Monday, January 28, 2008
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Hypocrites
"Do-gooders can become the worst hypocrites." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21820808/wid/11915773?GT1=10613
I think we've all known people like this...
you shouldn't lie, but for me it's OK
you're a bad person to complain about illegal immigration, but I'll live behind gates
etc.
I think we've all known people like this...
you shouldn't lie, but for me it's OK
you're a bad person to complain about illegal immigration, but I'll live behind gates
etc.
Saturday, September 15, 2007
National service
Every so often a commentator will bring up the idea of requiring national service from high school students or young adults. This type of service generally seems to mean something like the Peace Corps or tutoring in inner city schools.
I think national service is a good idea, though not compulsory service. My plan would involve communities encouraging every junior or senior in high school to contribute in some way to the local neighborhood, and generally in tasks such as garbage man or janitor. Tasks like these are essential to the community, they would save the community money (I would advocate paying a wage but not much more than that), they would teach humility, and I think they would strengthen the bonds of the community. I would think 5 hours or so a week for 20 weeks would be reasonable.
I think national service is a good idea, though not compulsory service. My plan would involve communities encouraging every junior or senior in high school to contribute in some way to the local neighborhood, and generally in tasks such as garbage man or janitor. Tasks like these are essential to the community, they would save the community money (I would advocate paying a wage but not much more than that), they would teach humility, and I think they would strengthen the bonds of the community. I would think 5 hours or so a week for 20 weeks would be reasonable.
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
Immigration and nurses' wages
A fairly balanced look at the nursing shortage and stagnating wages, although quoting an immgration lawyer is a bit absurd.
Sunday, August 19, 2007
Encouraging lawsuits by illegal immigrants
Many commentators and blogs have noted the need to punish employers for hiring illegal immigrants with more than slaps on the wrists (if that). It has to become financially harmful (or at least not beneficial) to hire illegals.
As the federal government is reluctant to enforce the law, legislation that allows illegals to sue their employers for abuse, lack of insurance, etc. may be useful. I don't know if this is possible currently, but if so it might be benficial to encourage such lawsuits. It should be made clear that illegals will not be free from deportation and that they may not sue the government for welfare, social security, etc., but that if they prove their case they may receive millions of dollars. They can go back to Mexico and live like kings. Creating a class of employees who become known as letigious will help make employers think twice. A few highly publicized cases can show what employers face.
As the federal government is reluctant to enforce the law, legislation that allows illegals to sue their employers for abuse, lack of insurance, etc. may be useful. I don't know if this is possible currently, but if so it might be benficial to encourage such lawsuits. It should be made clear that illegals will not be free from deportation and that they may not sue the government for welfare, social security, etc., but that if they prove their case they may receive millions of dollars. They can go back to Mexico and live like kings. Creating a class of employees who become known as letigious will help make employers think twice. A few highly publicized cases can show what employers face.
Monday, July 30, 2007
Ads on Help Save Virginia website
Help Save Virginia has a section for ads from businesses that do not use illegal alien labor. Excellent idea.
Sunday, July 29, 2007
The great thinkers...
The Washington Post gives you an article from the Dean of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Anne-Marie Slaughter. It's a pretty good example of various tendencies among Those Who Know Better Than You.
The second paragraph is self promotion--the Democratic candidates will need to appoint cabinet members after all--while after that it is attacks on media commentators, bloggers, and officials who are not sufficiently "bipartisan". Michael Lind in the Nation and Tony Smith in the Washington Post both criticized her ideas (which includes her at least initial support for the Iraq War), and therefore she has decided they aren't sufficiently bipartisan. They are both left of center. She also attacks right of center John Bolton, the former ambassador to the UN under Bush, for criticizing the administration for dealing with North Korea.
I agree some commentators/blogs/politicians are over the top and contribute nothing to the debate, but isn't critiquing important policy decisions on important topics such as Iraq and North Korea allowed anymore? Both the Lind* and Smith pieces were rather moderately phrased, hardly "vitriol", but by calling it such without addressing their arguments she marginalizes their views. (I don't fully agree with their views, but that doesn't make them unreasonable in my book). One wonders if Lind, Smith, or Bolton would have their argumentation style blasted--and fundamentally she is attacking style since she cannot bother to attack their substance--if they agreed with her views...
The first paragraph to me is the most interesting. She praises how Bush "started" reaching across the aisle in the failed immigration bill. Aside from showing exactly how politically ignorant she is, given Bush was pushing his *guest* worker program since he took office, it demonstrates that the interests of those in power (and as a Dean at an Ivy League university she is in power) very often coincide. Calls for bipartisanship along with the smearing ideological opponents; when that happens it's often to the detriment of you, even when it seems like a debate among policy wonks. A topic will be declared off limits and those outside of the officially declared appropriate view will be declared irrational, mean spirited, partisan, etc. while the desired policy is shoved through. When you can't get anyone in power from any side of the ideological spectrum to address a topic you're in trouble. Luckily, that trick doesn't seem to work anymore. At the end of her own article--where she calls on readers to spam the inboxes of those "partisans" who take views she doesn't like--the commenters certainly give their positions on her article, and they're less than, um, "bipartisan".
*The Nation only gives an excerpt; you have access to a subscription or Lexis to read it.
**Matthew Yglesias also has a helpful definition of the word partisan for Slaughter's benefit.
The second paragraph is self promotion--the Democratic candidates will need to appoint cabinet members after all--while after that it is attacks on media commentators, bloggers, and officials who are not sufficiently "bipartisan". Michael Lind in the Nation and Tony Smith in the Washington Post both criticized her ideas (which includes her at least initial support for the Iraq War), and therefore she has decided they aren't sufficiently bipartisan. They are both left of center. She also attacks right of center John Bolton, the former ambassador to the UN under Bush, for criticizing the administration for dealing with North Korea.
I agree some commentators/blogs/politicians are over the top and contribute nothing to the debate, but isn't critiquing important policy decisions on important topics such as Iraq and North Korea allowed anymore? Both the Lind* and Smith pieces were rather moderately phrased, hardly "vitriol", but by calling it such without addressing their arguments she marginalizes their views. (I don't fully agree with their views, but that doesn't make them unreasonable in my book). One wonders if Lind, Smith, or Bolton would have their argumentation style blasted--and fundamentally she is attacking style since she cannot bother to attack their substance--if they agreed with her views...
The first paragraph to me is the most interesting. She praises how Bush "started" reaching across the aisle in the failed immigration bill. Aside from showing exactly how politically ignorant she is, given Bush was pushing his *guest* worker program since he took office, it demonstrates that the interests of those in power (and as a Dean at an Ivy League university she is in power) very often coincide. Calls for bipartisanship along with the smearing ideological opponents; when that happens it's often to the detriment of you, even when it seems like a debate among policy wonks. A topic will be declared off limits and those outside of the officially declared appropriate view will be declared irrational, mean spirited, partisan, etc. while the desired policy is shoved through. When you can't get anyone in power from any side of the ideological spectrum to address a topic you're in trouble. Luckily, that trick doesn't seem to work anymore. At the end of her own article--where she calls on readers to spam the inboxes of those "partisans" who take views she doesn't like--the commenters certainly give their positions on her article, and they're less than, um, "bipartisan".
*The Nation only gives an excerpt; you have access to a subscription or Lexis to read it.
**Matthew Yglesias also has a helpful definition of the word partisan for Slaughter's benefit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)