Children's energy!
This is an awesome idea. They hook a children's merry-go-round toy to a water well system, and the energy from that pumps the water out of the ground. It's wonderful for developing countries because it provides a safe place to play and (presumably) safe water to drink. And the moms don't have to use their precious energy to get it.
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
Sunday, September 24, 2006
Bill Clinton Defends His Record on Fighting Terror
This video clip on YouTube taken from Fox News Sunday is Bill Clinton defending his record on fighting bin Laden and terrorism. For all the beating Clinton takes from the right-wing talk shows, it is useful to hear Clinton's side of the story. We've hammered Clinton for not taking certain actions. Clinton asserts that he wanted to take some of those actions but was unable to do them because he didn't have the support he needed to pull it off.
So many times issues are oversimplified to make people look like white hats or black hats. Just because I may think Bill Clinton has done some sleezy things, it doesn't mean he doesn't genuinely care about the safety of the people of this country. Just because I don't like things Clinton has done doesn't mean he wears a black hat.
Byron York has a well reasoned rebuttal to some of Clinton's arguments.
So many times issues are oversimplified to make people look like white hats or black hats. Just because I may think Bill Clinton has done some sleezy things, it doesn't mean he doesn't genuinely care about the safety of the people of this country. Just because I don't like things Clinton has done doesn't mean he wears a black hat.
Byron York has a well reasoned rebuttal to some of Clinton's arguments.
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
Orwell's Korea
While working late one evening, I flipped on the television as I was doing some manual labor. The show playing was a documentary "Welcome to North Korea." I was only half paying attention as I moved computer equipment and cables around the room. But the more I heard and the more I watched, the less important my labor became and the more I was pulled into the documentary.
What I saw, if accurate, was grotesque and scary. There is no other place I know of that so closely parallels George Orwell's world of "1984." We saw tourist attractions with no tourists; only tour guides pre-approved by the government that give tours filled with honorific references to the late leader Kim Il Sung. Streets are devoid of old or handicapped people; they have been sent to outlying areas to live. War museums explain the atrocities of the Americans during the Korean war and we feel the genuine hate for America that still boils in the blood of the military men that were interviewed on camera.
We heard from a North Korean defector who now lives in South Korea. He used to be a "reporter" in the propoganda department. He told of the time he was sent to report on a story where thousands of birds had spontaneously gathered to "bow their heads to Kim Il Sung." When he arrived, he was greeted by party officials who explained that the birds had just left but that it had been an amazing sight. The reporter later asked a farmer if he had noticed anything out of the ordinary. No, was the reply. I assume he returned home and wrote up the story about the birds and their honor for the Beloved Leader.
We heard about the attempts by North Korean officials to create a mythology about Kim Jong Il, the current leader of North Korea and son of Kim Il Sung. For example, the story was told that Kim Il Sung was born in a mountain cottage. Soldiers nearby felt that something very special was occuring and carved an inscription in a tree to commemorate the event. The site became a tourist attraction where Koreans could come learn to adore their new leader. One day, a Japanese botanist was touring the site. Upon hearing the story of the carving in the tree, he noted that the story was impossible given that the tree didn't exist when Kim Il Sung was born. The tree was cut down and the site was closed.
The video footage we saw of the people in genuine anguish at the death of Kim Il Sung was painful to watch. If only these people understood the pain he had caused for them!
North Korea is a sad commentary on socialism and communism. The desire to make everyone equal, while seemingly noble, has worked to grind the faces of this people into the ground. What is astonishing is that they don't recognize it but instead venerate the very villians that have crushed them. This people, stripped of ambition, have submitted to a monstrous regime. I pray for their eventual deliverance.
One thing that was never mentioned in the documentary, but everywhere visible, was the beautiful Korean culture. The dances were intricate and beautiful. The North Korean people are a beautiful and worthwhile folk. They deserve better than the devastation that is being heaped upon them.
Here is another review of the film. I can't find a place to purchase it online, so you may have to wait until it is shown on public television again if you want to see it.
