Wednesday, September 21, 2011

My Immigration Chat

Earlier today I had a conversation with someone near and dear to me about immigration. Our dialogue began and ended at about where'd you expect, but with a little sprinkling of history thrown in.

My wife works at an airport, she been telling me about the plane loads of immigrants coming in and wondering just how in the heck all these folks are making their way here in America. You know, those basic needs questions. Where are they working, how are they feeding their family, where are they staying? Are they speaking our language?

Apparently I wasn't as worked up as I should of been, cause I had to explain myself. I began that all waves of immigration to this country have been met with various blends of disdain, prejudice, confrontation, and pessimism about what this will do to our culture.

As time has gone by the Irish, Italians, Polish, Russian, German, et. al. have all assimilated rather well by the third or fourth generation. I said that sure, the parents and kids coming over may not speak our language, but by the time the grand kids are running around English is primary and likely spoken better than the natives.

Today, assimilation in our culture is complete for many waves of immigration, and those fears and concerns of our grand and great grand parents never materialized.

The Irish Catholics, the Italian Catholics, the Polish Catholic all built churches a hundred years ago and spoke only the mother tongue, much to the chagrin of the protestants already here.

Now only the Baptist and Mormons have problems with the Catholics, and that isn't going away, but is relegated to Sunday afternoon, or if one knocks on your door for polite conversation.

I suspect it will be the same for the Muslim and African refugees arriving now.

So I slowed her down. She is a fourth generation Italian, so it wasn't hard to see my point.

But, and its a big but, all those waves of immigration in the past I spoke of did so squarely of their own accord or with the help of their communities.

They were not getting government hand outs, or preferential treatments. Perks that we both agreed are not now affordable, nor desirable in this time of high unemployment and large deficits.

Do we really want people coming over here whom we have to support with welfare?

Not that all immigrants get welfare, but many do, and I don't agree with it.

I practice an enlightened self interest in terms of my politics, If I'm not benefiting by a government action, or if I'm harmed by government action, I'm not for it. Frankly, I'm not looking to benefit from government, thus I'm typically not for more government.

I fail to see what benefit it is of mine to take in the world's poor when all they endeavor to do is get here and become the U.S. poor.

I'm not alone, I stand with my wife.

Many Americans do to, and this is certainly one of those subjects that I think needs debated openly and honestly amongst us voters. Government needs to shrink, that has been my slogan for years, here is a prime example of where we can cut back. If they can get here and support themselves like my forefathers did, then fine.

If they aspire to nothing more than getting here and living off our generosity, then we have to adjust that attitude, eliminate the appeal of the U.S. somewhat so that unambitious folk don't want to come here.

Unfortunately, neither party has been successful in demonstrating to me that this influx will come to an end anytime soon.

Yet another reason why any pressure on the two party establishment to reform is good pressure, whether from the left or the right.

Monday, September 19, 2011

In My Time

Just finished In My Time: A Personal and Political Memoir.

In wiser times the well written, well spoken bluntness of the Vice President would widely be appreciated. As it is, many are not going to benefit from a attentive reading of Mr. Cheney's story.

Buy yourself a present, get this book and put it on top of the queue.

Its 500 plus pages, but obviously it could be much larger, he doesn't belabor an issue, just keeps rolling along, writing how he saw it.

As an aside, I've read many books by the major players, its uncanny how they are always on the right side of decisions. I mean, for every issue there is one approach to the problem, and then there is the correct approach. Of course the writer is always making the right decision. Perhaps an exception to prove the rule, Mr. Bush's book was, I thought, a little too hard on the author. Perhaps the most honest of memoirs, and the shortest.

With Chaney's book, the players making the incorrect decisions were frequently Ms. Rice and Mr. Powell. While Don Rumsfeld was highly accurate, as expected -- his own memoir will attest to that.

Paint me partial, but I appreciate Dick Cheney, I'm glad he was there when he was there. Of course you wouldn't expect anything else from a memoir, but his narrative is rather convincing in portraying himself at the nexus of many a correct decision.

