and Madison Republicans are actually modern day democrats. I see no such resemblance to modern day democrats, who attend to the desires of the public no more frequently than do modern day republicans, who would traditionally have been considered the former Federalists.

****** “A Candid State of Parties,” James Madison, National Gazette, September 26, 1792.

Middle Class Part 27: Immigration concluded- Gut Bacteria, Welfare, Taxpayer Funded Islamic School and the National ID Card

Again, this is a long installment. I would have liked to have concluded with my findings, as I have collected a great many reports, studies, articles and sets of comments on the sub-topic of immigration as it concerns the effect on the middle class. In order to do that, I will be leaving out my conclusions and some additional material that would fit well here. Instead, I will include it in the book form of this overall topic. No one would publish what I have written, so I plan on doing so myself in order to give those people who haven’t read my words in this format the opportunity to not read my words in another. For a couple of months, I have taken for granted two things- that I have virtually no readers and that any readers I do have should consider each post as a chapter in a proposed book, which certainly will not allay the feeling that reading the number of words I have written is an arduous task.

Anyone who has taken the time to check in on my progress hoping that I would just stop writing, would write something about sports, current events, aggressive bikers, fly-fishing or Beano, state that I am long-winded, and perhaps would say they need to employ a GPS system to arrive at my point, or stubbornly maintain that I have no point. Sure, my writing style is convoluted, intense, sometimes misguided and derivative, redundant and tangential (i.e. rambling). There is no but there- those people are right. Many things occur to me in connection with many other things and it would seem that I deliver a series of sentences like Jackson Pollack (famous drip-paint artist) splattered paint on the canvas. I won't claim that I always know what I toss on the page will look exactly as I had planned, like Pollack, but what I do toss out there is very hard to dismiss.

Before beginning to abandon the sub-topic of immigration, and its effect on the middle class, I thought I would provide yet another link to a vacuous article which summarizes some scientifically obtained, yet useless, data:

“Cultural Differences Found in Pee”: How many times must Charles Q. Choi of Live Science, (April 21, 2008) have busted out laughing trying to construct serious sentences describing some fairly useless scientific results. His lead paragraph is this: “Pee from more than 4,000 volunteers shows that people from different nations often have spectacularly different metabolisms.” You just can't make this stuff up; ok, you could . . . and I have, but this is a real story. Apparently the biological chemist from London who conducted the study didn’t give Choi a more scientific name to refer to stomach chemicals than “gut bacteria.” Seriously- “gut bacteria.” If that is as technical as you are going to get, you might as well, as a serious journalist, slip in a faux quotation from I.P. Freely and adopt the pseudonym- Johann Sebastian Bok Choy. Only weathermen are more worthless to science than the people that put together that study (a biological chemist among them- ooh, big shot) and probably garnered federal budget money in order to do it. Read all of the comedy for yourself at (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24241623). If you are the guy writing about gut bacteria- what is next- writing an article on an 8th-grader, hopeful of becoming a zoologist, talking about the fornication particulars of the armadillo that he swears on his honor, precede their smelly presenting ritual with a series of cackles and clucks that played backward is proof that the shelled weasel actually tells his mate in armadillan that he is about to get some shell. That is some foreplay. Mr. Choi, I wrote better papers in the fourth grade when I copied the contents of my report on Washington state from the Encyclopedia Britannica, before adopting a writing style that would confound George Hegel.

Still: Perhaps there is some merit to the study. If there is any way to combine the utility of the National Identification card (see #7 below) and the EPS pregnancy test we could completely resolve America’s national problem of illegal immigration. The card would contain a strip that suspected terrorists, illegal immigrants, and suspected Chinese businessmen looking to offer American corporations stock buyout packages, would be asked to relieve themselves on in points of entry all over the country. If a plus sign were returned, we would know that they were illegal immigrants, terrorists or diminutive NAFTA supporters, because their gut bacteria would commingle with the chemical compound present on that portion of the card.

List continued: With that- here is the remainder of my list begun last time on the best of the rest articles on immigration I have collected over the course of the last year:

7) The headline- “Security at What Cost?: National ID system is not worth the $23 Billion Price Tag”: Bruce Schneier, Minneapolis Star Tribune’s opinion exchange section February 24, 2008- http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/15891037.html

The story: A hard to forge national/Real ID card which would require “all states to conform to common and more stringent rules for issuing driver’s licenses.” Schneier’s main problem with the national identification card (NIC) is the cost, both financially ($23 billion) and from an inconvenience standpoint. His other issues with the NIC- complexity, (someone will still be able to successfully forge it in time), lost cards, the human element of people being responsible for checking IDs of potential illegals or terrorists who may become bored into a false sense of security. The even bigger problems, Schneier contends, is an instantaneously accessible set of 50 linked databases- “Computer scientists don’t know how to keep a database of this magnitude secure, whether from outside hackers or the thousands of insiders authorized to access it.” The baseline of initially considering that everyone is a criminal and then further being lulled into the sometimes innacurate judgment of profiling based on certain nationalities, ages, or appearance may also be a problem, to summarize Schneier’s concerns. Schneier writes- “as soon as you divide people into two categories—more trusted and less trusted—you create a third, and very dangerous, category: untrustworthy people whom we have no reason to mistrust.”