What I saw, if accurate, was grotesque and scary. There is no other place I know of that so closely parallels George Orwell's world of "1984." We saw tourist attractions with no tourists; only tour guides pre-approved by the government that give tours filled with honorific references to the late leader Kim Il Sung. Streets are devoid of old or handicapped people; they have been sent to outlying areas to live. War museums explain the atrocities of the Americans during the Korean war and we feel the genuine hate for America that still boils in the blood of the military men that were interviewed on camera.
We heard from a North Korean defector who now lives in South Korea. He used to be a "reporter" in the propoganda department. He told of the time he was sent to report on a story where thousands of birds had spontaneously gathered to "bow their heads to Kim Il Sung." When he arrived, he was greeted by party officials who explained that the birds had just left but that it had been an amazing sight. The reporter later asked a farmer if he had noticed anything out of the ordinary. No, was the reply. I assume he returned home and wrote up the story about the birds and their honor for the Beloved Leader.
We heard about the attempts by North Korean officials to create a mythology about Kim Jong Il, the current leader of North Korea and son of Kim Il Sung. For example, the story was told that Kim Il Sung was born in a mountain cottage. Soldiers nearby felt that something very special was occuring and carved an inscription in a tree to commemorate the event. The site became a tourist attraction where Koreans could come learn to adore their new leader. One day, a Japanese botanist was touring the site. Upon hearing the story of the carving in the tree, he noted that the story was impossible given that the tree didn't exist when Kim Il Sung was born. The tree was cut down and the site was closed.
The video footage we saw of the people in genuine anguish at the death of Kim Il Sung was painful to watch. If only these people understood the pain he had caused for them!
North Korea is a sad commentary on socialism and communism. The desire to make everyone equal, while seemingly noble, has worked to grind the faces of this people into the ground. What is astonishing is that they don't recognize it but instead venerate the very villians that have crushed them. This people, stripped of ambition, have submitted to a monstrous regime. I pray for their eventual deliverance.
One thing that was never mentioned in the documentary, but everywhere visible, was the beautiful Korean culture. The dances were intricate and beautiful. The North Korean people are a beautiful and worthwhile folk. They deserve better than the devastation that is being heaped upon them.
Here is another review of the film. I can't find a place to purchase it online, so you may have to wait until it is shown on public television again if you want to see it.
Saturday, September 02, 2006
More on the Electoral College
Keryn wrote recently about the Electoral College. She read me another piece that is also worth linking to on the subject. This was was from Pete du Pont on Opinion Journal.
Du Pont points out that direct election of presidents would probably lead to candidates focusing only on large cities and the issues important to city dwellers. This would strike at the heart of the compromise forged by the Founders that led to the bicameral legislature. Small states and large states get equal representation in the Senate while representation in the house is aportioned by population.
The other convincing argument from du Pont's piece was the probability of weaker presidents elected by a smaller percentage of the population. Without an electoral college with a winner-take-all system, you'd have more candidates running for a slice of the pie. There is no such thing as a run-off election (which would require a change in the constitution), so a candidate could become president by only winning 15% of the vote in a crowded field of hopefuls. Such a president would lack a mandate that comes from majority votes.
(Incidentally, I tend to favor a proportional allocation of electors as mentioned by gsbbyu in this comment.)
Reach Upward said it well in his recent comment, "Our Founders constantly turn out to have done a pretty fine job." Amen.
Du Pont points out that direct election of presidents would probably lead to candidates focusing only on large cities and the issues important to city dwellers. This would strike at the heart of the compromise forged by the Founders that led to the bicameral legislature. Small states and large states get equal representation in the Senate while representation in the house is aportioned by population.
The other convincing argument from du Pont's piece was the probability of weaker presidents elected by a smaller percentage of the population. Without an electoral college with a winner-take-all system, you'd have more candidates running for a slice of the pie. There is no such thing as a run-off election (which would require a change in the constitution), so a candidate could become president by only winning 15% of the vote in a crowded field of hopefuls. Such a president would lack a mandate that comes from majority votes.
