19/06: More Chinese Poison
We have pointed out the dangerous drugs exported by China. Now the NYT has this article on dangerous toys made in China that are being recalled. (Thanks to Photognome.) This excerpt.
The latest recall, announced last week, involves 1.5 million Thomas & Friends trains and rail components — about 4 percent of all those sold in the United States over the last two years by RC2 Corporation of Oak Brook, Ill. The toys were coated at a factory in China with lead paint, which can damage brain cells, especially in children.
Just in the last month, a ghoulish fake eyeball toy made in China was recalled after it was found to be filled with kerosene. Sets of toy drums and a toy bear were also recalled because of lead paint, and an infant wrist rattle was recalled because of a choking hazard.
Chinese companies make the American "Robber Barons" of the 19th century look like upstanding "Captains of Industry."
The latest recall, announced last week, involves 1.5 million Thomas & Friends trains and rail components — about 4 percent of all those sold in the United States over the last two years by RC2 Corporation of Oak Brook, Ill. The toys were coated at a factory in China with lead paint, which can damage brain cells, especially in children.
Just in the last month, a ghoulish fake eyeball toy made in China was recalled after it was found to be filled with kerosene. Sets of toy drums and a toy bear were also recalled because of lead paint, and an infant wrist rattle was recalled because of a choking hazard.
Chinese companies make the American "Robber Barons" of the 19th century look like upstanding "Captains of Industry."
Tying up some loose ends:
1. For weeks now, I have been calling on the President to end the current immigration reform debate, as it is unlikely to produce a workable compromise and more likely to precipitate the destruction of the Republican coalition.
2. I officially pronounced Immigration Reform 2007 dead on June 8th. I stand by that call. Although the President and the Senate leadership seem determined to resuscitate the ill-fated patient, the bill is brain-dead. Keeping it alive by unnatural means will only prolong the tragedy.
Moreover, I have grown tired of talking about this particular incarnation. No more posts from me on this bill.
A big problem remains, however, which will continue to fester. We will need to address it in the future, which is why I have continued to talk about the important issues and ideas surrounding the greater question.
In the spirit of the next debate, I do want to leave you with this brief explanatory note from Football Coach in aid of his excellent post, "California: Still the Promised Land," from a few days ago (review here):
Why am I more fearful of the "solutions" than the problem?
Quoting Coach:
• Building a wall will make it harder to get in illegally, but it won't stop it. Desperate people will take desperate measures. Remember the Haitians and Cubans?
• Sending all the illegal aliens back to their countries will seriously impair our economy. A significant amount of the work done in the service, food, and agriculture industries is done by these workers.
• If some kind of “guest-worker/visa” system is put in place, I shudder to think what kind of bureaucracy will be set up to accommodate it. The social security administration and DMV are bad enough, and they deal with people who are motivated to come forward and get something done. How inefficient and expensive will a “Dept. of Guest Workers” be?
End Quote.
One other note: Immigration and Gay Marriage
Although it may not look like it, we are moving toward a renewed discussion of gay marriage (at least on this blog we are). I see an analogy between immigration and gay marriage.
As you know, I believe the most exigent problem in American culture is the loss of a unifying narrative. That is, we no longer celebrate the distinctiveness and elevating elements of our national history, which causes all sorts of problems--not the least of which is a nagging sense that we are an amoral, self-interested imperial force promoting evil and destruction in the world. We are in a civil war over how we will perceive ourselves. A hint: we will be what we decide we are.
I am frustrated with cultural conservatives who have allowed us to slip into this crisis of uncertainty, seemingly willing to accept this moral sickness as a permanent condition. On the other hand, these same cultural conservatives, desperate to fight the fight on some level, pounce on the issue of illegal immigration, suddenly awake and convinced that our cultural survival turns on the ability to turn away and deport illegal aliens. The irony: so many cultural conservatives want to blame the influx of new arrivals for a national crisis of belief, decades in the making, and one that we have allowed to take root.
How is that analogous to gay marriage?
We have a separate moral crisis in America concerning marriage and families. Cultural conservatives have allowed the dangerous deterioration of family values, again, leaving our national community in critical condition. But, now, cultural conservatives, seeking to avoid accountability for their own actions and poor stewardship, seek to blame proponents of gay marriage, at best a fringe movement, for the crisis we confront.
Again offering a hot-button issue as a magic bullet to place our collective souls on the road to recovery, cultural conservatives are doing mental gymnastics to avoid responsibility for a crisis we tacitly helped to create. Let's begin our revival by removing the motes from our own eyes.
May God Bless America—and may he grant us “firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, [and] let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds.”
