I think if we are going to have an honest debate about immigration than both sides have to admit to their overstatements.
First, unskilled illegal immigrants drive down wages for the labor jobs. The unskilled illegal immigrants taxes do not cover the costs of services provided such as education and healthcare. Likewise they are taking jobs that Americans want, for example according to Newsweek illegal immigrants make up, 29% of all roofers and agricultural workers, 25% of all brick masons and construction laborers,20% of all computer hardware engineers, 18% of upholsterers. The point is Americans are already doing these jobs! These are all professions that Americans have always worked in, the difference is Americans don't want to work for peanuts.
But...
We need immigrants to keep our economy growing. The current birthrate demands that we import workers into this country to meet labor demands. Also, it is not good policy to make illegal immigrants felons. If we arrested the 12 million illegals the court costs (translators for all)and incarceration costs would bankrupt the country, not to mention the blow the economy would take from the significant loss of a labor force.
There is also another improtant factor to consider and that is culture and identity. Many fear that Mexican immigrants will not assimilate. I think this is happens because people know that Mexicans have been coming to this country since the US first won it from Mexico in war. It appears as if Mexicans are not upward mobile and prefer to stay segregated off with their own people. This is not so true. Third and second generation descendents of Mexican immigrants (I am a third generation)usually do not speak Spanish and are American. Unlike other immigrant groups, such as the Irish or Italians or whomever, the Mexican immigrants keep coming. This means that Mexicans are always in low employment positions. It makes it appear that Mexicans as a whole have not imroved their lot and that is not true. The descendents of the Mexican immigrants from the 1920 wave of Mexican immigration have assimilated and prospered. That being said it is a different time. My grandparents refused to allow their children to speak Spanish because they were Americans, you don't see that too much anymore.
The bottom line is we must take control over our borders. It is illogical to claim we cannot regulate and control our borders because the country was founded on immigration. But we need to do it in a sensible way that allows for economic growth.
Friday, March 31, 2006
New Template
The black was becoming a little tiring for my eyes. I decided to try a light background and see if that helps. Any comments are welcomed.
Jesus & the Jewish Laws
Although I am not religious, I was raised catholic and I enjoy reading the bible. I read it much like other philosophy books. So here is my interpretation of Jesus and Jewish Laws.
The Old Testament explains God’s covenant with Abraham and his special relationship with the Hebrew people highlighted in his dealings with Moses. Next the Torah laid out specific laws that the Hebrew people needed to follow in order to maintain their relationship with God. That became the status quo for hundreds of years, but that all changed with the birth of Jesus. Jesus believed that the Hebrew relationship with God was compromised by the continuation of the ancient laws. He believed that the Pharisees had perverted the purpose of the laws thereby negating the need for those laws.
The social meaning of law is to preserve society, it does that by reinforcing values or traditions that the society holds high. The number one goal of every society is self-preservation, society’s meet this goal be turning customs and traditions into law. The ancient Hebrew gained their identity from the laws and legitimized their right to Jerusalem through the laws of God. Eventually those laws used to strengthen their identity and their relationship with God began to weaken their spirituality.
“For if the inheritance comes from the law, it is no longer from a promise; but god bestowed it on Abraham through a promise,” (The New American Bible, Galatians 3, 18). Certainly, laws cannot determine whom God allows into heaven and whom God sends to hell. God promised Abraham eternal salvation but the Pharisees began to use the laws as a control mechanism. They used the laws to acquire more power and began to corrupt the laws. This is why Paul felt that it was necessary to defy the Pharisees and compel people to disregard the laws because the coming of Jesus nullified those laws and enabled everyone to become a child of Abraham. Paul claims that Jesus came down to accept the burden that humanity had been shouldering until that point in time.
The problem is that over time the Hebrew laws began to lose meaning. This happens because people subconsciously follow laws with out putting much thought into why they are obeying this particular law. Jesus displayed the problems with passively following laws. People begin to follow the letter of the law and not the spirit of the law. Jesus believed that people should follow the laws in their heart. Jesus did not believe that simply performing a specific action such as circumcision makes one righteous. “You disregard God’s commandment but cling to human tradition,” (New American Bible Mark 7, 8).
This led to a certain amount of confusion because the Hebrews thought that Jesus abolished those laws. For example, the Hebrew would consider a person that never murders and never commits adultery as righteous. Jesus said that if that person has hate constantly in is heart and lust always in his mind than he is not righteous and it does not matter that he does not act on these feelings. The mere presence of negative thoughts means the person has violated the spirit of the law. Jesus tells his followers “…it was said to your ancestors, you shall not kill…but I say to you whoever is angry with his brother is liable to judgment,” (New American Bible Matthew 5, 21-22).
The laws also contributed to the Hebrew identity. By abolishing these laws, Jesus transformed the religion from one of a cultural and region specific religion to that of a universal religion. “Realize then that it is those who have faith who are children of Abraham,” (New American Bible, Galatians 3, 7). This means that salvation is no loner for a particular people but rather for all who believe. This is extremely important because until this point, the Hebrew's were the chosen people of God and only descendents could obtain entrance into heaven.