(Incidentally, I tend to favor a proportional allocation of electors as mentioned by gsbbyu in this comment.)
Reach Upward said it well in his recent comment, "Our Founders constantly turn out to have done a pretty fine job." Amen.
Thursday, August 17, 2006
Wild West Air
I have a proposal for a new airline. We could call it "Libertarian Air" or "Wild West Air." Passengers would undergo no security screenings. There would be no banned substances. Liquids? Fine. Knife? Ok. Gun? Go ahead. Electronic device in use during takeoff and landing? Have fun.
Seats would sell like hotcakes. It would be a real test for the 2nd amendment boosters. Passengers on the planes would be extra paranoid, so pulling off a terror plot would be practically impossible. Heck, maybe we can pull one of these airlines out of bankruptcy.
Seats would sell like hotcakes. It would be a real test for the 2nd amendment boosters. Passengers on the planes would be extra paranoid, so pulling off a terror plot would be practically impossible. Heck, maybe we can pull one of these airlines out of bankruptcy.
Friday, July 28, 2006
Yes on the Electoral College?
This is the best argument I've heard for keeping the electoral college around:
One of the great virtues of the electoral-college system is that it minimizes the problem of fraud: the incentives, the opportunities, and the consequences. In general it is easiest to steal votes where one party is overwhelmingly dominant — but there is no need to steal votes in those states.Read the whole thing. It's very persuasive.
Monday, July 17, 2006
Terrible Silence
I have Google Alerts that notify when my city, Spanish Fork, comes up in the news. Many of them are related to Kiplyn Davis, a high school girl that was murdered over ten years ago. Recently, we've seen a lot of reports of people testifying that they knew something about the case. This is a case that sat unsolved for over a decade. How could so many people not come forward with what they knew?! Holly Mullen in the Salt Lake Tribune apparently made the same observation. She wrote today:
How can we convince people to come forward? We've long been able to tip the police anonymously, but even that didn't happen in this case. So strange. It says so many sad things about the culture surrounding the kids that remained silent--a culture that "accepts people as they are" and doesn't try to lift others up or hold them accountable.
But how to make sense of the parade of witnesses who have so far testified for the prosecution in Olsen's perjury trial? One after another they offered information that, if given up when they first heard it as far back as 11 years ago, might have led authorities to Kiplyn.
One person's timely tip might have saved years of fruitless searching or prevented detectives' trails from turning ice cold. Not to mention the unspeakable anguish Kiplyn's parents, Richard and Tamara Davis, have lived with since their red-haired daughter with a zest for life disappeared from Spanish Fork High School on May 2, 1995.
Last week, they sat in the front row of the federal courtroom, listening to every detail from witnesses who might have put a halt to this long ago.
More than a dozen of Olsen's Utah County friends testified that, between 1995 and 1999, they had heard either innuendo or detailed boasts from him regarding his part in Kiplyn's disappearance. Some related chilling claims that Olsen blurted out at parties - admissions of beating, raping and killing Kiplyn, then disposing of her body.
How can we convince people to come forward? We've long been able to tip the police anonymously, but even that didn't happen in this case. So strange. It says so many sad things about the culture surrounding the kids that remained silent--a culture that "accepts people as they are" and doesn't try to lift others up or hold them accountable.
Sunday, July 16, 2006
Palestine's Woes
For religious reasons, I love the Holy Land. For political reasons, it makes me want to gag. During a semester spent studying in Jerusalem, I had the opportunity to hear from passionate voices with a personal stake in both sides of the debate.
I heard from Palestinians who explained how their families had been displaced when the state of Israel was created and Jews took over governing Jerusalem. I heard from Jewish settlers who had had their homes attacked and their families terrorized.
I had a Palestinian professor and a Jewish professor. Both of them made excellent arguments for the rightness of their side in the enduring controversy. I appreciated the fundamental elements of the arguments on both sides and wished I had an easy answer. But stronger still was the disgust for the wicked actions that had been taken by participants on both sides of the dispute. Neither has totally clean hands.