Other Bosque Boys conversations:
Immigration. Click here and scroll down.
Same-Sex Marriage: Click here and scroll down.
1. For weeks now, I have been calling on the President to end the current immigration reform debate, as it is unlikely to produce a workable compromise and more likely to precipitate the destruction of the Republican coalition.
2. I officially pronounced Immigration Reform 2007 dead on June 8th. I stand by that call. Although the President and the Senate leadership seem determined to resuscitate the ill-fated patient, the bill is brain-dead. Keeping it alive by unnatural means will only prolong the tragedy.
Moreover, I have grown tired of talking about this particular incarnation. No more posts from me on this bill.
A big problem remains, however, which will continue to fester. We will need to address it in the future, which is why I have continued to talk about the important issues and ideas surrounding the greater question.
In the spirit of the next debate, I do want to leave you with this brief explanatory note from Football Coach in aid of his excellent post, "California: Still the Promised Land," from a few days ago (review here):
Why am I more fearful of the "solutions" than the problem?
Quoting Coach:
• Building a wall will make it harder to get in illegally, but it won't stop it. Desperate people will take desperate measures. Remember the Haitians and Cubans?
• Sending all the illegal aliens back to their countries will seriously impair our economy. A significant amount of the work done in the service, food, and agriculture industries is done by these workers.
• If some kind of “guest-worker/visa” system is put in place, I shudder to think what kind of bureaucracy will be set up to accommodate it. The social security administration and DMV are bad enough, and they deal with people who are motivated to come forward and get something done. How inefficient and expensive will a “Dept. of Guest Workers” be?
End Quote.
One other note: Immigration and Gay Marriage
Although it may not look like it, we are moving toward a renewed discussion of gay marriage (at least on this blog we are). I see an analogy between immigration and gay marriage.
As you know, I believe the most exigent problem in American culture is the loss of a unifying narrative. That is, we no longer celebrate the distinctiveness and elevating elements of our national history, which causes all sorts of problems--not the least of which is a nagging sense that we are an amoral, self-interested imperial force promoting evil and destruction in the world. We are in a civil war over how we will perceive ourselves. A hint: we will be what we decide we are.
I am frustrated with cultural conservatives who have allowed us to slip into this crisis of uncertainty, seemingly willing to accept this moral sickness as a permanent condition. On the other hand, these same cultural conservatives, desperate to fight the fight on some level, pounce on the issue of illegal immigration, suddenly awake and convinced that our cultural survival turns on the ability to turn away and deport illegal aliens. The irony: so many cultural conservatives want to blame the influx of new arrivals for a national crisis of belief, decades in the making, and one that we have allowed to take root.
How is that analogous to gay marriage?
We have a separate moral crisis in America concerning marriage and families. Cultural conservatives have allowed the dangerous deterioration of family values, again, leaving our national community in critical condition. But, now, cultural conservatives, seeking to avoid accountability for their own actions and poor stewardship, seek to blame proponents of gay marriage, at best a fringe movement, for the crisis we confront.
Again offering a hot-button issue as a magic bullet to place our collective souls on the road to recovery, cultural conservatives are doing mental gymnastics to avoid responsibility for a crisis we tacitly helped to create. Let's begin our revival by removing the motes from our own eyes.
May God Bless America—and may he grant us “firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, [and] let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds.”
Other Bosque Boys conversations:
Immigration. Click here and scroll down.
Same-Sex Marriage: Click here and scroll down.
18/06: Science and Faith
Photognome points us to this article from CNN on an exhibit of personal papers from Isaac Newton. The papers show a man of science motivated by deep faith.
Science and religion are not intrinsic adversaries. That idea comes from the French philosophes who had their own anti-Christian agenda.
Science and religion are not intrinsic adversaries. That idea comes from the French philosophes who had their own anti-Christian agenda.
18/06: Same Play Guys!
Approximately fifteen years ago, back during the waning days of the George H. W. Bush (41) presidency, back when the glow of the great victory over Saddam was dimming, and the remaining intractable challenges of the Middle East were re-emerging, I remember a cartoon:
The political cartoon, and I don't remember the artist, pictured the administration as a football team with President Bush as the quarterback, and his Secretary of State, James A. Baker, the running back. The cartoon depicted the moment following a straight-ahead dive into a brick wall labeled "Peace in the Middle East." Baker has had his bell rung, stars are circling his helmet, which has been knocked askew.
Surveying the field, and to the disbelief of the rest of the team (especially the running back), the QB says: "Same play guys!"