In my opinion Jesus is not the son of an almighty super natural being but rather a philosopher and preacher of peace and justice. I do not, as some do, begrudge others or smite them for interpreting it different.
The Old Testament explains God’s covenant with Abraham and his special relationship with the Hebrew people highlighted in his dealings with Moses. Next the Torah laid out specific laws that the Hebrew people needed to follow in order to maintain their relationship with God. That became the status quo for hundreds of years, but that all changed with the birth of Jesus. Jesus believed that the Hebrew relationship with God was compromised by the continuation of the ancient laws. He believed that the Pharisees had perverted the purpose of the laws thereby negating the need for those laws.
The social meaning of law is to preserve society, it does that by reinforcing values or traditions that the society holds high. The number one goal of every society is self-preservation, society’s meet this goal be turning customs and traditions into law. The ancient Hebrew gained their identity from the laws and legitimized their right to Jerusalem through the laws of God. Eventually those laws used to strengthen their identity and their relationship with God began to weaken their spirituality.
“For if the inheritance comes from the law, it is no longer from a promise; but god bestowed it on Abraham through a promise,” (The New American Bible, Galatians 3, 18). Certainly, laws cannot determine whom God allows into heaven and whom God sends to hell. God promised Abraham eternal salvation but the Pharisees began to use the laws as a control mechanism. They used the laws to acquire more power and began to corrupt the laws. This is why Paul felt that it was necessary to defy the Pharisees and compel people to disregard the laws because the coming of Jesus nullified those laws and enabled everyone to become a child of Abraham. Paul claims that Jesus came down to accept the burden that humanity had been shouldering until that point in time.
The problem is that over time the Hebrew laws began to lose meaning. This happens because people subconsciously follow laws with out putting much thought into why they are obeying this particular law. Jesus displayed the problems with passively following laws. People begin to follow the letter of the law and not the spirit of the law. Jesus believed that people should follow the laws in their heart. Jesus did not believe that simply performing a specific action such as circumcision makes one righteous. “You disregard God’s commandment but cling to human tradition,” (New American Bible Mark 7, 8).
This led to a certain amount of confusion because the Hebrews thought that Jesus abolished those laws. For example, the Hebrew would consider a person that never murders and never commits adultery as righteous. Jesus said that if that person has hate constantly in is heart and lust always in his mind than he is not righteous and it does not matter that he does not act on these feelings. The mere presence of negative thoughts means the person has violated the spirit of the law. Jesus tells his followers “…it was said to your ancestors, you shall not kill…but I say to you whoever is angry with his brother is liable to judgment,” (New American Bible Matthew 5, 21-22).
The laws also contributed to the Hebrew identity. By abolishing these laws, Jesus transformed the religion from one of a cultural and region specific religion to that of a universal religion. “Realize then that it is those who have faith who are children of Abraham,” (New American Bible, Galatians 3, 7). This means that salvation is no loner for a particular people but rather for all who believe. This is extremely important because until this point, the Hebrew's were the chosen people of God and only descendents could obtain entrance into heaven.
In my opinion Jesus is not the son of an almighty super natural being but rather a philosopher and preacher of peace and justice. I do not, as some do, begrudge others or smite them for interpreting it different.
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
The French
Is it any wonder that the French are irrelevant? There are estimates that more than 1 million protestors took to the streets today. They are protesting a new law which would allow employers to fire workers under 26 if they have been there less than 2 years. complete story
These quotes sum up the mindset of the French.
"We're demanding the complete withdrawal of the CPE. You can't treat people like slaves. Giving all the power to the bosses is going too far," said Gregoire de Oliviera, a 21-year-old student protesting in Paris.
The problem is we are studying just to be exploited. The government must withdraw the CPE. We will continue to protest on the streets," said Laura Dali, an 18-year-old student in Paris.
It seems obvious that France can only lose political, economic and military power in the future. People should not have a right to a job just as an employer should not have a right to my labor.
These quotes sum up the mindset of the French.
"We're demanding the complete withdrawal of the CPE. You can't treat people like slaves. Giving all the power to the bosses is going too far," said Gregoire de Oliviera, a 21-year-old student protesting in Paris.
The problem is we are studying just to be exploited. The government must withdraw the CPE. We will continue to protest on the streets," said Laura Dali, an 18-year-old student in Paris.
It seems obvious that France can only lose political, economic and military power in the future. People should not have a right to a job just as an employer should not have a right to my labor.
Friday, March 24, 2006
Blogs VS Old Media
As a journalism major I constantly hear about the horrors of blogging via my professors. Their rational is bloggers are not journalists, they are biased and they play fast and loose with the facts. Recently, accomplished journalist Dan Thomasson visited my media ethics class. When I asked him what he thought about blogs he was not positive. He characterized this rise of new media as "a very disturbing period of time."
This is a close-minded view of blogs. Blogs are the equivalent of the op-ed page; the difference is that the audience can usually respond to the story and other’s readers responses to the story. Any intelligent person can tell if a person has thought out a response to a complex issue or is just regurgitating partisan talking points. Any hint of poorly thought out opinion will be ridiculed and attacked. I think that the fact that the readers know a bloggers political leaning prior to reading makes it more ethical. Traditional media claims to be objective while blogs are honest about their bias.