I'm not sure I would have supported the creation of Isreal all those years ago by international fiat. I think I understand why it happened, but I'm not sure if I could have gotten behind it.
Even so, I can't deny the facts on the ground now. The Arab neighbors of Israel have continually denied her right to exist. Failing to prevent her creation through diplimatic means, they have, on multiple occasions, waged war against Israel to destroy her by physical force. They forsook the path of diplomacy and took the path of violence. They made their choice.
Each time they have lost. How can it be fitting that the losers in a war demand concessions from the winner? Yet that is exactly what we continue to see from the Palestinians. Each time they resort to violence their options become less and less attractive and their possible borders shrink. The Palestinian leaders have betrayed their people and robbed them of what might have been theirs.
I find myself in agreement with the words of Youssef Ibrahim.
The Palestinians have made their bed. They opted for violence. They lost. Now they must lie in it.
I heard from Palestinians who explained how their families had been displaced when the state of Israel was created and Jews took over governing Jerusalem. I heard from Jewish settlers who had had their homes attacked and their families terrorized.
I had a Palestinian professor and a Jewish professor. Both of them made excellent arguments for the rightness of their side in the enduring controversy. I appreciated the fundamental elements of the arguments on both sides and wished I had an easy answer. But stronger still was the disgust for the wicked actions that had been taken by participants on both sides of the dispute. Neither has totally clean hands.
I'm not sure I would have supported the creation of Isreal all those years ago by international fiat. I think I understand why it happened, but I'm not sure if I could have gotten behind it.
Even so, I can't deny the facts on the ground now. The Arab neighbors of Israel have continually denied her right to exist. Failing to prevent her creation through diplimatic means, they have, on multiple occasions, waged war against Israel to destroy her by physical force. They forsook the path of diplomacy and took the path of violence. They made their choice.
Each time they have lost. How can it be fitting that the losers in a war demand concessions from the winner? Yet that is exactly what we continue to see from the Palestinians. Each time they resort to violence their options become less and less attractive and their possible borders shrink. The Palestinian leaders have betrayed their people and robbed them of what might have been theirs.
I find myself in agreement with the words of Youssef Ibrahim.
Dear friends, you and your leaders have wasted three generations trying to fight for Palestine, but the truth is the Palestine you could have had in 1948 is much bigger than the one you could have had in 1967, which in turn is much bigger than what you may have to settle for now or in another 10 years. Struggle means less land and more misery and utter loneliness.
The war is over. Why not let a new future begin?Long have champions for the Palestinians cried that if only Israel would end the occupation of Palestinian territory there could be peace. Charles Krauthammer reminds us of the folly in believing that assertion; we have seen a unilateral withdrawal by Israel from the Gaza strip that did not result in peace.
The Palestinians have made their bed. They opted for violence. They lost. Now they must lie in it.
An Opposing View on the Minimum Wage
In response to my last post, Internet Esquire commented with a link back to another really good discussion of the minimum wage. I'll admit that the issue is certainly tricky and I don't pretend to be an economist who fully understands the ramifications of any choice we could make. I do tend to think minimum wage increases are not very helpful, but I always appreciate hearing other views and I thank Internet Esquire for the link.
Would Molly Ivins Live In Zimbabwe?
Molly Ivins is angry at Congress for refusing to raise the minimum wage.
Douglas Rogers writes about his home country of Zimbabwe. He explains that 1 US dollar is worth 450,000 Zimbabwe dollars. Their money is halving in value every four months.
Opponents of the minimum wage argue that it causes the same effect we see in Zimbabwe, albeit on a much smaller scale. As more people have more money to spend, suppliers are able to charge more for their products. So any gains for workers in the minimum wage are quickly erased by inflation.
Advocates of the minimum wage then argue we need to regularly increase the minimum wage with inflation. But this seems akin to the problem the leaders in Zimbabwe have. They keep printing more money. It is a short term fix with devastating long term costs.
If opponents of the minumum wage are right, then raising the wage only hurts the people it was intended to help. Seen in that light it doesn't seem fair to call opponents heartless or "nasty."