Further comments: There is a colloquial saying, which I imagine is common to a number of the fifty states that would adopt the NIC- “whole hog.” It could be used as a mantra for someone investing everything they’ve got in an endeavor, in athletics, financial investment, war, the attempt to attract a mate- perhaps of the armadillo persuasion. Whole hog = risk everything. “All in” is the updated version always used when some unsuspecting card player puts all of his money into the pot in Texas Hold ‘em just prior to getting river’d by someone with a full house. Thing is, American problem solvers think big, and consider the best case scenario and manipulate the variables so that the most resources might achieve the most ideal ends. Immigration is an issue where this has never been the case. Why invest $23 billion instituting a nationwide national identification card that has no guarantee of helping the American cause of minimizing the affects on the country of illegal immigration, among other things. Why not conduct a pilot program? Select five states, some with a heavy illegal immigrant burden and some states with relatively little influx by comparison- (California, Texas, Wyoming, Colorado and South Carolina for example).* Instituting this measure may have an affect on other states illegals know are not included in this pilot and so authorities and citizens in those states would need to be further versed on rules of engagement given this likelihood. So, rather than spending $23 billion and finding that REAL ID wouldn’t work, we, as a nation spend $9 billion and those who guarantee that it won’t work and those who guarantee that it will can both tone down their ignorance on the matter. But at least it will have been tried. However, it stands a much better chance of working with a fortified wall and increased border control support. There is not a silver bullet solution to this problem and it is likely that many checks might need to be put in place to curb the scourge of illegal immigration. In Raiders of the Lost Ark, look at what Indiana Jones had to go through just to remove a gold idol from the cave. Now, if this approach could only be tried on the issue of global warming and urinary footprint detection methods (the new carbon footprint), we could put a couple dozen conservative talk-show hosts, nationwide, off the air. Schneier, oh expert of official documentation as it equates to securing this country against the risk of invasion- you have any solutions, or do you just think up reasons of why we shouldn’t do things? We spend billions on ridiculously proposed and passed legislation every year- what’s $9 billion for a National Identification Card pilot program?

Additional further comments: http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd355.htm, Devvy Kidd, April 7, 2008. Kidd writes that Dobbs defends any bill that comes out of congress, including the national ID laws. To be fair, Dobbs does seem reactionary in his assessment of the justice congress seems to sometimes cavalierly mete out. Kidd writes- “For one reason, the [Real ID] law was crammed into a South Asian tsunami relief bill, with no debate in either house of Congress. For another, it's an unfunded mandate that passes around $25 billion in costs to states." People against this measure often sight the 10th Amendment to the Constitution and that REAL ID is an unfunded mandate. I’ll address the former of those complaints in the book. The latter complaint can be dismissed by the federal government funding it. Where is the money going to come from- see part 9- government waste. We stop wasting money on social aid programs and on the wasteful (not all, not even most) military projects, and we would have plenty of funding.

Also see: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24351798/ “Supreme Court Upholds Voter ID Law,” Associated Press, May 1, 2008- “There is little history in Indiana of either in-person voter fraud—of the sort the law was designed to thwart—or voters being inconvenienced by the law’s requirements.” So, this decision is neither a loss for the democrats nor a victory for the republicans. Unless liberals were seeking to illegally desire for illegal immigrants to vote secretly, this decision should not be a setback to uncompromised elections.

8) The headline: “Drivers Losing Five Days a Year to Traffic Jams”: Associated Press, September 18, 2007- (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20829879)-

The story: “Drivers waste nearly an entire work week each year sitting in traffic on the way to and from their jobs . . . ‘We’ve used up the capacity that had been bequeathed to us by a previous generation, and we haven’t replaced it’ . . . The study estimates that drivers wasted 2.9 billion gallons of fuel while sitting in traffic. That’s about 26 gallons a year per driver.” I wonder if we can determine the type of gut bacteria that resides in the average tank of gas to determine if the driver of that vehicle is of Chinese, Japanese, Mexican, Irish, Swedish or Italian descent. I wonder if conducting the world-renowned, highly respected “gut bacteria” study twenty years ago would have revealed that the Yugo was actually mass-produced in Mississippi.

