Corporation Firewalls

The GAP Flap, Indian children being exploited for corporate profit, is nothing new to Tilting At Sacred Cows. The most common "dodge" is the use of creating a "firewall" between the unethical, and often illegal, act and the "patron"; in this case a corporation. This blog has stated that farming corporations for years have engaged in using so-called contractors and sub-contractors in order to create a "firewall" between them and responsibility--legally and ethically. Where there is money to be made you will find the use of "firewalls". If anyone would bother to follow the "green-back trail" back from store to sweatshops you will find gross exploitation of human beings. The big surprise to me has been that there has been so few corporations found out. Someone has to be providing all that labor for all the cheap goods that have been pouring into the U.S. and Europe for the last few decades. Women and children are the most helpless and desperate, so are most likely to be exploited.

The Question of Universal Healthcare

There is a lot of fuzzy thinking regarding "Universal Health Care"; which is a health care program run, regulated, financed by the government; similar to Medicare--I presume anyway.
The basic premise for Universal Health Care is that every individual has a fundamental "right" to health and well-being. A person might argue, since our welfare is protected by "the State"--from criminals, foreign enemies, agents, and others to the tune of trillions of dollars-- that our welfare should be protected in the health realm as well.
President Bush, from one side of his mouth, states that it is his duty to protect Americans from terrorists, and out of the other side of his mouth, states that "Free Enterprise" is more important than American's health. Trillions of dollars are being spent to protect Americans from "potential" enemies; all the while Americans are dying and suffering in a real immediate fact everyday unable to obtain health care, which would possibly save their lives and relieve suffering.
On top of it all is the inflation costs of health care increases at a much higher rate than the rest of the economy and nothing is being done about it. This increase is making it more difficult for individuals and employers to continue health insurance. With more and more companies moving offshore more and more workers are losing jobs and health insurance.
So, a basic fundamental "need" is not being addressed like other "threats" because economic philosophy says to do so would "socialize" a capitalistic society.
The whole argument is contradictory since the "welfare" of Americans demands equal protection: just as much as police, military, etc. services provide "protection". Cancer, pneumonia, broken bones, etc. are as much a "threat" to Americans as terrorism nd war is.

Spitzer--An Example of Things to Come?

Governor of New York Elliot Spitzer's plunge into the illegal immigration issue is arrogant, foolhardy, and against the wishes of the majority of those polled in New York--a whopping 72%. What does this portends for the future? Hillary, Obama, and Giuliani have already expressed their views on illegal immigration--amnesty for 12 to 20 million illegal aliens; despite the wishes of the majority of Americans. They are literally saying "screw you America, we are going ahead and give out citizenship to illegal aliens whether you like it or not!" Their previous effort in the mid-80's just exasperated the situation; drawing in many millions more illegal aliens and institutionalizing criminal behavior to the point that illegal aliens feel they have a "right to gain citizenship through work ethic". So far for 650,000 criminal detainees "work ethic" has been "criminal ethic". No telling how many more uncaught illegal aliens fall into the category of "professional criminals". The majority of illegal aliens fall into the category of "criminals" because they engage in labor and social security fraud; i.e., they use false documents and someone else's social security numbers to obtain jobs or social services. But back to the original thought of what will happen after this next Presidential election based on actions of recently elected politicians such as Spitzer.
The issue of amnesty should be a good clue on how a politician will act after they are elected. Hillary is expounding about representing the "middle-class" if she is elected. Yeah, sure--like giving amnesty to millions of illegal aliens is representing the middle-class. What about energy? Is America's depleting energy sources going to be addressed, or are the politicians going to continue to give oil companies and other corporations preferential treatment at the expense of most Americans? America is hanging precariously at the edge of a cliff energy wise--we are importing over 60% of our oil and only have about 22 billion barrels of oil reserves--we use over 7 billion barrels of oil a year--that means if all other sources of oil were shut down we would have three years before it was all gone--if we could produce it at a rate of consumption; which is impossible.
The government should be developing coal-based synthetic oil to replace our dependency on foreign oil. The government has billions of tons of coal located on public lands, which could be developed for public use. South Africa produces oil from coal, so why can't the U.S.?
Politicians, such as Hillary and Giuliani, have fine-tuned their message so as to avoid answering explicitly their intentions regarding such issues as energy, gun control, abortion, amnesty, etc. You notice not one of the candidates answers a question posed to them straight forwardly--they go off onto tangents and finally, if at all, give a watered down answer, which by then the question is forgotten?
I shudder at the thought of any one of these candidates winning the Presidential election--an even greater shudder at the thought of any one party winning the House, Senate, and the Presidency.