Near the end of her column Ivins writes, "It seems to me that we've seen
enough evidence over the years that the capitalist system ... will be
destroyed by its own internal greed. Greed is the greatest danger as we
develop an increasingly winner-take-all system."
Ivins sees greed as the great problem of capitalism. But self-interest is the greatest strength of the system. In Zimbabwe, Rogers explains, 4000 white farmers were kicked off land they owned. Much of the land is now lying fallow and the government is falsely claiming a drought to explain the food shortages.
Unsurprisingly, nobody wants to invest is a country where the government is willing to seize private property. If people can't enjoy the fruit of their labors (or see the return on investment), why should they risk? They won't, and the disaster in Zimbabwe is the result.
Economic policy shouldn't be guided by short term interests but by long term benefits.
I don't get it. What's the percentage in keeping the minimum wage at $5.15 an hour? After nine years? This is such an unnecessary and nasty Republican move. Congress has voted seven times to raise its own wages since last the minimum wage budged. Of course, Congress always raises its own salary in the dark of night, hoping no one will notice. But now it does the same with the minimum wage, quietly killing it.Her point is essentially that the goverment is heartless because they don't force higher wages for workers. Of course it sounds kind to give other people more money. But Zimbabwe seems to be learning the hard way that monetary policy isn't so simple.
Douglas Rogers writes about his home country of Zimbabwe. He explains that 1 US dollar is worth 450,000 Zimbabwe dollars. Their money is halving in value every four months.
How did Zimbabwe get to this point? It began in the late 1990s when, in order to pay for a costly military incursion into civil war-torn Congo, President Robert Mugabe ordered the printing of vast amounts of money, and inflation climbed steeply.This is a situation I learned about in my high school economics class. When there is an increased supply of money prices always go up.
Opponents of the minimum wage argue that it causes the same effect we see in Zimbabwe, albeit on a much smaller scale. As more people have more money to spend, suppliers are able to charge more for their products. So any gains for workers in the minimum wage are quickly erased by inflation.
Advocates of the minimum wage then argue we need to regularly increase the minimum wage with inflation. But this seems akin to the problem the leaders in Zimbabwe have. They keep printing more money. It is a short term fix with devastating long term costs.
If opponents of the minumum wage are right, then raising the wage only hurts the people it was intended to help. Seen in that light it doesn't seem fair to call opponents heartless or "nasty."
Near the end of her column Ivins writes, "It seems to me that we've seen
enough evidence over the years that the capitalist system ... will be
destroyed by its own internal greed. Greed is the greatest danger as we
develop an increasingly winner-take-all system."
Ivins sees greed as the great problem of capitalism. But self-interest is the greatest strength of the system. In Zimbabwe, Rogers explains, 4000 white farmers were kicked off land they owned. Much of the land is now lying fallow and the government is falsely claiming a drought to explain the food shortages.
Unsurprisingly, nobody wants to invest is a country where the government is willing to seize private property. If people can't enjoy the fruit of their labors (or see the return on investment), why should they risk? They won't, and the disaster in Zimbabwe is the result.
Economic policy shouldn't be guided by short term interests but by long term benefits.
Wednesday, July 05, 2006
Tolerance as Religion
Lavar Christensen has gotten a bit of a beating over a remark he made. "Tolerance is the religion of people who no longer believe in anything."
I don't know Mr. Christensen. I'm only examining the phrase he is reported to have uttered. I think that the phrase, rightly examined, seems perfectly reasonable. I suppose that what everyone is attacking is what they suppose the phrase says rather than what it actually says. (How's that for mind reading?)
Here is what he didn't say:
"Tolerance is dumb."
"Tolerance is for people who don't believe anything."
"People who have beliefs shouldn't be tolerant."
None of those are in the quote.
His point, I believe, was that tolerance becomes the primary virtue for someone without a bedrock set of principles they believe to be undeviatingly correct. (I'm guessing the the part of the quote "no longer believe in anything" is hyperbole, which I find to be an acceptable rhetorical device.)