Further comments: To be honest, this is just an indulgence and has little to do with immigration compared to the other stories I have commented on, particularly because the census data indicates that “About three-quarters of all commuters drive alone to work,” which I would concede, many illegal and legal immigrants probably wouldn’t do. Immigrants of whatever legality probably live close enough to work not to have to drive at all, but far enough away from the emergency room of the local hospital to have to drive without a license and insurance (see parts 23-26). Will the second and third generation immigrants fit that mold, will they not desire to have and own a car, irregardless of whether they insure it? As we know, there are plenty of American-born people driving without insurance. And that is the point- our AMERICAN problems, all of them, are not resolved by bringing more human variables into the country. The “Atlanta metropolitan area added 890,000 people from 2000 to 2006.” I am positive that number is not due to an increase in the American fertility rate of whites and blacks; this is easily proven by a google search- or see part 26 #6. I have driven in Atlanta- their rush hour is about six hours long. The very formal Charles Q. Choi, as differentiated from all of the other Charles Choi’s writing articles about urine is planning on writing a follow-up article about traffic congestion as it relates to population increases. However, word is he just finished co-writing this article- “Scientists Decode Brain Farts,” also by Live Science, April 21, 2008 (http://www.msnbc.com/id/24245365/wid/11915773?GT1=31037). Choi likely did not want the “credit” associated with such high-profile assignments, for he did not want to be author-typecast as someone who contributed heavily to the always popular Swiftian genre of scatological humor. Next, Choi will be looking into the behavior of wiener dogs with post-nasal drip that spit snot out of their throats and how that relates to their overall disaffected standing in the society of elongated canine.

9) The headline- “2007 National Survey of Latinos: As Illegal Immigration Issue Heats Up, Hispanics Feel a Chill”: Pew Hispanic Center, December 19, 2007- http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?reportID=84

The story: “. . . federal, state and local governments have pressed forward with hundreds of new enforcement bills, regulations and procedures—including stepped up deportations, more workplace raids, and restrictions on access to driver’s licenses and other government services and benefits. The survey finds that Hispanics oppose these enforcement measures, often by lopsided margins. Three quarters (75%) disapprove of workplace raids; some 79% prefer that local police not take an active role in identifying illegal immigrants; and some 55% disapprove of states checking for immigration status before issuing driver’s licenses. By contrast, non-Hispanics are much more supportive of all these policies . . .” Shocking! “Hispanics generally see illegal immigrants as a plus.” (Note: the Pew survey appears to address just the opinions of Latinos and not Americans). “Nearly eight-in-ten respondents . . . say they are very (45%) or somewhat (33%) confident that Hispanic children growing up now will have better jobs and more money than they have.” I wonder what would so encourage them- perhaps the contents of #s 1, 2, 4 and 5 from last time. Really, how long will it be before a Hispanic-exclusive school opens in Minnesota (see #11 below), California, Texas or say . . . in Oregon- www.youtube.com/watch?v=53A2jpDqV3w tells of Oregon crew chief firefighters losing their jobs to those who speak Spanish. If just one firefighter out of 20 speaks only Spanish the crew chief is either laid-off or demoted. The state, the reporter says, has no answer on why it wouldn’t require the Spanish speaking workers/subordinate firefighters to speak English. If just 1 of 20 speaks Spanish, should the 19 other firefighters lose their leader. I don’t know how liberal a state Oregon generally is, but something seems amiss.

Further comments: Given the news that the “nation’s largest minority group (Hispanics) comprising about 15.5% of the U.S. population might have a problem with laws and measures designed to keep, or get them out of our country, is about as predictable as a conservative finding fault with Thorstein Veblen’s theories on “conspicuous leisure.” Sorry . . . it is about as shocking as a zoologist determining that a porcupine with renal lymphoma is best matched with a chemotherapist turtle who likes to hug and would make the best friends among the commonwealth of animals. Latinos disapprove of supposedly increased efforts designed to check illegal immigration almost as much as rival comedians despised the idea that they lost the initial Last Comic Standing title to Dat Phan. Silly, insecure comedians; they’re almost as needy as writers.

10) The headline- “Are Taxpayers Footing Bill for Islamic School in Minnesota?”: Katherine Kersten, Minneapolis Star Tribune, March 9, 2008, Section B, pages 1 and 11.

