Bush's Plan--Backdoor Immigration?

Bush's "guest worker" plan, allowing Aliens to come into the U.S. to work for a period of time, is one of those "pseudo-solutions", a proposal to solve a problem by "solving the problem". It appears to solve the undocumented worker problem by "documenting them", when in reality it "documents" them for a period of time. after which they don't return to their own countries, or re-document, which then makes them "undocumented" Aliens who didn't have to sneak over the border.
This non-return, or redocumenting, by "guest workers" is not mentioned by Bush and illegal alien proponents; that it is in fact a "back-door" immigration policy. But why all the hype for allowing in guest-workers? I'm not clamoring to let in aliens to work! Corporations however are clamoring apparently.
Which corporations are on the list to benefit from the "documented" worker program? It would be interesting to have that list, and then compare it to the major contributors to Bush and other politicians who argue for the program.
I don't see average workers clamoring to let in aliens to work for low wages. What kind of citizens are made from exploited labor practices? What sort of citizens do they make? Is an immigrant inclined to show loyalty to a country that exploits their being poor and in need?
The argument presented by Bush and his corporate buddies, that consumers benefit by low wages, is a bogus one when examined beyond the immediate facts. There is a limit to lowering wages, eliminating good paying jobs, reducing benefits etc. Lower prices are of no benefit to a bankrupt populace. Consumers pay many hidden costs--crime, regulation, medical care, etc. Many employers of aliens do not pay social security and taxes on their illegal workers. Where are the facts? A lot of organizations have made partisan studies but most of the "facts" are suspect. Just driving around neighborhoods in many of the larger cities, particularly those in southern border states, show that the U.S. is being swamped by aliens--illegal as well as legal. The Bush administration shows a lack of concern on all social fronts.
New Orleans is a prime example of this administration's lack of a sense of importance regarding Americans welfare. Big promises--no action. If they are poor they are of no consequence. But the image of a caring President traveling around in stricken neighborhoods makes good headlines (propaganda again) ; but action always speaks the truth and the lack of action says it all.

Intelligent Design--or is it?

Pat Robertson stated recently that God would reject a town for not voting Intelligent Design into their school curriculum. Intelligent Design proponents say that some creator "designed" (not specifically a Christian God) the universe and state that they are not pushing God into school curriculums. It certainly seems that Church leaders, such as Pat Robertson, are in fact pushing for religion into public schools when they make such obvious statements about God being rejected for not including Intelligent Design. So far I haven't seen anyone point this fact out.
Intelligent Design proponents believe that Nature and the universe is so complex that it had to have been "designed" by some intelligent force (enter God--applause!)
The simple argument against the "Intelligent Design" hypothesis (not theory) is that if some super intelligent and powerful being designed the universe he didn't abide by the KISS (keep it simple, stupid) principle--it made the universe much more complex than it needed to be, as well as grossly redundant; if you take the Bible as gospel.
Look at all the waste in the make-up of the universe--asteroids, comets, billions of solar systems, galaxys etc. If "He" created the world for humans benefit why all the other solar systems, planets etc.? This over-redundancy is in itself an argument against "Intelligent Design"; for it is simply not good design to over do it. The universe should be less complex; not complex as it is.
The term "Intelligent Design" is a slogan, not a theory--not even a hypothesis. It depends on the "wow" factor, where people wonder at nature and say "wow", and lacking imagination and descrimination, assume, like our primitive ancestors, that some supernatural being must be behind it all.
As I've stated before, "belief is a matter of judgement". It is proved every day that many Christian leaders, such as Pat Robertson, lack judgement and make stupid statements about things they know very little about.
The Intelligent Design argument actually disproves Christian teachings; for if a Christian God made our solar system to plant life and humans in, according to the Bible story, why then he must have done the same to all the other solar systems in our galaxy, and all the possible solar systems in all the other millions of galaxies. Why else do these other solar systems exist?
We are then not alone, in fact are only unique because we are probably the only ones to have transgressed and got thrown out of Eden! There may be millions of Edens in the Universe populated by more worthy Adams and Eves.

Bush's Upcoming Speech

I will make the prediction that it will be the same old "stuff"; about how he will solve all our problems by "solving the problems"--no real solutions, just words. The border problem will be solved by putting more troops or patrols on the border and "documenting" more workers to come in and work. The real problem is not enforcing the laws that already, which allow employers to hire undocumented workers through intermediaries such as contractors etc. If illegal aliens can't find work they won't come and no need to spend a lot of money trying to keep the flow of workers out as well as possible terrorists. The whole thing will sound good but not much will get done--at least by Bush's administration. Then too he will again stress how we are in Iraq fighting the cause against terrorists. What kind of terrorists? The kind that is waging an international war against the U.S. and its allies, or fighters who use "terrorist" tactics because they can't fight head-on against tanks and airplanes etc.? The administration plays on the publics lack of being unable to discriminate between international terrorists and the more local terrorists who will fight to make us leave their region. It is more complex than this of course but people can sort it out on their own. The main point I'm making, and Bush isn't making, is that all terrorists are not the same even though some are trying to lump the different types together. It makes for good propaganda however and the media as usual gives him every opportunity to use them to promote his agandas.