The Jena 6 Controversy

Give Sharpton a soap-box and he'll stand on it and expound endlessly. What has gotten me fired up about the issue is Blacks equating a physical assault with a threat; i.e. sucker punching and rendering someone unconscious, then kicking him repeatedly in the head as he lay on the ground-- with placing a noose in a tree--both acts separated by a months time.
Granted Blacks have a sensitivity to such symbols as nooses in trees, and in some cases the nooses represent real threats, but a real threat is doubtful in this case, being placed there presumably by teenagers. I would infer that the Blacks are expounding on the issue for political reasons, exaggerating the "facts" and generally propagandizing; finding gaping wounds where minor scratches exist.
Unfortunately you are considered a "racist" if you try to point out the fallacies in their arguments. The media has gotten into the act as well in their coverage on racial issues. Nothing blatant but they cover issues, that might be normal human issues, as racial issues. Nothing explicit, but implicit, creating racial discord where none is apparent. People are normally prejudiced--male versus female, nationality versus nationality, short versus tall, skinny versus fat--you name it there is bound to be some prejudice in people's minds. Stereotypes, cliches, and other ideas shape our views of ourselves and others. Beating people over the head for having biases and prejudices is fruitless--that is the way people are made. We are emotional and not rational beings. That is why we have political parties, countries, religions and the like. All we can do is keep it all down to a low roar.

The Illegal Immigration Debate

Proponents of the "comprehensive immigration" issue argue that "undocumented immigrants" are here to work hard, obey laws, are seeking a better life, pay their taxes, send their children to U.S. schools, just like all other immigrants before them, and are just like the Italians, Germans, and English immigrants who immigrated to this country years ago. That these "undocumented immigrants" just take jobs that Americans are too lazy to take, or wont take because employers don't want to pay the high wages that Americans want. Also proponents of the "comprehensive immigration" issue claim that anti-amnesty advocates are "racists"; since most of the 12 to 20 million illegal aliens are Latinos from Mexico and central America by default there is some truth to that; but labeling opponents does not detract from the issue the fact that 12 to 20 million people are breaking U.S. laws; that they are here illegally, creating havoc with our legal and political systems, encouraging anarchy, supporting illegal activities (such as document and tax fraud), driving down wages in the construction, meat packing, landscaping, and many other industries. Many Americans would be glad to have jobs in these industries and did at one time, with good pay, but now have been forced out of these industries because employers in those industries seek out illegal workers through intermediaries, such as labor contractors.
Not every illegal immigrant is here to "work hard". Statistics are slowly being gathered, which indicates that there is a high percentage of convicts who are illegal aliens (650,000?). Many have committed serious crimes such as assaults and murder. Also many take the easy route to making money by dealing in drugs and associated crimes related to drug trafficking.
Another argument proponents of amnesty use is "you can't kick out 12 to 20 million illegal immigrants", that to do so would be inhumane and physically impossible. What is being overlooked is the large numbers that 12 to 20 million represents. We have a problem and the problem must be dealt with if we are to have a stable and lawful society. We don't have to kick them out. By enforcing tax and labor laws the problem pretty much solves itself. Illegal immigrants unable to find work would have to go back home on their own. For instance: if social security numbers were checked for numbers being used at different work places at the same time that would indicate SS fraud. A worker can't be two places at the same time. Then if an employer had a high number of workers with social security numbers not matching names, or other conflicting data, that would indicate that an employer was deliberately hiring illegal immigrants would it not? I have seen meat packing plants in Texas busing in large numbers of workers that most likely were illegal aliens. Industries such as this bear closer inspection since they are industries with the most to gain by hiring illegal aliens. The IRS randomly checks citizen's tax records so why aren't social security records routinely checked for fraud?
Then there is the "inhumane" argument. "If we enforced our immigration laws we would be causing harm to poor people just trying to get ahead in life, people paying taxes and sending their children to school etc." The big question is "whose fault is it for their predicament"? Did we ask them to break our laws, subvert our judicial system, create anarchy in our society? No. Everyone is accountable for their own actions and the consequences of their actions are on their shoulders, not ours. We all have a tendency to empathize with people and there is a lot of empathy going around. Our emotions are being strummed like a well tuned harp by the proponents of so-called "comprehensive immigration". There are a lot of exaggerations such as; cost of food will go up, or fruit and vegetables will rot in the fields, you can't deport 12 million "immigrants", Minutemen are violent and racists, etc.
We pass laws for good reasons. The fact is we welcome immigrants to this country--those immigrants who are willing to obey and respect our laws.
Arguments are made that immigration in years past was loose, with many of those entering our country with no papers. We paid the price for that too--syndicated crime and other social problems. We passed laws to prevent such occurrences from happening in the present and future. The very same laws that some are now willing to break or subvert. If we would follow law based on historical precedent we would be dunking people, burning people for witchcraft and the like. Events in the past are instructive but not necessarily binding.