Imagine a bakery has just been robbed. The owner is filing a report with the police. Now imagine an onlooker who doesn't believe in property rights. Our onlooker sneers at the bakery owner, "You intolerant jerk. You know that nobody would steal from a bakery if they weren't hungry." Because he doesn't value property, tolerance can become his chief virtue--his religion, if you will.
We see this same confusion over the term "choice." I think choice is a wonderful thing. My theology as a Mormon hinges on my free will. Without choice, my life would be meaningless! But I also believe in consequences. If you believe in choice instead of consequences, then you've made choice your "religion" where I have not. Even though choice is fundamental and essential to my religion, it is not the only virtue.
So it is with Tolerance. I believe in it. I advocate it. But I won't be tolerant of the rights of terrorists to blow up buildings. In other words, I believe in other things more than I believe in tolerance. Don't you?
I don't know Mr. Christensen. I'm only examining the phrase he is reported to have uttered. I think that the phrase, rightly examined, seems perfectly reasonable. I suppose that what everyone is attacking is what they suppose the phrase says rather than what it actually says. (How's that for mind reading?)
Here is what he didn't say:
"Tolerance is dumb."
"Tolerance is for people who don't believe anything."
"People who have beliefs shouldn't be tolerant."
None of those are in the quote.
His point, I believe, was that tolerance becomes the primary virtue for someone without a bedrock set of principles they believe to be undeviatingly correct. (I'm guessing the the part of the quote "no longer believe in anything" is hyperbole, which I find to be an acceptable rhetorical device.)
Imagine a bakery has just been robbed. The owner is filing a report with the police. Now imagine an onlooker who doesn't believe in property rights. Our onlooker sneers at the bakery owner, "You intolerant jerk. You know that nobody would steal from a bakery if they weren't hungry." Because he doesn't value property, tolerance can become his chief virtue--his religion, if you will.
We see this same confusion over the term "choice." I think choice is a wonderful thing. My theology as a Mormon hinges on my free will. Without choice, my life would be meaningless! But I also believe in consequences. If you believe in choice instead of consequences, then you've made choice your "religion" where I have not. Even though choice is fundamental and essential to my religion, it is not the only virtue.
So it is with Tolerance. I believe in it. I advocate it. But I won't be tolerant of the rights of terrorists to blow up buildings. In other words, I believe in other things more than I believe in tolerance. Don't you?
Monday, July 03, 2006
Take Health Care and Child Care Out of Schools
Right now we have a few students in our school system that consume a lot of resources. Children with profound mental handicaps that won't ever have the ability to read or write or make a sandwich.
Taking care of these children and lifting the heavy burden their parents bear is a very important resonsibility of our society. They shouldn't be left alone. A compassionate society can and should help, but the public schools are the wrong place to do it.
We can't have a clear view of what it costs to educate students if we are wrapping up a whole raft of health care costs in that sum.
Let's seperate the funding for these two services. Then we can honestly evaluate how each is doing independent of the other. There is not significant harm in allowing them to share facilities, possibly having one rent space from the other, for the obvious efficiencies that can create. But we shouldn't call the health care expenses "education."
Taking care of these children and lifting the heavy burden their parents bear is a very important resonsibility of our society. They shouldn't be left alone. A compassionate society can and should help, but the public schools are the wrong place to do it.
We can't have a clear view of what it costs to educate students if we are wrapping up a whole raft of health care costs in that sum.
Let's seperate the funding for these two services. Then we can honestly evaluate how each is doing independent of the other. There is not significant harm in allowing them to share facilities, possibly having one rent space from the other, for the obvious efficiencies that can create. But we shouldn't call the health care expenses "education."
Monday, June 26, 2006
Utah County Commission Seat A
The Citizen's Resource event at UVSC featured speeches from the two candidates for the Utah County Commission. Gary Anderson spoke in person while Jerry Grover (the incumbent) was unable to attend and has his brother read a statement.
Grover's speech was... dry. It was like listening to someone read a resume consisting primarily of bullet points.