When I think of George W. Bush (43) and his insistence on bringing back the immigration reform, I think of that cartoon--only this time, the future of the Republican Party is carrying the ball.
As I have said for several weeks (and this coming from a conservative who is extremely liberal on immigration):
I am increasingly of the opinion, for reasons of political survival, that the President and his coterie of GOP pragmatists should pull the plug on this immigration offensive, retreat and regroup.
We (America) have a serious problem, which we are not addressing. Instead, we (conservatives) are having an internecine bloodletting in which too many of the most severe national challenges are obscured by pernicious abstractions. Although it is in our power to come up with something workable, I fear that we are more likely to do nothing, perpetuating the status quo that brought us our current crisis, beating ourselves into critical condition in the process.
What is the President up against? Today the brick wall is the core constituency of the Republican Party: Cultural Conservatives.
Please consider this email I received from a dear and sincere friend and patriotic American (who clearly does not read my blog):
Quoting a concerned American:
"Forward this to
"President@whitehouse.gov
"Then go find your senators website contact page, copy and paste the following list. And of course send it John McCain.
"To: President George W. Bush, (or Senator ...)
"Where’s the fence????????
"As a concerned citizen, I believe illegal immigration is a national security crisis of the highest order and also poses a long-term threat to the American way of life. I am calling on Congress and the President to:
"#1 -- Secure our borders. As first priority, America must stop the flow of illegal immigration by investing all necessary resources in securing our borders. Also, existing immigration laws must be enforced as an essential component of our Homeland Security.
The political cartoon, and I don't remember the artist, pictured the administration as a football team with President Bush as the quarterback, and his Secretary of State, James A. Baker, the running back. The cartoon depicted the moment following a straight-ahead dive into a brick wall labeled "Peace in the Middle East." Baker has had his bell rung, stars are circling his helmet, which has been knocked askew.
Surveying the field, and to the disbelief of the rest of the team (especially the running back), the QB says: "Same play guys!"
When I think of George W. Bush (43) and his insistence on bringing back the immigration reform, I think of that cartoon--only this time, the future of the Republican Party is carrying the ball.
As I have said for several weeks (and this coming from a conservative who is extremely liberal on immigration):
I am increasingly of the opinion, for reasons of political survival, that the President and his coterie of GOP pragmatists should pull the plug on this immigration offensive, retreat and regroup.
We (America) have a serious problem, which we are not addressing. Instead, we (conservatives) are having an internecine bloodletting in which too many of the most severe national challenges are obscured by pernicious abstractions. Although it is in our power to come up with something workable, I fear that we are more likely to do nothing, perpetuating the status quo that brought us our current crisis, beating ourselves into critical condition in the process.
What is the President up against? Today the brick wall is the core constituency of the Republican Party: Cultural Conservatives.
Please consider this email I received from a dear and sincere friend and patriotic American (who clearly does not read my blog):
Quoting a concerned American:
"Forward this to
"President@whitehouse.gov
"Then go find your senators website contact page, copy and paste the following list. And of course send it John McCain.
"To: President George W. Bush, (or Senator ...)
"Where’s the fence????????
"As a concerned citizen, I believe illegal immigration is a national security crisis of the highest order and also poses a long-term threat to the American way of life. I am calling on Congress and the President to:
"#1 -- Secure our borders. As first priority, America must stop the flow of illegal immigration by investing all necessary resources in securing our borders. Also, existing immigration laws must be enforced as an essential component of our Homeland Security.
15/06: I Love America, part 1
Category: From the Heart
Posted by: an okie gardener
Last week Wednesday afternoon my wife and I headed north out of Apache for a week and a half. We had not needed to get our "papers" in order nor go to the local government functionary for permission to travel.
Near sundown that evening we drove through the Tall Grass Prairie Preserve in north Oklahoma. Beautiful. We have altered much of our landscape, but, at least have the wisdom to preserve parts of it.
That night we stayed in a motel in Chanute, Kansas. A couple obviously born in India checked us in. We still keep the doors open for legal immigrants, they are a boon to our culture, our economy, our nation.
We ate supper the first night and breakfast the next morning in small-town cafes. The people, staff and customers, were friendly. The food was good. Along the way the wheat was turning, the line of harvest somewhere behind us advancing north.
The roads, overall, were excellent. Even the 30 plus miles of gravel in and around the Tall-Grass prairie were servicable. And no one checked our travel documents at the Kansas line.
Near sundown that evening we drove through the Tall Grass Prairie Preserve in north Oklahoma. Beautiful. We have altered much of our landscape, but, at least have the wisdom to preserve parts of it.
