They joined because the depression made them think communism was the answer. They didn't think they were traitors. They were wrong! Julius and Ethel Rosenberg paid the price.
People still struggle to decide what constitutes the proper devotion to America. The most disgraceful thing about the Hispanics is their silence about the presence of illegal aliens in the U.S. and their failure to support a systematic repatriation process designed to re-assert America's sovereignty and the rule of law, the very foundation of civilized societies. They are sadly in need of an epiphany. They need to think long and hard about where it will all end if we start to tinker with these basic concepts. Without vision the people perish. Without a devotion to citizenship and civic responsibility democracy will fail.
The voice of reason is not the siren litany of "Let's make them legal". The voice of reason is the one that says enforce the law, secure the borders, and expel those who use fraudulent social security numbers.
21 comments:
Ultima, most Americans don't care about illegal immigration as much as you do.
They care more about Americans and Iraqis dying needlessly in Iraq, the terrible state of education, the economy, the declining dollar, rising inflation and debt, the 40+ million Americans without health insurance, corruption in Washington, etc.
Also, this reminds me of people accusing Arab-Americans of supporting terrorism if they didn't publically denounce their religion.
I have noticed the polls which support your point of view. However,it seems to me that some of the problems you cite are short term problem while illegal immigration is a long term issue that threatens our way of life however you define it.
I share the concern about the national debt, the declining dollar, the export of most of our manufacturing capability, the loss of market share in the auto and other industries and the balance of payments with China and other nations abroad. I am less concerned about the terrible state of education (Can this really be fixed by throwing money at it? Why is it one of the best educated nations in the world cannot find a way to motivate students to want to learn? Do you suppose it has anything to do with welfare programs, food stamps, Medicaid, etc. that suggests to some that education is not necessary to survive in America -- you can be indigent and get along quite well with whatever the government hands out and your personal panhandling?)
I am less concerned with people dying in Iraq and Afghanistan because I am not convinced this is needless carnage.
I grew up in a family of ten, including my parents. We never had any health insurance. Most of the time there wasn't even a doctor in town to go to. When I got an infected floor burn from playing basketball, my mother treated it with a bread and milk poultice. When my sister had an infected kidney that had to be removed she went to the University of Wisconsin Hospital where she was treated as an indigent just like poor people are today.
Corruption in Washington is not a new problem and I'm not sure it has a solution since such corruption has existed from the beginning no matter which party was in control. It must be the inherent nature of human beings. And the voters succumb to easily to the promises of "change" and "Straight talk" while the candidates quickly go back to business as usual as soon as they are elected.
If Sharia is interpreted as most Arabs interpret it, we have no choice but to take a jaundiced view of their hypocrisy in failing to regularly and vehemently denounce Muslim terrorism and renounce those tenets of their Sharia law and religion that are the antithesis of American democracy. I don't understand anyone who feels otherwise about this matter knowing that many Muslims have a 200-500 time horizon for taking over the world and imposing Sharia on all of us.
"Ultima, most Americans don't care about illegal immigration as much as you do."
I understand this point of view: It's hard to think about draining the swamp when you are up to your eyeballs in alligators (inflation, failing education, the economy, etc.)But think we must.
There are socialist countries that provide more for their people than the U.S. does - without attaching negative connotations to those provisions - whose education system outperforms the U.S.'s because, IMO, their schools are the same for everyone.
When you grew up healthcare in this country was different; it wasn't a business, it wasn't corporate, it didn't worry about the bottom-line over the health of the person, the drug companies didn't seek to rip-off its customers - especially the elderly -, the insurance companies didn't pay people to find loopholes in insurance to avoid paying medical bills, and, most importantly, politicians weren't actively protecting and giving them more rights to rip everyone off.
My point was that Arab-Americans can't stop terrorism by denouncing their religion or even denouncing the wackos committing terrorism, so why should they? Should they ask Christians to denounce Christianity because of their terrorist wackos?
So why should you believe that Hispanic-America's silence is disgraceful? First of all, besides the marches, Hispanic-Americans are largely silent about every political subject in this country, not just illegal-immigration, especially the most important, which is voting. Second, even if they speak up, for or against illegal-immigration, they aren't policy makers nor do they influence policy makers, because they don't vote enough.
With that in mind, you should clearly see who politicians are pandering to when they support pro-illegal, pro-immigration, immigration reform, hint; that spoiled group owns millions in stocks and couldn't care less about illegal immigrants or Hispanic-Americans or you. If politicians truly wanted to pander to Hispanic-Americans they would promise them improvements in the education system, better health-care, safer neighborhoods, etc., but pro-illegal, immigration reform? Support of illegal-immigrants is almost forced upon them, because most of them are categorized as Hispanics just like them, but in truth, most look out for #1 first, just like most other Americans.
