What to do, what to do?
1. Seal the border. For those of you who say it can't be done, I say you can bring it down to a trickle. A trickle is easier to deal with than a flood.
2. Make it hurt in the right places. Companies want labor at the lowest cost. If hiring illegal aliens cost too much in fines or imprisonment or both, companies will go to the next cheapest alternative. I'll let them figure what that alternative needs to be.
3. Make it hurt in other places. Require all illegal aliens to do what the rest of us do when we break laws that actually don't kill or maim someone. Fine them. Use the IRS to something good for once, and garner their wages, $10,000 each. Hey, if companies think illegal labor is so vital, let them pay the fine for their employees. Give them a drop-dead date to register and comply. People that want to stay will work out a payment plan. That will help offset the burden on our social and educational systems they've created. Those that want to cheat will be deported, and fined.
4. While we're at it, tax the money going back to Mexico. Consider it the price of working here, until you get legal.
Monday, March 27, 2006
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
We just need to reason with these people, right?
Mohammed Taheri-azar's most recent quote:
"The U.S. government is responsible for the deaths of and the torture of countless followers of Allah, my brothers and sisters. My attack on Americans at UNC-CH on March 3rd was in retaliation for similar attacks orchestrated by the U.S. government on my fellow followers of Allah in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, and other Islamic territories. I did not act out of hatred for Americans, but out of love for Allah instead."
"The U.S. government is responsible for the deaths of and the torture of countless followers of Allah, my brothers and sisters. My attack on Americans at UNC-CH on March 3rd was in retaliation for similar attacks orchestrated by the U.S. government on my fellow followers of Allah in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, and other Islamic territories. I did not act out of hatred for Americans, but out of love for Allah instead."
But I don't want the Gov't to sell public lands...
Recently, I got into a debate about the Feds selling about 300,000 acres of forested land to private entities. Part of the gov't's rationale was that the parcels weren't contiguous, so it made enconomic sense to get rid of it. Oh, selling it was such a bad idea. Those private developers were going take those chunks and rape and pillage at will.
Well, how about just giving it away instead? This from Dr. Ronald Utt, the 'privatization czar' under Reagan, that has a pretty good handle on how government wastes money. This scheme here is an especially insidious type of 'earmark' that cheats the taxpayer by giving away land, rather than selling it.
According to Utt:
"Despite near consistent opposition to land sale proposals that would benefit the broad public, Congress sometimes votes to give valuable parcels away to politically influential developers or to communities in their state or district that, in turn, sell or transfer the land to for-profit developers. Although federal spending remains unaffected by these transfers, the government loses valuable assets and the opportunity to raise more revenues for programs, tax relief and/or deficit reduction."
Tsk.
Well, how about just giving it away instead? This from Dr. Ronald Utt, the 'privatization czar' under Reagan, that has a pretty good handle on how government wastes money. This scheme here is an especially insidious type of 'earmark' that cheats the taxpayer by giving away land, rather than selling it.
According to Utt:
"Despite near consistent opposition to land sale proposals that would benefit the broad public, Congress sometimes votes to give valuable parcels away to politically influential developers or to communities in their state or district that, in turn, sell or transfer the land to for-profit developers. Although federal spending remains unaffected by these transfers, the government loses valuable assets and the opportunity to raise more revenues for programs, tax relief and/or deficit reduction."
Tsk.
Monday, March 13, 2006
Thoughts at large, or small
This probably should be filed under "moral equivalency".
We get from news reports over the last few days that a peace activist, Tom Fox was not only executed by terrorists in Iraq, it appears that he was tortured before he died. Obstensibly, Mr. Fox was part of a Christian organization trying to help the Iraqi people. From what I could gather, the organization was against the US invasion of Iraq, etc. The Fox News article alluded to numerous foreigners being kidnapped, and so many of them being killed. The article also mentioned other killings and kidnappings within Iraq.
With all the hullaballoo over Gitmo and Abu Grahib, where is the morally equivalent outrage?
"We're America. We need to hold ourselves to a higher standard", is the usual answer.
Well, how about holding everone to a higher standard, like NOT TORTURING PEOPLE TRYING TO HELP OTHERS, GIVING THEM TWO SHOTS IN THE HEAD AND CHEST, AND DUMPING THEM BY THE RAILROAD TRACKS LIKE DISEASED CATTLE?
We get from news reports over the last few days that a peace activist, Tom Fox was not only executed by terrorists in Iraq, it appears that he was tortured before he died. Obstensibly, Mr. Fox was part of a Christian organization trying to help the Iraqi people. From what I could gather, the organization was against the US invasion of Iraq, etc. The Fox News article alluded to numerous foreigners being kidnapped, and so many of them being killed. The article also mentioned other killings and kidnappings within Iraq.