That night we stayed in a motel in Chanute, Kansas. A couple obviously born in India checked us in. We still keep the doors open for legal immigrants, they are a boon to our culture, our economy, our nation.
We ate supper the first night and breakfast the next morning in small-town cafes. The people, staff and customers, were friendly. The food was good. Along the way the wheat was turning, the line of harvest somewhere behind us advancing north.
The roads, overall, were excellent. Even the 30 plus miles of gravel in and around the Tall-Grass prairie were servicable. And no one checked our travel documents at the Kansas line.
OUTRAGE!!!
From Michael Savage.com (website here):
"C-SPAN Blacklists Savage's Speech!"
What?
Michael Savage claims that C-SPAN censored him when they opted not to show his acceptance speech at a Talkers magazine award banquet, where he was honored with the "Freedom of Speech Award," which he describes as "the paramount award of the event."
Comparing the snub to Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's closing down TV stations, Savage intimated that C-SPAN and Brian Lamb (CEO), along with his big media conspirators, are out to silence him.
He has suggested that his listeners write, call and email C-SPAN to voice their indignation with this brand of liberal McCarthyism. And Savage's fans have responded, inundating C-SPAN with abusive protests, some of which Brian Lamb featured on Washington Journal this morning (link here --6-15-07).
Savage is also trying to sell a DVD of the speech for $20.00 on his website. "See the video too hot for left-wing C-SPAN!" hawks one of his links. More information about the incident is promised on another link, although you must wade through offers to buy a "liberalism is a mental disorder" coffee mug and a "Savage Nation" ball cap before you arrive at the less-than-satisfying explanation.
Who is Michael Savage?
According to Talkers, Savage has over eight million listeners per week and is in third place overall behind Rush and Sean Hannity (view complete list from the magazine here).
From his own site:
"[Michael Savage is] an explosive conservative radio talk show host, who continues to dominate the airwaves with his brash commentary and unapologetic solutions. The 10 million listeners who tune into Savage each week can't be wrong!" (the full self-congratulatory, self-promoting bio here).
Is anyone actually buying this story?
The so-called Free Republic weighs in (link here):
"C-SPAN, which claims to be nonpartisan and nonideological, was there and carried most of the speeches. But for some reason, it blacklisted Savage's speech accepting the award.
"Why would a nonideological network do this? More liberal media bias, obviously. C-SPAN has now willingly made itself part of the liberal effort to suppress freedom of speech in this country."
Once again: WHAT!?!
The truth is, of course, Brian Lamb and C-SPAN have provided the most unrestricted forum for conservative intellectualism in the brief history of electronic media. All the while, they have provided a similar forum for liberal ideas, but with much less impact, as liberal thought already had numerous esteemed channels to disseminate messages.
I think and write about media and politics a lot. How do you categorize C-SPAN? Liberal? Alternative? Public? None of those really work. C-SPAN exists in a league unto itself. C-SPAN attempts to show all points of view without editorial comment. C-SPAN is fundamentally conservative in the ultimate Jeffersonian libertarian sense ("give the people light and they will find the way"), but the relatively unwatched mother lode of political information remains the only completely pure source of unvarnished news.
Brian Lamb is a national treasure, and his brainchild, C-SPAN, is the most positive development in American political culture during the last half-century.
What Actually Happened:
Brian's explanation this morning: Savage was not there. He sent a video acceptance speech to the Talkers banquet. C-SPAN elected not to show the video, but C-SPAN offered to come and tape a live speech or cover his radio show for airing at some future date.
Free Republic confirms this account of the events:
Michael Savage, Freedom Of Speech Award: NO SHOW (Savage Skips Own Award Ceremony) (link here):
Quoting a Free Republic post:
Again underscoring his ultra- reclusive nature, the "Savage Nation" host unexpectedly failed to appear at a ceremony where he was to pick up an industry honor.
Selected to receive this year's Freedom Of Speech Award at the New Media Seminar held over the weekend in New York City, Savage instead substituted a hastily- made YouTube- style home video.
Who is Michael Savage really?
I am tempted to hoist Savage on a few of his favorite petards: he is a bum; he's garbage. Sorry. Could not resist the temptation.
Actually, Savage is a person of great intelligence and talent. His comedic timing borders on genius. He is truly an independent voice (wild card is probably more accurate) in the conservative movement (broadly construed), and he is a brilliant communicator.
Unfortunately, he is a sloppy thinker and a boorish bully.
If you don't have enough sense to figure out that C-SPAN is not the enemy, you are not worthy of a single listener. In the past, I have listened to him casually for a chuckle (and sometimes even a belly laugh)--although never when my young sons are in the car with me.