To be sure, there are partisan blogs that reset talking points but only partisan people who do not want objectivity would limit themselves to those blogs. Blogs acknowledge that readers do not want passive participation but rather they desire to have their voice heard as well. Traditional media outlets choose to insulate themselves from their audience reserving their participation to a few “letters to the editor” that will be printed. While news editors continue their role as gate keeper; blogs invite the masses to join the discussion through a much bigger gate.
This is a close-minded view of blogs. Blogs are the equivalent of the op-ed page; the difference is that the audience can usually respond to the story and other’s readers responses to the story. Any intelligent person can tell if a person has thought out a response to a complex issue or is just regurgitating partisan talking points. Any hint of poorly thought out opinion will be ridiculed and attacked. I think that the fact that the readers know a bloggers political leaning prior to reading makes it more ethical. Traditional media claims to be objective while blogs are honest about their bias.
To be sure, there are partisan blogs that reset talking points but only partisan people who do not want objectivity would limit themselves to those blogs. Blogs acknowledge that readers do not want passive participation but rather they desire to have their voice heard as well. Traditional media outlets choose to insulate themselves from their audience reserving their participation to a few “letters to the editor” that will be printed. While news editors continue their role as gate keeper; blogs invite the masses to join the discussion through a much bigger gate.
Thursday, March 09, 2006
Fatherhood
Mens rights activists have just sued to have the right to decline fatherhood. complete story
It is about time! Roe v Wade has granted women complete dominion over the family. Women's groups believe that just informing the father of a child of an abortion is an undue burden. "Reproductive rights" are only rights for women. Any attempts by men to assert some rights are viewed as archaic and as a return to the days of oppression. So it is the woman's choice to keep or abort the baby but once the woman decides then the man must adjust to her decision. If she keeps the baby then he must pay child support for eighteen years, if she aborts then tough luck maybe next time.
The act of childbirth, while physically trying is the easy part of parenting. It is the sacrifices and the financial obligations, which last at least eighteen years that are the hard part. Nobody tells their children dont have kids young because it will hurt. They discuss the difficulties of raising the child.
If a man is willing to assume all obligations of child rearing then he should have that right. If that is too much to ask then fatherhood is meaningless.
It is about time! Roe v Wade has granted women complete dominion over the family. Women's groups believe that just informing the father of a child of an abortion is an undue burden. "Reproductive rights" are only rights for women. Any attempts by men to assert some rights are viewed as archaic and as a return to the days of oppression. So it is the woman's choice to keep or abort the baby but once the woman decides then the man must adjust to her decision. If she keeps the baby then he must pay child support for eighteen years, if she aborts then tough luck maybe next time.
The act of childbirth, while physically trying is the easy part of parenting. It is the sacrifices and the financial obligations, which last at least eighteen years that are the hard part. Nobody tells their children dont have kids young because it will hurt. They discuss the difficulties of raising the child.
If a man is willing to assume all obligations of child rearing then he should have that right. If that is too much to ask then fatherhood is meaningless.
Thursday, March 02, 2006
India
Pres. Bush agreed to give nuclear technology to India if they opened their civilian nuclear facilities for inspections.story
Of course there are some in congress who are dead set against this and believe it will provide incentives for other countries to develop nuclear weapons. Certainly, that is possible. But I think it is positive and India should be embraced as an ally.
Of course there are some in congress who are dead set against this and believe it will provide incentives for other countries to develop nuclear weapons. Certainly, that is possible. But I think it is positive and India should be embraced as an ally.
NFLPA
"I won't come down," said Gene Upshaw, executive director of the NFL Players Association, who is asking for 60 percent of league revenue for players, four percentage points more than the owners are offering. "The players know that. Only the owners can make a proposal."
complete story
It is time fot the owners to break the NFL union. Usually I am on the side of the players but 60% is outrageous, the owners should lock them out. They do not deserve 60% and Gene Upshaw needs to be fired by the players.
complete story
It is time fot the owners to break the NFL union. Usually I am on the side of the players but 60% is outrageous, the owners should lock them out. They do not deserve 60% and Gene Upshaw needs to be fired by the players.
Wednesday, March 01, 2006
NFLPA & the CBA
As a die-hard NFL fan, the failure to extend the CBA is frightening for me. Apparently, there are two sticking points. First the players union wants to have 60% of the gross total revenue while the owners want to give them 56.2% (something like that). If no deal is reached by friday then this year teams will need to cut big named and big money players. After this year there will be no salary cap. That would be horrible. I do not want to see the NFL turn into MLB. I think the owners should threaten the union with a lock-out if they dont agree. With out a cap most team would not be able to compete and that would be bad for business.
The second point is over revenue sharing, some teams want to expand the sharing to include local revenue in addition to TV contracts and merchandise. Not sure how I feel on this. The Raiders dont make much local money but we sell more merchandise than any team in the league.
The second point is over revenue sharing, some teams want to expand the sharing to include local revenue in addition to TV contracts and merchandise. Not sure how I feel on this. The Raiders dont make much local money but we sell more merchandise than any team in the league.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)