With all the hullaballoo over Gitmo and Abu Grahib, where is the morally equivalent outrage?
"We're America. We need to hold ourselves to a higher standard", is the usual answer.
Well, how about holding everone to a higher standard, like NOT TORTURING PEOPLE TRYING TO HELP OTHERS, GIVING THEM TWO SHOTS IN THE HEAD AND CHEST, AND DUMPING THEM BY THE RAILROAD TRACKS LIKE DISEASED CATTLE?
Friday, March 03, 2006
Well, at least some of the story got corrected...
But, Heaven forbid they use Dr. Maxwell's terminology of topping. It had to be 'overrunning'
WASHINGTON (AP) _ In a March 1 story, The Associated Press reported that federal disaster officials warned President Bush and his homeland security chief before Hurricane Katrina struck that the storm could breach levees in New Orleans, citing confidential video footage of an Aug. 28 briefing among U.S. officials.
The Army Corps of Engineers considers a breach a hole developing in a levee rather than an overrun. The story should have made clear that Bush was warned about floodwaters overrunning the levees, rather than the levees breaking.
The day before the storm hit, Bush was told there were grave concerns that the levees could be overrun. It wasn't until the next morning, as the storm was hitting, that Michael Brown, then head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, said Bush had inquired about reports of breaches. Bush did not participate in that briefing.
WASHINGTON (AP) _ In a March 1 story, The Associated Press reported that federal disaster officials warned President Bush and his homeland security chief before Hurricane Katrina struck that the storm could breach levees in New Orleans, citing confidential video footage of an Aug. 28 briefing among U.S. officials.
The Army Corps of Engineers considers a breach a hole developing in a levee rather than an overrun. The story should have made clear that Bush was warned about floodwaters overrunning the levees, rather than the levees breaking.
The day before the storm hit, Bush was told there were grave concerns that the levees could be overrun. It wasn't until the next morning, as the storm was hitting, that Michael Brown, then head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, said Bush had inquired about reports of breaches. Bush did not participate in that briefing.
Thursday, March 02, 2006
The AP is at it again
This latest video on Pre-Katrina meetings that included the President is another smear job.
The way they present it, Bush was told the levees would likely fail and disaster would surely follow. Then they put up footage of Bush saying that no one had anticipated the breach of the levees. Makes it sound like he's an idiot/liar/corrupt/clueless...sigh.
The expert they highlighted was Dr. Max Mayfield. Dr. Mayfield is a hurricane expert, not a structural engineer. When alluded dangers concerning the levees, it was from a 'topping' standpoint.
Topping? Yeah, as in water going over the top of the levees because they weren't high enough to hold back Lake Pontchartrain.
Well, as the reportage came in with the hurricane, they felt like N.O. had dodged a bullet in that the levees weren't topped. They were in fact 'high enough' to hold back the water.
Then, they broke. No one had anticipated that. Just like Bush had said.
Even IF the breach had been discussed on the 28th, what could anyone have done to stop it? Guess he could have invaded Louisiana with a gaggle of engineers and tried to shore up the levees AS THE HURRICANE WAS COMING ASHORE.
Brilliant! But a little late in the game for that.
I can only assume the AP thinks we're all idiots with wholesale short-term memory loss issues, and won't pay attention to the facts.
Arrggh...
The way they present it, Bush was told the levees would likely fail and disaster would surely follow. Then they put up footage of Bush saying that no one had anticipated the breach of the levees. Makes it sound like he's an idiot/liar/corrupt/clueless...sigh.
The expert they highlighted was Dr. Max Mayfield. Dr. Mayfield is a hurricane expert, not a structural engineer. When alluded dangers concerning the levees, it was from a 'topping' standpoint.
Topping? Yeah, as in water going over the top of the levees because they weren't high enough to hold back Lake Pontchartrain.
Well, as the reportage came in with the hurricane, they felt like N.O. had dodged a bullet in that the levees weren't topped. They were in fact 'high enough' to hold back the water.
Then, they broke. No one had anticipated that. Just like Bush had said.
Even IF the breach had been discussed on the 28th, what could anyone have done to stop it? Guess he could have invaded Louisiana with a gaggle of engineers and tried to shore up the levees AS THE HURRICANE WAS COMING ASHORE.
Brilliant! But a little late in the game for that.
I can only assume the AP thinks we're all idiots with wholesale short-term memory loss issues, and won't pay attention to the facts.
Arrggh...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)