The story: TIZA is a K-8 charter school in Inver Grove Heights, MN, that addresses the educational needs of about 300 children from mostly low-income Muslim immigrant families. The school opened a second campus in Blaine, MN. The schools are “financed by Minnesota taxpayers. Under the U.S. and state constitutions, a public school can accommodate students’ religious beliefs but cannot encourage or endorse religion.” The school was founded by the Muslim American Society of Minnesota (MAS-MN) by two imams (the same type of individuals who were going to sue an airline because of “harsh” treatment) and who issued a “fatwa,” telling Muslim taxi drivers to steer clear of passengers who were carrying alcohol in their baggage because it is a violation of Islamic law. TIZA is an Islamic religious school in business at Minnesota taxpayer expense. This is interesting: “MAS-MN offers on its web site ‘beneficial and enlightening information’ about Islam, which includes statements like ‘Regularly make the intention to go on jihad with the ambition to die as a martyr.’ Look up “jihad” on the internet and determine for yourself how its meaning might be interpreted. At its 2007 convention, MAS-MN featured the notorious Shayk Khalid Yasin, who is well known in Britain and Australia for teaching that husbands can beat disobedient wives, that gays should be executed and that the United States spreads the AIDS virus in Africa through vaccines for tropical diseases.” The topic of the convention: “ ‘Building a Successful Muslim Community in Minnesota.’ ” America, what a country (see part 25). Incidentally, that last charge, about the AIDS virus being spread by the United States has been a topic of discussion of late. Barack Obama recently cut ties with his former religious touchstone, the not so reverened Jeremiah Wright for having exactly the same beliefs. Wright- "God damn America!" Our politicians have not seemed to need a god's help in that endeavor.

Further comments: A school of muslims encouraged to go on jihad, set up by American taxpayers. Liberals- nice job. I was driving home from work last week and drove behind a woman driving an Outback wagon with a bumper sticker that read: “Liberal.” I might get one that reads: “Caucasian” just in case I forget the one term that would most define me. I wondered if she would get out at stoplights and run in back to check to make sure it was still there, if it still applied, to remind her of who she is as a human being. Why not just take the next step and have it branded across your forehead, or have the most predominant synonym- ‘Gullible’ tattooed on your forearm. Liberals are so gullible they probably think that an anti-spam statute is one that is prejudiced against the most famous of the canned meats.

Additional further comments: I know plenty of democrats/liberals and call some of them my friends. They are good people, but have a narrow-minded view of the world- just my opinion. Their good-natured naivete is their badge of honor for other liberals to appreciate, but for everyone else to mock. Perhaps the non-liberals would have a better chance at shaming liberals into recognizing the errors of their ways if liberals would actually engage in a dialogue, and decide not to be so prescient about exactly who the god of their choice will gather into their sanctioned version of heaven. I don’t have to be a union member, teacher, environmentalist or a tree-hugger in order to concede that plenty of immigrants have merit as hard-working human beings, unfortunately, through fate, their soul and their physical form were united together and jointly delivered unto a tract of land south, east, north or west of the United States, where living conditions present more of a challenge. I would probably try to enter the lands where the grass is greener as well, should I have been born into such a predicament, until laws that were enforced were put into place to stop me and likely even after that. Something that might keep me out- a wall and more border patrol agents. And that is something that conservatives don’t get when they make a blanket statement desiring all immigrants to leave the United States- consider your fortune, your upbringing, imagine that no one would take pity on your circumstances, should you have been trapped as a citizen of Honduras, with the personality and soul you were delivered in your current physical form. Many people take their good fortune too much for granted. There is good and bad in immigration; those who ignore ALL that immigrants contribute are ignorant and those that welcome ALL that they, and their proponents claim to provide are pompous.

11) The headline- “To Dream . . . Perchance to Do”: Lori Sturdevant, March 9, 2008- http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/16394626.html-

The story: 1,000 students delivered to the Minnesota state capitol by the Minnesota Immigrant Freedom Network talking about how much education they would like to have enabling them to become doctors, teachers or engineers given the supposed shortage of skilled workers. “The Dream Act would . . . say that if a student attends a Minnesota high school for at least three years, achieves an academically qualifying record and graduates, he or she is eligible for [resident tuition rates] regardless of the immigration status of his or her parents. These students would be spared nonresident rates that can be more than twice as high.” Consider the brief story of Gov. Tim Pawlenty in part 23 and then consider this: “But Gov. Tim Pawlenty insists on defining the Dream Act in terms of immigration policy, not workforce development. His veto threats have stopped each attempt to pass it.” The DFL isn’t sure whether it will try again in the 2008 legislative session because they “recall how some GOP candidates used the Dream Act to make DFLers sound soft on illegal immigration in the 2006 campaign.” This just in- DFLers ARE soft on immigration.

This is a big one, so I decided to offset it because it is related to immigration advantages, education, future employment, and is relevant to the overall topic on so many levels:


“The Minnesota Private College Research Foundation warns about what's coming: Unless current college-enrollment patterns change, the state will see an 11 percent drop in four-year college graduates by 2017. By the middle of the next decade, there won't be enough new grads per year to fill the jobs left vacant by retirements, let alone new jobs that require four-year degrees.”