Lady Justice and Illegal Immigration

Ever notice at U.S. courthouses that there are statues representing justice a gowned blindfolded woman holding a balance scale? This is supposed to represent American justice, that justice is blind to undue influence and the scale she holds represents the weighing of the evidence in a fair and just manner. Some proponents of amnesty for illegal aliens would have us pick and choose who would stay or go based on sob stories, emotional appeals, and the like. Rick Sanchez of CNN has based a propaganda campaign based on such emotional appeals; parading before the cameras those persons with "touching" tales of potential hardships, which might happen if immigration law were enforced. Rich Sanchez's argument seems to be that immigration law is unenforceable because of the hardships brought about by enforcing immigration laws. Enforcement would then be based on the degree of hardship brought about by enforcement.
Injustice is then the fault of law enforcement, that the hardships are the result of following the law. If we were to follow this logic bank robbers would be freed on the basis that their children would suffer if the bank robber would be put in jail for years and years. Sentences would be passed out on the basis of inconvenience to those breaking the law.
So far proponents for amnesty have tried stifle opposition by labeling their opponents as racists, cruel and unfeeling, bigots and the like; either directly or by innuendo. Arguments made by proponents of amnesty have been nothing more than propaganda ploys; high on emotion and low on valid "facts". The facts of the case are we have 12 to 20 million aliens in this country illegally, trying to shape immigration policy, trying to make a travesty of our justice system, and corrupting our political system. They are doing harm to our society; economically, socially, legally, and politically. As humans we can sympathize with other persons plights but at some point we must look out after our own interests. Now is that time.

If You Build a 12 Foot Fence?

If you build a 12 foot fence they'll use a 13 foot ladder. Bill Richardson, Democratic candidate for President, uses this cliche to argue against building a wall, or fence, to help control border incursions by Mexicans and other Latinos, and possibly Arab terrorists. So far I have not seen anyone rebut his weak argument. Common sense should slap any rational being in the face with its farcical logic--three million yearly cross our southern border; for sake of argument we'll divide that number by 10, that is 300,000 ladders carried to remote spots in the desert; to be left leaning against the fence for all to see where aliens crossed over. If ladders are used repeatedly at the same location that point becomes known and the border guards have an easy time intercepting border jumpers and others. Thirteen foot ladders, made of wood, are heavy objects and when you consider that border transgressors are probably carrying water, food, and clothing that is cumbersome load to have to get to and over a tall fence. Then there is a 12 foot drop to contend with--unless of course two ladders are brought to cross over.
Bill Richardson also contends building a fence would be an embarrassment--how much of an embarrassment is there when 12 to 20 million illegal aliens demand citizenship all the while thumbing their noses at our laws and law enforcement efforts? Our government and laws are material for foreign comedy skits. Our government is little more than a bunch of con artists; conning those who elected them into office. Our "comprehensive immigration legislation of 1986" gave 3 million illegal aliens amnesty, which was the real goal of the legislation, and enforcement, which was to prevent further illegal immigration, was ignored for years. The public was conned. Border control and employer enforcement never was implemented as promised. So much for "comprehensive immigration".
You can be sure of one thing--anything that would work would somehow be shelved, not funded, challenged later, or ignored. The whole issue flies in the face of logic and reason. Proponents of so-called "comprehensive immigration" are emotionally based, dishonest, self-serving, and non-rational. I have yet to see an honest, logical, and rational valid argument presented by any proponent of so-called "comprehensive immigration". No one will either.

CNN's Rick Sanchez' Piece on Illegal Immigrants

Last night I watched CNN's Rick Sanchez's show about the plight and "truth" about illegal immigrants in the U.S. and it typically was full of stereotypes and cliches. Americans wont work in the fields and fish factories so immigrants are needed to do jobs Americans wont take. What Rick Sanchez failed to reveal were jobs taken from Americans in meat packing plants, where once wages were respectable. The question of why Americans wont take certain jobs was not investigated very well. Is it the difficulty of the job the reason why Americans wont take certain jobs or is it because employers have circumvented hiring American workers over time and Americans wont try applying for such jobs because hispanic contractors seek out hispanic workers? Growers use contractors to provide workers.
Rick Sanchez's piece was a narrow investigation ignoring the fact that a respectable percentage of illegal immigrants are criminals. I'm not referring to the criminality regarding document fraud and the criminal act of illegally entering this country but of the serious crimes of stealing, robbing, assault, and murder done by illegal aliens.
Amnesty proponents shy far away from the negative aspects of illegal aliens present in this country, stressing the "plight" of poor "immigrants" bent on feeding themselves and their families. Rick Sanchez also shied away from the extra costs of immigration enforcement, medical services, and other public services that are required to deal with the problem of illegal immigration. It was not an honest in-depth treatment.

Amnesty's New Ploy--The Blame Game

Illegal alien amnesty proponents are stressing a new ploy--by "humanizing" illegal aliens by showing their situations, then showing the consequences of enforcement, then "blaming" the immigration enforcers for the illegal aliens plight. Their "emotional appeal" is that enforcing immigration laws, the deporting of illegal aliens, causes harm because deporting aliens separates family members. The "argument" then is enforcing immigration laws causes harm; because perpetrators must suffer the consequences of their own actions. To carry the argument further; thieves and murders actions must be not be punished, because incarcerating them separates them from their families and this causes harm to their families. After all they are humans too.
The whole issue is being argued in a schizophrenic way by CNN--Rich Sanchez on the one side and Lou Dobbs on the other. Rick Sanchez' arguments appear to be mostly emotional based--stemming perhaps from his position of being an immigrant from Cuba. Lou Dobb's arguments are from sound facts, statistics, and logic. Unfortunately critical thinking in this country is a low priority in schools and discourse.