Mirror, thank you for your well-reasoned comments. I believe all organized religions should denounce acts of terrorism, whoever commits them. This is not a matter of denouncing their religion unless that religion promotes or condones terrorism to further its aims. Nevertheless, what you say is true. I doubt that a Southern Baptist has come forward to denounce the anti-abortion violence that has occurred from time to time. They should but I don't believe they have. If asked I presume they would say something like, "Our church does not promote violence even in a good cause yet we sympathize with everyone who opposes the murder of unborn children."
What would a Muslim say, "We do not promote violence but understand that some interpret Sharia and the Koran to require it."
"There are socialist countries that provide more for their people than the U.S. does - without attaching negative connotations to those provisions - whose education system outperforms the U.S.'s because, IMO, their schools are the same for everyone."
Are you a socialist or do you advocate socialism as the proper form of government for the U.S.? How do they make their schools the same for everyone? Does it have anything to do with a fairly uniform population instead of the large groups of minorities in the U.S.? I think if anyone had the answer to that question, they
wouldn't hesitate to implement the necessary educational reforms. On the other hand, if they perceive the difficulty as being associated with our diverse population, then they will continue to struggle and want to throw more money at a problem that may not be amenable to that kind of solution. If we did away with the Dept. of Education and spent all of that money on more classroom teachers and lower student teacher ratios, would that solve all the problems of inner city schools?
How does the per capita expenditures for education in socialist countries compare with the per capita expenditures in the U.S.? Do socialist countries pay their teachers more? Are their classrooms more modern -- all computerized?
I am all for improved education. I want the U.S. to produce more PhDs in science and engineering than any other country in the world and I want them to be able to find employment in our economy.
I think the biggest ripoff is executive salaries and perks. I think I already posted something on this subject. The ratio of executive compensation to hourly wages has been growing like crazy. Boards of Directors throw up their hands and say we have to do it because of the competition for top executive talent. Perhaps we need to make a socialist move on this to tie executive pay in every sector to hourly wages in a fixed ratio. That would level the playing field and remove the need for exorbitant executive compensation.
What you say about insurance and drug companies is certainly true to some extent since they are driven by the profit motive. In some respects workers also benefit from this motive because their 401ks and 403bs invest heavily in those insurance and drug companies and gain from their profits.
Also I am sure you are aware that drug companies have to work very hard to develop new drugs and keep their pipelines full of new products in order to sustain their profitability. The development of new drugs is a very expensive proposition. They must hire and compensate the very best talent they can find and they must equip their labs with expensive instruments and then hope that the results of this research and development effort will produce results. These efforts usually take years and many of the products fail to be beneficial or have severe side effects. There are accounting rules that dictate how R&D costs are to be accounted for. The only option I see in this area is to make drug companies like utilities subject to governmental regulation. That would mean any increase in prices would have to approved by a commission. For new products this could be a problem. It's not like producing and distributing gas or electricity.
How would you deal with the drug companies while making sure they continue to have the incentive to search for and develop new drugs?
With regard to insurance companies the best approach is to keep working on plain English policies so that any dummy can see what is covered and what is not. Then there has to be some sort of negotiation to determine what coverages will be offered based on the price tag for each. To cover everything with an open ended policy, including experimental unproven treatments, would drive the premiums up to unaffordable levels. This is not a simple problem but I agree the insurance companies shouldn't be looking for loopholes to keep from paying legitimate costs. That's where the plain English part comes in. Loopholes should be eliminated and the coverages clarified without a lot of legalese or legal mumbo jumbo.
I believe you are right about government protecting drug and insurance companies along with many other special interests. I was watching a PBS show on energy last night in which the failure of government to take action is the main problem we continue to be dependent on foreign oil. The right kind of incentives imposed by congress would soon produce electric and fuel cell autos weighing half as much as today's behemoths but the auto industries with their large investments in steel stamping plants and the oil companies have effectively locked up any congressional action. This is not unlike their inability to act on social security, medicare, income tax reform, etc. I don't have an answer on how to move congress in the right direction on any of these problems.
I agree that better education and health care might alleviate the problems of Hispanics and that what looks like pandering to them might just be pandering to the cheap labor lobbyists. I suspect, however, that it is a combination of pandering to Hispanic voters, cheap labor interests and those who make a living out of immigration issues. This is very similar to those who make their livings out of tax businesses. Just about anybody can open a tax preparation service so they are going to fight tooth and nail against any tax reform that would take away their livelihood.