Further comments: First, Pawlenty is a fairly progressive conservative. He stated that the majority of citizens believe in more strict immigration controls. Liberals in legislatures all over the country- allow your governors to pass more strict immigration legislation, or quit whining about how “difficult” it has been for you to sponsor the invasion of our country. Enough said there. Second, on the point about allowing immigrants a reduced tuition rate- make all students pay the same rate, giving no breaks to anyone; why should some people just as deserving of an education be penalized for being an American? Third, this is a huge one and the reason I drew the quotation out by itself- with all of the outsourcing of American jobs, (and I could dig up several dozen articles from the last five years proving the issue of outsourcing), we need immigrants to come in and compete with Americans in even more areas, keeping the wage scale down because of the increase in qualified workers the immigrants would represent after having been given tuition breaks Americans don’t even get? Again, liberals- get into heaven some other way, rescue a cat from a tree, drive an environmentally friendly car, rescue a coyote from choking on a hot dog during a competitive eating event at a county fair . . . just not a coyote helping other illegals cross our border that does not have a wall or patrol agents employed to keep them out.

12) The headline- Dobbs (again) “War on the Middle Class” various pages-

The story: “Mexico’s president Vicente Fox [at the time] has blasted the plan to build a seven-hundred-mile fence along the U.S. – Mexico border, which he charges would violate the rights of illegal aliens . . . Fox is exporting his poverty and importing a substantial portion of his economy thanks to the millions of Mexicans living in the United States who send billions of dollars back to Mexico every year.” (pg. 149) I could quote much of the text that appears on the pages between 131-172 relative to immigration and education. On page 168 this can be found- “almost ten million of our students speak a foreign language at home, nearly a fifth of the total student population, which is of concern to numerous school districts trying to teach English proficiency.” How does that information tie into the topic of the future economic dire straits of the middle class- well, those foreign speaking children will be competing with English-speaking middle class kids for jobs in 10-15 years (see part 26). “The Dallas school board voted to force many of its principals to learn and speak Spanish.” (pg. 168) A New York city council man “introduced a proposal to require public schools to translate report cards and other school documents into nine languages.” Actually, I could have used that on a number of occasions when I was in high school. I am pretty sure my dad wouldn’t have been able to read a C on my report card if it appeared in Cantonese, a language without an alphabet.

I also must offset this by itself: an American consulting firm representative said “that his company’s survey of companies showed that ‘84 percent of respondents say that K-to-twelve schools do not do a good job of preparing individuals for the workplace.’ . . . Big business is saying it won’t hire Americans because they aren’t smart enough or aren’t well prepared for the rigors of the job market.” Why might that be? I am not saying we don’t have a liberal education expenditure money-hole of our own making, that if there were no immigrants we wouldn’t have a problem with educational lobbyists throwing money at the problems presented by misguided attempts to fix education, but the problem of immigration only makes everything worse, especially education because of how one’s education is tied to future and career earnings (see part 7). I wouldn’t have any problem agreeing to the idea that American children should learn Spanish, but all other immigrants must first learn English- no exceptions. Our middle class kids are being held back so that immigrant children can be brought up to speed- is it any wonder they are ill-prepared for the “rigors of the job market”? With that, both sets of middle class kids will suffer, the current and subsequent crop of middle class American kids and middle class kids who are currently illegal immigrants whose offspring will climb a rung or two on the social-equality ladder to become middle class. I imagine, if they can both speak English and both speak Spanish, they will then be quarreling about the injustice of economics with the rich. So, ultimately, I see that this is about money more than it is about race. If there is a god, and the economically disadvantaged can organize, it would behoove them to share both languages- one group of people that will then be disadvantaged in the event this becomes a reality . . . the rich. The words- Civil War mean anything? I am just saying this is possible. Yes, let us all dismiss the notion, for nothing that was ever considered impossible has occurred. Anyone labeling me a socialist has a short attention-span and has already been proven wrong (see the first paragraph of part 9). I could go on quoting Dobbs all day long and fill several more columns providing commentary on in-state tuition breaks for illegals which thousands of middle class American kids do not receive, American unions stating that they desire that illegals should gain union rather than green cards, which I would imagine is more of an affront to a lower income wage-earner who feels he or she has derived certain benefits over the course of a couple decades work that should not be afforded to immigrants- “more than 40 percent of the wage losses of low-skilled workers was due to competition from immigrant workers,” etc. Read pages 131-172; that should be all the information one might need to talk down to a liberal on this subject they won’t suffer to engage in because they think the mandate of altruism is synonymous with the cause of liberalism. [Yes, there is an end to this paragraph] I exchanged a few emails with a contributor to an online activist website that supported the cause of illegal immigrants. I wrote of the environmental strain of cumulative, unchecked illegal immigration, (just selecting one of the myriad of issues I have already written about), and he condescended to show me I was in error because of how many people from all over the world might each have just less than an acre of land in a few southwestern states, Texas among them. We could all move to Texas, he maintained. I could go on. Our exchange was actually quite civil, but I guarantee he would have a hard time defending all of the reasons why unchecked illegal immigration is not a good idea, not the least of which is because I think he admitted to not having any children. Seems that if those favoring illegal immigration would empathize with their own progeny, whom they haven't yet named, as much as with those they haven't met, this country would be the better for it.