I really appreciated his well written arguments, the utilization of language, rightly used, simple and concise. Yet intelligently driven.

A way or writing I'd love to emulate, but I usual lack the brevity.

Monday, September 12, 2011

Rumsfeld, Krugman, & Sargent

These guys are fantastic! They see demons where there aren't any, I wrote last week of our minds being our worst enemy, consider this example given.

Krugman is crying like a kid who got his argument for more flowers in the schoolyard turned down, when what everyone knew was we needed more physical interaction to get the neighborhood bully to back off.

Really, Greg? Really. " I say it again tonight, I say it again tonight: thank God that George Bush is our president." is your crescendo? Evidence that there was an atmosphere of fear and intimidation created by the GOP after 9/11.

Have you ever heard Jimmy Hoffa speak?

Really. Greg, have you ever heard Jimmy Hoffa speak?

What you quoted were politicians being politicians.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Friday, September 9, 2011

NY Times will require you to sign on.

Why am I always talking about the Tea Party when we got debates and national addresses to cover?

Because talk is cheap and they always have the right answers, unless they've gotten power, then they have only wrong answers.

We'll see.

But this Tea Party business, this is where the real action is taking place.

I wrote of the pressure this movement exerts on the GOP, its a good thing. Sarah Palin, the first target of the left inside this group, has made progress in cracking open the liberal nut, which has been mostly hostile and blind to the cause.

But she's said it in a way that one of them, and that's a start, is beginning to see clearly. Its not a movement that is in antithesis to anyone, unless of course the shrinkage of government threatens you in some way.

The liberal mind shouldn't be hostile to the Tea Party. Indeed they should be doing the same inside the Democrat Party. Alas they are not.

But Palin, she said it in a way that touched Mr. Giridharadas, who openly admits to not being a big fan. What Palin spoke of was well thought out and presented, yet its not new.

What is troublesome to think about is their lack of observational skills, the gap of honest information earned from independent inspection of the apparatus' surrounding you, that many of our liberal friends may be unaware they are suffering from.

The Tea Party, and the like minded American's who quietly side that way, aren't a malignant condition within the political body, they are more akin to white blood cells that are energized to find the tumor and eradicate it.

Oh, and racist? Don't be silly. At some point in our lives we got to ask ourselves if our perceptions are a little foggy, its a natural maintenance for sane people. Especially poignant if you are finding racists everywhere, which is a behavior someone lacking in fine observational skills may exhibit.

Thursday, September 8, 2011


I think I made some in roads in conversation the other day, we'll see.

It followed a little instigation by me, I must confess. I was testing the Teamster's thirst, has the taste changed to the new tea in the pot, or was it the Kool-Aid they've been drinking for years?

It was the same old high sugar, watered down product.

The article I found above, lends itself quite well to my argument, which was laid in response to the "stupid Tea Party" comments.

A couple things I feel very strong about, one is its statistically impossible to be against each and every. With each and every being objects with little constraints. If you're against each and every action that Obama takes, for example, I think that goes against the statistically probable. I mean, you got to like something. If only one thing.

The other thing I feel strong about is that we got a two party system that is detrimental to progress. One party is corrupt and the other usually inept.

The thing is, for some Teamsters, as it is for some of many groups, being against everything Republican, although statistically improbable, is naturally abundant.

Usually in conversation, I found that the admission "they all lie" is in response to a "gotcha" moment when their irregular disposition does not apply consistently across party lines.

i.e. Why hasn't Obama gotten us out of the wars you hated Bush for getting us into? They all lie.

In the present case, I ran with the idea that with this horrendous two party system we got, where they all lie, why in the world would anyone be against a group that has risen within this structure, whose greatest success would be reformation of what passes now for political honesty?

The Tea Party is it folks, the only movement today that boldly, daringly, and improbably succeeded against an Establishment political party.