Myopia, dark and deep, runs through all of this.
I am not sure where my political compass points... By far my favorite presidential candidate is Dennis Kucinich whose doppelganger, libertarian Ron Paul, is interesting and despicable to me all at the same time. Therefore, I guess my overall political compass points libertarian left. Is that a socialist?
I do not know if uniform populations help socialist countries - either official or de-facto - run their education systems smoother and at higher levels than ours. What I know is that it will not hurt our education system to try; it will hurt our pocket books, but certainly not the already busted system.
I don't believe that we are "throwing money" at the problem, that implies that we're throwing money away to a lost cause or lost causes, that attitude doesn't help the situation and doesn't allow or doesn't approve of sustained investment in education.
IMO, what happens is we begrudgingly approve increases in education expenditures expecting almost hoping for failure, and when we see those immediate failures, which are reasonably expected to begin with, we quit and use those results as proof that "throwing money" at education is tantamount to throwing money away without giving any other solution to the problem. To me, that is an example of working and middle class America disowning a problem they have no desire to fix because their loved ones do not have to attend the rundown schools in the poor neighborhoods of this country. Somehow they do not see the correlation between their sons' and daughters' education success with their, by comparison, luxurious schools and caring well-paid teachers.
I don't know if those countries pay their teachers more, but I do know that some teachers in the U.S. - my sister being one - begin at low performance schools striving to impress someone in charge of hiring in high performance schools not because of the student body, but because that is where the best and highest paid teachers go.
I am forever quick to point out others criticisms of solutions without offering their own, but, in truth, I do not think I am knowledgeable enough to offer my own solutions so I almost prefer to pass that buck too. What I am saying, is that whatever solutions I offer are from an amateur whose eyes are still seeing new things in politics; unlike yours who has seen everything and whose solutions are more thorough, thought-out, reasoned, and surprisingly, nonpartisan.
I agree that drug companies need research money, but the government can provide that through grants without forcing the drug companies to pass the cost onto Americans who cannot afford anymore price hikes. At the very least, the government should not place restrictions on Americans ability to order drugs from foreign countries if they cannot afford what American companies offer.
I agree and I am almost surprised that you side against insurance companies, but yes, they do need to be less ambiguous with their insurance policies, but we both know that that will never happen; they count on the ability to interpret their policies to their advantage. For example, I had a surgery about 18 months ago, the doctor performing the surgery got their approval and I double and triple-checked with my policy and with them and they told me that I am covered, go for it. I did. When it came time for my doctor, the anesthesiologist, the hospital, the blood work company, etc. to collect they reversed their decision and sent them to me. To me it was clear that they had to pay so I fought them and eventually they paid, but there are some who would not or do not how to fight, who get stuck with the bill which eventually burdens them, but more times than not burdens those who had a hand in performing the surgery.
Does Romney, or whomever you support, believe the same things you do in regards to insurance and drug companies? IIRC, Romney has an almost liberal solution to health-care, but I am not 100% on that.
I agree, pro-illegal and pro-immigration immigration reform proponents do appeal to Hispanic voters, but I think that is generally because America categorizes most illegal-immigrants as Hispanics and because the immigration debate has morphed into a condemnation on America’s Hispanic population creating a situation whereby Hispanics are compelled to be sympathetic towards illegal-immigrants in defense of themselves. Yes, there are significant amounts of Hispanic-Americans that are brothers and sisters, sons and daughter, nieces and nephews, or cousins of illegal-immigrants, and blood is thicker than water, but for the most part, Hispanic-America has no tangible connection to Latin-Americans or Latin America.
"Does Romney, or whomever you support, believe the same things you do in regards to insurance and drug companies? IIRC, Romney has an almost liberal solution to health-care, but I am not 100% on that."
I don't know as much as I should about Romney's Massachusetts health care plan. I do believe some form of broader health care coverage is inevitable. The question is will it be a single-payer, government run bureaucracy or will there continue to be some sort of public private partnership with the best of both worlds.
I haven't had any trouble with my insurance company through a couple or three major surgeries. I'm glad you were able to prevail in your dispute.
I know that free goods can lead to incredible waste but we could use a little more compassion in the insurance companies without throwing open the door to all manner of claim regardless of what a reasonable man would say the policy says.
"Therefore, I guess my overall political compass points libertarian left. Is that a socialist?"