13) The headline- (Insert headline here concerning the corruption and opacity of the Mexican government and how the United States should funnel money to Mexican president Felipe Calderon and his underlings in order to keep the number of illegals at bay, which would create jobs in Mexico or any Latin American country, reduce crime, thwart the drug trade and all that good stuff.) Or look at this pertinent, prescient link (http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/97feb/mexico/mexico.htm). The story contained therein was written more than ten years ago- February 1997 by Robert D. Kaplan, “History Moving North.”

The story: Kaplan’s article is quite comprehensive, but I found very little more recent stories concerning the notion that gifting millions to the Mexican government, to keep it solvent, given the rampant political corruption, which is nearly always tied to the drug trade, would do anything to minimize illegal immigrant’s employment prospects in the United States. Seems our current economy has taken care of some of that- (see the second paragraph of footnote * below and this article- “Immigrants Boost Economy—But how Much?” Las Vegas Sun- http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/apr/14/immigrants-boost-economy-how-much/). NAFTA and other free trade agreements which affect the labor force in the U.S. are the primary issues. Assuming that was the panacea (giving tens or hundreds of millions of dollars to a Latin American country so that they would be economically viable) would that be a one-time balloon payment or an annual perpetual financial donation? How would American taxpayers respond to the idea of either? And what makes the United States government feel like it is above reproach from a corruption and transparency standpoint, casting aspersions at other regimes who might not be quite as accomplished from a complicity standpoint as it regards the politicians that control the government? Keep in mind that other Latin American countries are worse off economically than Mexico- would we be paying them off as well? It seems highly likely that Latin American bureaucrats would do more than skim $$ off the top of the funding we might provide, so I have a feeling that the U.S. would be suffering from one massive outlay, without deriving any benefit. And when has that ever happened? I would rather consider the revirgination of an ox so that it might mate with this prairie dog** of an attorney I used to work with who thought terrible penmanship and extreme inquisitiveness were endearing qualities than know we are giving money away to other nations who hate us for the indebtedness they feel toward our obligatory financial or resource assistance. Note: I have had to consider that revirgination thingy quite a bit. Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Bosnia, Haiti, Liberia, Rwanda, Kosovo, Columbia are just a few of the countries who have derived some benefit from our generosity. I do not believe that all of the foreign aid we have provided has been given in vain, but surely not all of it was spent wisely- see "Foreign Aid: An Introductory Overview of U.S. Programs and Policy" April 15, 2004- http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/31987.pdf.

Further comments: I had written the entire previous paragraph before finding this New York Times story- “Bush Asks Congress for $1.4 Billion to Fight Drugs in Mexico,” James C. McKinley Jr., October 23, 2007 (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/23/world/americas/23mexico.html. Fortuitous. At the end of the previous article is a link to this story- “Businessman in Mexcio Says Top Officials Hid Millions,” also written by McKinley, July 4,2007 (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/04/world/americas/04mexico.html?fta=y. “The Mexican government vigorously denied this week the accusations of a Chinese-Mexican businessman who is wanted on drug charges here but who asserts that $150 million found hidden in his mansion came from members of President Felipe Calderón’s party, including the secretary of labor.” Two things are possible, either the businessman is lying, or he is telling the truth. Fighting the drug cartel over there is probably wise, rather than having to fight it over here; perhaps we would do well to deal with the Mexican economic issue over there as well, if we could be guaranteed that Mexican and other Latin American governments were treating their own citizens as well as we would.

14) The headline: “Immigrants, Welfare and Work”: Lauren Mutti, June 4, 2002- (http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba400/)- (NCPA= National Center for Policy Analysis)

The story: a) in Mutti’s written words “. . . the United States has been a nation of immigrants . . . foreign-born citizens and residents, legal and illegal, compose only 11.1 percent of the total U.S. population. While this represents an increase of three percentage points in the past decade, it is lower than the 1890 high of 14.8 percent of the population.” b) She further writes- “One widespread myth about recent immigrants is that they take advantage of our welfare state. However, most immigrants are not even eligible for public assistance when they first arrive. Legal immigrants who are not refugees are not allowed to receive public welfare benefits until they have lived here at least three years. Immigrants who are sponsored by a family member - roughly 70 percent of total legal immigrants - cannot receive public assistance until they have been in the U.S. for at least five years.” She then chronicles the amount of retirement, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid money American-born families receive, on average, compared to immigrants. She tackles some issues such as taxation, family reunification and my second favorite issue as it concerns immigration- (the first being education) that is- wages. c) She states- “An ample labor supply keeps labor costs down and leads to lower prices for consumers.”