The Fuss about Rep. Murtha

The Repubs are at it again--creating Strawmen out of those they wish to delegitimize. They are afraid of an honest debate and the Iraq issue is a prime example of the Republicans lack of ethics. It is about time, long past due in fact, for an open and honest debate. The Administration has done an excellent job of using every propaganda trick in the book; from using "patriotism" to demonizing anyone or country who might bring up contrary arguments to the issues. The Administration holds up Democracy as a holy ideal, yet try to squelch the very essence of it--information and knowledge. Semantics--misled or lies? What difference do the words make when the result is an ignorant and confused electorate? The game may be up if the Democrats, and ethical Republicans, discount the propaganda and insist on truthful answers. The "deny and attack" tactics of the Administration may no longer be useful since much of the electorate is becoming immunized against it. Making Representative Murtha into a "Strawman" to attack and condemn is backfiring and rightfully so. It may not be a lie but it is sure misleading!

Iraq: Believe, Not Facts

The U.S. administration is up to its old tricks of using propaganda to persuade rather than admitting that it was wrong in starting a war with Iraq. Its main argument is trying to paint the Democrats with the same brush; i.e., the you too argument that the Dems had the "same" intelligence that they had. Not true, but what they are trying to cover up is that they "believed" that Saddam had WMDs and thus was a threat. Do we go to war now because of "belief". The UN inspectors were in Iraq for three months and trying to stay in an effort to find the supposed WMDs--Bush then warned them out of Iraq so that he could begin his war. The question is--"who is reinventing history?" The Dems or the Administration. Belief is not facts, obviously, yet the Administration keeps trying to push belief as a reason for war. Obviously they were wrong and the American people are paying a big price for someone's belief.

Media's Shift to the Right

I notice that CNN and in particular MSNBC pander to the right--especially Scarborough's show. It would seem that he would at least make an attempt at "balance", but like all those partisan to the right he can't help but propagandize his views; with the help of other propagandizers. Given a fair forum most issues would be won by the "left", at least those regarding Iraq, WMDs, etc. Dem "hysteria" is constantly being pointed out but not the hysteria of the right. Every little crisis the administration faces creates an army of propagandizers out there hogging the airwaves, thanks to a pandering media. This administration has been very successful in cowing the media and hogging the airwaves and cable networks. The tide is turning however and it will be refreshing to see the media once again ferreting out the truth and vocal about issues that matter to the middle class.

Belief--A Matter of Judgement

Belief plays a big part in our lives--belief in the supernatural, belief in institutions, belief that others will be responsible in their actions; and beliefs beyond belief. We are going to vote on another Supreme Court judge and his beliefs will be ignored, yet his beliefs reflect on his judgement now and in the future. For what we believe reflect on our abilities to make judgements. "Faith", believing in something without substantive evidence, casts doubt on the believers ability to make judgements and when you consider that a Supreme Court Judge makes probably the most profound judgements that impact everyone's lives, that should make people more careful in their choices. Alito is Catholic. This is a religion where the religious heiarchy dictate to their congregations what to believe and accept as gospel. Questions of doctrine are left to the clergy to sort out and define. Is our U.S. law now going to be subject to Catholic interpretation? Is judicial judgement going to be defined by doctrine and the Catholic clergy? How can we be sure of someone's judgement when they believe in the supernatural when there is no evidence for it and their own source, the Bible, is so error prone and contradictory that there is no one doctrine that everyone can agree on? The Bible (See my essay on Jesus the Messiah? at tiltingatsacredcows.com) itself proves that Jesus was not the Messiah; because of his statement about "the sign of Jonah"; yet Christians lie to themselves and others about Jesus. When people have a belief, after careful consideration of all the "facts", and realize that what they believe has flaws, subject to revision or refutation, then I am comfortable in their abilities to make judgements.

Investigating the War in Iraq

The Democrats finally have some impetus towards getting some real answers as to why and how we went to war in Iraq. Everyone has been dragging their feet about getting anything done. Any hack investigator could find the answers in a matter of a few months. You don't need every t crossed and i dotted. All an investigator would have to do is go over the new casts of the speeches given by the administration where they were making claims as to how Saddam had WMDs and why it was necessary to go to war--then ask them what "proofs" they had to merit conclusions they made. Simple questions, simple answers. I wrote an article for the Nation magazine about the admininstrations use of propaganda to push for war and how the "facts" they were using didn't make sense--this was before they went to war. The Nation magazine didn't buy it but the fact is someone knew, me, that something was wrong. I wrote to the media, John Kerry, the DNC about how the facts being given were bogus, but no one picked up on it. So, if I could make a deduction based on basic knowledge of physics, events, etc. that there was no case for war why has it taken so long for the media, our representatives etc. to come to the conclusion that there should be an investigation? The methodology of examination is simple--just ask the administration what intelligence were they using to justify a war? It seems to me that the CIA is being used as a scapegoat by the administration because the administration was using their own intelligence people to come up with "intelligence" to make the case for war. I'll bet a fiver that the majority of CIA analysts were opting for caution in the matter and were being pressured by the administration to come up with evidence of nukes etc. and that it was a political conclusion by the CIA rather than an intelligence conclusion. I will make this prediction--if a real investigation takes place--that it will be found that the administration manipulated, propagandized, manufactured intelligence, to make a case for war and that they did not have solid verifieable intelligence to make a case for war. That their real agenda was a grand plan to democracize the region and secure oil reserves, and break Saudi Arabia's control over oil. What else they had in mind is locked up in their files but it is a grand scheme that backfired on them.