Agree with them and you may find yourself on the right of side change in America, we may create a reality where the phrase "they all lie" is meant only to explain the actions of boys and girls.

Disagree with the Tea Party at you own discretion, but it'd be nice for all of us if you went off and created some sort of pressure on your side to clean up their act too.

I gotta tell you though, the Tea isn't bad at all, they are just asking for self-sufficiency.

Is that to much to ask?

Tuesday, September 6, 2011

Here's a video of Jimmy Hoffa, Teamster Boss.

Practicing the politics of Anger.

...All the usual support is lining up behind Obama. Hang in for a close election, his base won't leave him.

Monday, September 5, 2011

It Takes An Amish Village

I got into a little conversation over the weekend about the Amish.

I have always thought they are getting away with something whereby they don't pay taxes, but benefit from government. But by morning I have come around 180 degrees. I think the Amish are getting a raw deal.

We are all of course.

The people with the best deal are in the Welfare estate. Best part about that deal? They don't even vote, others are taking care of that for them. Thus they are the ultimate parasites.

Before I wrote anything, I wanted to look into the Amish tax issue, I found this page: This site reveals they pay taxes. Most of the taxes you and I pay, just not the self-employed Amish into Social Security. Yet they also don't benefit from Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid.

The Amish practice self sufficiency, and culturally take care of their own in time of sickness and need.

But how much taxes do the Welfare crowd pay? I betcha less than the Amish, and they do get the benefits of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

They mimic a community, but handouts are the economics underpinnings of the community, its more of a Ponzi Scheme.

In retrospect, the Amish are getting screwed. Just not as bad as me.

Which leads me right now to reflect on how our own minds are our own worst enemies, how the only thing holding us back, is ourselves.

The Amish, or myself, or anyone not on welfare, is not genetically different from the crowds who make a living off the government doles. Its a mindset that is preventing self sufficiency among many Americans.

That's bad enough. What worse is how those who speak up against, or run for office opposed to further funding this lethargy are demonized by the champions of this system.

As though the notion of cutting welfare is crossing the line that separates civilized society from the brutal regimes of our darkest past.

If the Amish can make the stand they do by not accepting government dole at all in their lives, while indeed paying a slew of taxes, I think we can put quite a bit more pressure on the lives of those paying much less but taking much more.

We are the champions of work and self-sufficiency, and that is nothing to be diminished. Work is not a blight, idle hands are the miscreants. If we are all working that is progress, if more and more are not working, that is deggression.

Hillary Clinton wrote It Takes a Villageand many a struggling community and liberal laud the idea.

A village I'll acknowledge, but the governmnent I'll refute.

Thursday, September 1, 2011


From the The Audacity of Hopeto the stirring of anger.

Another reason why I don't think a defeat of Barack Obama in November of next year is a certainty.

His base isn't going to leave him, in the end, they won't be allowed, and it all starts with anger.

He who angers you controls you. This video will anger a conservative, though it will anger its intended audience even more, and they will become protective, and they will vote the right way.

This works both ways. Conservative radio hosts will anger the listener just as well, and for the same ends.

That is what makes it difficult to change peoples minds, and of course they got to change minds from within themselves, anger is going to resist change. It will blind.

It doesn't matter what the topic, choose a general topic important to a general audience. Its a fact that the larger the audience, the simpler the successful message. Plus you gamble big, you win big.

Obama is going to ride the blame bush/racist/reconciler of radical GOP/... messages all the way to the finals next year, and I think its going to be a nail biter.

So how do we switch his base?

Not with anger that's for sure. We can't attack Obama relentlessly, a person not on our side obviously likes something about Obama, we got to respect that. That's the first step of over coming their anger enraged by the liberal sirens.

Just a crack, that's the beginning of it all.

I agree we shouldn't attack Obama on his race, but do we already forget how scornfully Bush was attacked. Each and every day. Even for things he had no way of controlling. I'm just wondering has the criticism of Barrack gone that far yet?

Lets be fair in our time.

I don't think it has.