Further comments: a) Number of immigrants- how many immigrants is a suitable number- should we just let them all in, have them take all of our jobs (mindful of Kant’s categorical imperative); is a United States, 50% of whom are immigrants enough? Give me a report about how many are truly assimilating (learning the language, abiding the laws, not preventing Americans from expressing themselves in their own culture- kids wearing costumes to school on Halloween, immigrants not being needlessly offended, etc.); b) Welfare- some people are just too unaware of how far the bear paw is in the honey pot of America- If immigrants stayed in their country of origin, when might people from Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, India, Laos, Haiti, etc. begin receiving money from United States social aid programs? I would like to say- never, but see #13 above. Don’t kid yourself- immigrants, legal now, or provided amnesty five years from now, will gather the same social security benefits as Americans who have paid in all their lives, if social security remains solvent. Why wouldn’t they- greater injustices have been perpetrated upon the American public already; I have spent six columns revealing them on the current sub-topic; c) labor supply- They damn well better keep consumer costs down, because they are either putting some of those consumers out of a job or are drastically affecting what a consumer’s salary might be. True, what is the difference if an employee’s net income is $2,400 a month and pays $3.69 for a gallon of 1% milk or nets $2,950 and pays $5.50. I'll get to taxation in another few columns- it will be the last thing I tackle. Suffice to say, a continued influx of potentially economically needless immigration will reduce the paychecks of poor and middle class workers- as I've demonstrated. Keeping the costs of consumer goods down is the only saving grace of unchecked immigration or overvalued government approval of the number of legal immigrants given citizen status. Mutti also gathers some data from quite an old source, a 1976 Survey of Income and Education (SIE)*** which reveals, up to that time, how little immigrant families collected from the federal government or any of its social aid programs (Social Security, Medicare, Welfare, etc.) I doubt the monetary figures she bases her opinion on from a report that is now more than 30 years old will stack up against what immigrants are currently receiving. There is no reason a well-meaning, reliable, productive, assimilated human being who speaks English, doesn’t infringe on an American’s traditions, pays taxes and follows our laws, should wait 16 years after retirement to gather the same amount of aid, in whatever form, than an American-born retiree. Given how freely we are offering up our country- I would be shocked if the requirements for receiving social aid were the same as 32 years ago, nor should they be. Though I like my chances of getting decent cell phone reception in an elevator more than actually being able to convince a pro illegal immigration rights person of their faulty foresight, I’ll keep trying.

15) The headlines- “American Diversity” and “Is Immigration in the Public Interest”: These appear as broad headings in an American Government textbook published by West Publishing, the last copyright of which is 1994, Fifth Edition. The contributors listed are: Susan Welch, John Gruhl, Michael Steinman, John Comer and Susan M. Rigdon-

The story I: The bold heading “American Diversity” reveals the previous five waves of immigration that populated the United States with all kinds of characters previous to the current wave- 1) Native Americans “crossed a land bridge from Asia about 50,000 years ago”; 2) the early influx of people from Britain, Holland, France and Spain in the early 1600s; 3) Africans started coming to America in 1619 and continued through the early 1800s- many, as we know, did not come here freely; 4) the mid 1800s saw the influx of “millions of people from Ireland fleeing the potato famine and Germans escaping political turmoil”; 5) “Beginning in the 1970s, the latest major wave has included Vietnamese, Cambodians, Russian Jews, and Latin Americans. Most are Asians and Mexicans.” 6) I have provided a suitable amount of information relative to the sixth wave of substantial immigration, which is ongoing and is distinguished from the wave from #5 given the numbers and home region concentration (i.e. Latin America). The remainder of that portion of the textbook merely provides immigrant demographics, native animosity given the various immigrant group’s presence and their contributions put into historical perspective. Asian-Americans were the fastest growing minority, at about 3% of the population, at that time.