I should let Bob Schmidt, an avowed libertarian answer that question. To libertarian left is an oxymoron, no offense intended.
I guess you know I am to the right of center but I sometimes describe myself as a moderate, if there is such a thing. On abortion -- I would prefer that we not have any and rely on education, vasectomies, tubal legations, and other birth control methods rather than the rather brutal abortion techniques. Nevertheless, this issue does not move as strongly as some others.
I am a fiscal conservative and a social moderate in my own mind. I like small government, low taxes, and programs require people to stand on their own two feet, accepting whatever employment they can get and being happy to have it as folks were in the great depression. My Dad always preached that I should get a job before the next great depression came along; I, as a cocky teenager, ignored him and worked my way through college.
It is indeed unfortunate the Hispanics feel that way because it is their country too and whatever harm a burgeoning population and changing culture does to America will affect them as much as it will the anglos.
I think the focus on Hispanics is justified by their proportion of the illegal population. But I feel equally strongly about the Dominicans in New York who are so numerous that Dominican politicians come to New York City to campaign and raise funds. There are plenty of Asians and Indians around too but not so high profile as the illegals from Mexico and South America.
"I don't believe that we are "throwing money" at the problem, that implies that we're throwing money away to a lost cause or lost causes, that attitude doesn't help the situation and doesn't allow or doesn't approve of sustained investment in education."
I'm not sure what else you can call it if it isn't working. Let's close the Dept. of Education and send two PhDs to each country where the education system is working and where the students are achieving more than American students. Let's implement whatever they recommend. Of course, this would run head on into the concept of local control but even locals should want to see the schools improve so maybe it would work.
"What I am saying, is that whatever solutions I offer are from an amateur whose eyes are still seeing new things in politics; unlike yours who has seen everything and whose solutions are more thorough, thought-out, reasoned, and surprisingly, nonpartisan."
Do I detect a slight bit of sarcasm here? Not to worry; my wife thinks I am Mr. Know it All too and that I am thoroughly opinionated. The interesting thing is that she agrees with me on most everything but "would express it differently". I can't deny her criticism, given all of my posts from on high.
I do have a position in life now where I should have some modicum of wisdom. I probably don't have but at least I can act like I do. It is the privilege of old age.
I was a great admirer of Bob Schmidt who used to wind up his posts, after pillorying everyone else's views, by admitting that he suffered from no such faults. I like someone who has a sense of humor and self-deprecation.
No sarcasm, I have the highest respect for people who have "been there and done that." That's why I respect my grandfather, who hardly speaks and has about a week of informal education on his resume, over my uncles and aunts, who lecture me regularly and have decades of formal education under their belts. That's why I'm all ears when my older professors go on personal opinion tangents while I'm defensive when the younger professors do the same. That's why my favorite basketball players are in their 60s, 70s, and 80s... I could go on and on but you get the point...
So even though I may disagree with your or Dee's opinions they don't go in one ear and out the other...
One question, and be honest, have your opinions always been the same or have they changed over the years?
"One question, and be honest, have your opinions always been the same or have they changed over the years?"
That is a difficult question because most of my current opinions were formed recently. And, of course, new opinions are formed everyday as new subjects unfold.
But I do believe my opinions change over time. I thought Bill Clinton was a guy I could vote for. He presented a "moderate" facade in his early days of campaigning for his first presidential term. He changed and my opinion of him also changed. I still believe he is one of the great politicians of our time. He faced down a Republican congress on a number of occasions and won the day. I'm not sure how he did it.
I thought Desert Storm stopped short of the goal of deposing Hussein when it had the chance. Hussein deserved to be deposed for many reasons not the least of which was his invasion of Kuwait. Perhaps Bush the Elder would have handled the post deposition of Hussein better than Bush the Younger. Because of this, I supported Iraqi invasion. Now I have doubts it was worth it. It was grossly mismanaged and we spent tons of money instead of saying to the Iraqis, "You have tons of oil, get it pumping and pay for your own reconstruction." Instead we built a huge new embassy to house huge numbers of bureaucrats to manage the reconstruction and other things. Big mistake! At this point I would tell the Iraqis, "We're not spending another dime on reconstruction. We will bear the cost of our troops and equipment but nothing else. Iraq has the resources to do this themselves if they can get past their fiscal corruption.
I supported Bush the Younger. Now I think he has been the worst president in recent history. I am severely disappointed that the GOP squandered its control of the congress and the presidency and accomplished nothing except to lose the whole thing all over again.
I hope I am open minded on most issues and can change when I am convinced my prior views were erroneous.
Post a Comment