Anderson had the obvious advantage of speaking for himself. He was dynamic and articulate and offered a focused message. He is very concerned about the huge transportation problem we have in the county and sees that as a priority for the commission.
Anderson used to serve on the commission years ago and has felt they needed his experience and focused direction again. I agree. I'll be voting for Gary Anderson in tomorrow's election.
Grover's speech was... dry. It was like listening to someone read a resume consisting primarily of bullet points.
Anderson had the obvious advantage of speaking for himself. He was dynamic and articulate and offered a focused message. He is very concerned about the huge transportation problem we have in the county and sees that as a priority for the commission.
Anderson used to serve on the commission years ago and has felt they needed his experience and focused direction again. I agree. I'll be voting for Gary Anderson in tomorrow's election.
Commercial Ads in Political Campaign Email
I just received a last minute email from the John Jacob campaign. It was a letter from his wife. The email had a graphical banner at the top. The banner was the campaign logo and a picture of Mrs. Jacob.
If you click the banner, you end up at the website for the company that sent the email rather than the Jacob campaign. There is no link to the campaign website at all in the email.
My email reader hides images in email messages by default. The "alt" text is "The Ginormous MailChimp Sale." So, instead of a picture of Jacob's wife, I'm treated to an ad for MailChimp.
If I were on the Jacob campaign I would be furious. I'd also be looking for a new email company.
If you click the banner, you end up at the website for the company that sent the email rather than the Jacob campaign. There is no link to the campaign website at all in the email.
My email reader hides images in email messages by default. The "alt" text is "The Ginormous MailChimp Sale." So, instead of a picture of Jacob's wife, I'm treated to an ad for MailChimp.
If I were on the Jacob campaign I would be furious. I'd also be looking for a new email company.
Friday, June 23, 2006
Charlotte Ducos Explains Jacob/Cannon Immigration Debate
I received an email inviting me to post an essay by Charlotte Ducos of Eagle Mountain, the same place John Jacob is from. You can read her entire report which is available as PDF. She concludes her report with her own conclusions about the immigration problem, bringing in her views as the wife of a recently naturalized citizen. She is very persuasive.
We cannot afford to send someone who is starting from scratch in Washington to participate in this debate. At this point I feel a need to also give credit to Mr. Jacob. He does have some good ideas. He took a great deal of time with me to explain his position. He does have well-formed opinions, they are just not opinions I feel I can endorse. I can honestly say that I have studied this issue, and our two candidatesÂ’ stances on the issue very thoroughly, and I give my opinion, without reservation, that Representative Cannon has the strongest position on immigration. Examine the issue, decide for yourself, and then donÂ’t forget to vote Tuesday, June 27.A few other snippets from the article:
[Jacob] seems to feel, in a nutshell, that the only reason there is an immigration problem in this country is because employers want cheap labor, immigrants will do it cheap, the jobs are there for them, and so they come. His solution is to deport all of the workers, thus forcing employers to raise wages to compete with other industries and then American workers will do the work the immigrants have been doing—problem solved. In fairness, Mr. Jacob does believe in strengthening the borders, but philosophically, he seems to feel that if we remove the jobs, the illegal worker problem will take care of itself.
[Cannon] does not believe it is necessary to deport those who are here illegally in order to penalize them. Our government pays the cost of those deportations, and because of the long lines to enter the country through other existing visas, the most likely path for those who are deported is to sneak back in again illegally. If we instead give them a program that allows them to come out of hiding, to become documented, to pay the penalty for being here illegally and to gain—not citizenship or residency—just the right to work, we can begin to clean up the system.She asserts,
There are some jobs that most Americans just donÂ’t want to do. This is unfortunate, and could be the subject of a story of its own, but it is a reality. I have a neighbor that owns a landscape company. He raised his wages to attract American workers, but could not get any to come. My father tried very hard to hire local teens and unemployed, but with few exceptions, they would rather go without work than do the jobs he was asking them to do.It is worth reading her entire essay. The document also includes a completed questionnaire from both candidates on the subject of immigration. Reading the candidates answers on the questionnaire was more useful than the discussions in the debates I've heard.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)