The story II: According to the “Is Immigration in the Public Interest?” inset in chapter 1 (pgs. 8-11) “the effect of immigration on wages is small because most legal immigrants, many of whom are highly educated and skilled, do not work in [the] low-wage industries.” Unfortunately, this is true, of legal immigrants, who compete for wages of many members of the middle class, while illegal immigrants compete for wages of members of the lower class. Is there a class of immigrants that will compete for wages with our upper class? Not significantly. It is more likely that I would be able to prove that a preying mantis might seek out copper thieves in order to have sex for pleasure. Immigrant “newcomers have little effect [on blue collar wages] because immigrants take jobs that others do not want.” I’ve already addressed the inherent self-fulfilling prophecy of allowing in massive numbers of illegal immigrants who frequent the businesses for which they are likely to work. “While federal money helps states and localities pay for many services that must be offered to legal and illegal residents alike, this assistance is shrinking as the federal government shifts many of its responsibilities to the states.” And our state income taxes have not gone up because of it. Right, and congressional approval ratings have never been better, consumer optimism is at an all-time high, and fresh strawberries have a long shelf life. See how long it takes us to catch on to immigration trends and ignore the proof that is staring us in the face (see parts 1 & 2) “Race relations—and political tensions—could worsen if the white non-Hispanic population continues to fall in proportion to minority populations.” Ya think? And maybe we’ll get to feeling like the Native American Indians when we colonized their countryside. There are a couple sentences that give numbers and percentages similar to what I reported last time regarding how the U.S. will be overrun by its own lack of an enforceable immigration policy. Race relations and political tensions- see the YouTube video- part 23. I was going to comment on the loss of American customs, holidays, traditions, the loss of our language (see #13 directly above), our national identity and how we will lose touch with each other by not being able to relate because we won’t have much in common with our co-workers or fellow students in twenty years. I decided that is not an economic issue, at least not directly, and falls outside of the parameters of my middle class blog jeremiad- but just barely.

Further comments: No mas.

We must begin to consider the allowing in of more and more immigrants, of any type, into the country and compare that to the fate suffered by this hawk- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24294408/ “Did Eaten Songbird Claw Its Way through Hawk?” Hawks- birds of prey, taking advantage of the less fortunate on the food chain (i.e. American businesses employing millions of illegals and paying them a wage incommensurate with their contributions), swallowing whole those it should not trust to keep it alive. Perhaps the hawk had a brain fart and little considered swallowing a live bird whole. Allowing immigrants into the country carte blanche is counter-productive to our way of life. Who would work at all of the Chipotles all over the country? That is a much smaller problem to solve than overpopulation, Americans paying for education, health care, infrastructure, crimes, and Welfare for immigrants,* dealing with identity theft, a potential compromised voting record, not to mention the apparently probable disintegration of American culture and tradition. Ask a liberal if they will fight as hard to defend an eight-year-old’s right to wear a Batman costume to public school on Halloween as they will an illegal’s right to collect unemployment after five months of working as a roofer.

Americans- I give you the still very relevant Thomas Paine: “A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it the superficial appearance of right.” What kind of appearance does not thinking about it at all give? The words negligent and irresponsible come to mind.

* The federal government and the pilot states for the national ID would then spend the money necessary to allow the program to run its course over a year period. Arizona and Oklahoma have essentially done just that, providing for the rest of the states, test cases whereby we might judge how necessary illegal immigrant’s contributions to our country might be by passing the toughest laws as it concerns an employer’s hiring practices. Do a search on “federal judge upholds Arizona illegal immigration law.”

See this very relevant article- “Immigrant Boost Economy-but How Much?” by Timothy Pratt, Las Vegas Sun, April 14, 2008- (http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/apr/14/immigrants-boost-economy-how-much/). This is one of the pieces of information I am withholding comment on in order to move forward, but which will be addressed in the book. Again, not finding someone to deliver a steak burrito bowl at Chipotle in exchange for not having to pay tens of thousands of dollars over one’s lifetime for the medical bills, education, subsidized housing, and for not having to deal with immigration's affect on our environment, natural resources and lifetime earnings . . . I can make my own burrito and pay an American $2,000 more to roof my house. To be clear, we need many immigrants, possibly half of the number already here.

** Think skittish and invasive- like the stars of Animal Planet’s “Meerkat Manor.” Can one person be Draconian and passive-aggressive?

*** Mutti had no other choice but to use these numbers if what she writes is true- that it was the “most recent and comprehensive on the subject,” at least it was, according to her, up to 2002.

For more on the rise in the U.S. population for all of the decades of the 20th century please see- http://www.numbersusa.com/overpopulation/decadegraph.html. If things continue with illegal and LEGAL immigration as they have, it is sure to affect you, or someone you love, or someone who loves you. But if it doesn’t, imagine that it does. Consider the infrastructure costs and deforestation that is likely to take place so that new homes, roads, schools and additional infrastructure can be built to accommodate that number of people. Ironic- that liberals would so adore the idea of additional tens of millions of immigrants crossing the border which can't help but have an effect on the environment. Wait, is that irony or hypocrisy? You decide. I love trees, despite having already decked the apple tree I promised to in part 16, and would rather like the opportunity to not hug a tree than not be able to.

Other articles to digest, on which I will provide commentary when I transfer the words that no one has read here into book form . . . where no one will read them:

“Protestors Nationwide Seek Immigrant Rights” Associated Press http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24409739;

“Crackdown Leads to Drop in Illegal Immigration,” Las Vegas Sun (referenced in #14 above, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24409765;

“National ID Cards Won’t Stop Terrorism or Illegal Immigration,” Ron Paul, http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2005/tst050905.htm.