An aside: Fodder for a future post. Should we judge talk radio hosts by how well they model behavior for my boys. That is, would we want our children interacting and debating like the person to whom we are listening on the radio? If the answer is no, perhaps we find another station.
Anyhow, no more Michael Savage on my dial. I am giving up this guilty pleasure.
Brian Lamb or Michael Savage?
Not a tough decision. Michael Savage is dead to me.
From Michael Savage.com (website here):
"C-SPAN Blacklists Savage's Speech!"
What?
Michael Savage claims that C-SPAN censored him when they opted not to show his acceptance speech at a Talkers magazine award banquet, where he was honored with the "Freedom of Speech Award," which he describes as "the paramount award of the event."
Comparing the snub to Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's closing down TV stations, Savage intimated that C-SPAN and Brian Lamb (CEO), along with his big media conspirators, are out to silence him.
He has suggested that his listeners write, call and email C-SPAN to voice their indignation with this brand of liberal McCarthyism. And Savage's fans have responded, inundating C-SPAN with abusive protests, some of which Brian Lamb featured on Washington Journal this morning (link here --6-15-07).
Savage is also trying to sell a DVD of the speech for $20.00 on his website. "See the video too hot for left-wing C-SPAN!" hawks one of his links. More information about the incident is promised on another link, although you must wade through offers to buy a "liberalism is a mental disorder" coffee mug and a "Savage Nation" ball cap before you arrive at the less-than-satisfying explanation.
Who is Michael Savage?
According to Talkers, Savage has over eight million listeners per week and is in third place overall behind Rush and Sean Hannity (view complete list from the magazine here).
From his own site:
"[Michael Savage is] an explosive conservative radio talk show host, who continues to dominate the airwaves with his brash commentary and unapologetic solutions. The 10 million listeners who tune into Savage each week can't be wrong!" (the full self-congratulatory, self-promoting bio here).
Is anyone actually buying this story?
The so-called Free Republic weighs in (link here):
"C-SPAN, which claims to be nonpartisan and nonideological, was there and carried most of the speeches. But for some reason, it blacklisted Savage's speech accepting the award.
"Why would a nonideological network do this? More liberal media bias, obviously. C-SPAN has now willingly made itself part of the liberal effort to suppress freedom of speech in this country."
Once again: WHAT!?!
The truth is, of course, Brian Lamb and C-SPAN have provided the most unrestricted forum for conservative intellectualism in the brief history of electronic media. All the while, they have provided a similar forum for liberal ideas, but with much less impact, as liberal thought already had numerous esteemed channels to disseminate messages.
I think and write about media and politics a lot. How do you categorize C-SPAN? Liberal? Alternative? Public? None of those really work. C-SPAN exists in a league unto itself. C-SPAN attempts to show all points of view without editorial comment. C-SPAN is fundamentally conservative in the ultimate Jeffersonian libertarian sense ("give the people light and they will find the way"), but the relatively unwatched mother lode of political information remains the only completely pure source of unvarnished news.
Brian Lamb is a national treasure, and his brainchild, C-SPAN, is the most positive development in American political culture during the last half-century.
What Actually Happened:
Brian's explanation this morning: Savage was not there. He sent a video acceptance speech to the Talkers banquet. C-SPAN elected not to show the video, but C-SPAN offered to come and tape a live speech or cover his radio show for airing at some future date.
Free Republic confirms this account of the events:
Michael Savage, Freedom Of Speech Award: NO SHOW (Savage Skips Own Award Ceremony) (link here):
Quoting a Free Republic post:
Again underscoring his ultra- reclusive nature, the "Savage Nation" host unexpectedly failed to appear at a ceremony where he was to pick up an industry honor.
Selected to receive this year's Freedom Of Speech Award at the New Media Seminar held over the weekend in New York City, Savage instead substituted a hastily- made YouTube- style home video.
Who is Michael Savage really?
I am tempted to hoist Savage on a few of his favorite petards: he is a bum; he's garbage. Sorry. Could not resist the temptation.
Actually, Savage is a person of great intelligence and talent. His comedic timing borders on genius. He is truly an independent voice (wild card is probably more accurate) in the conservative movement (broadly construed), and he is a brilliant communicator.
Unfortunately, he is a sloppy thinker and a boorish bully.
If you don't have enough sense to figure out that C-SPAN is not the enemy, you are not worthy of a single listener. In the past, I have listened to him casually for a chuckle (and sometimes even a belly laugh)--although never when my young sons are in the car with me.
An aside: Fodder for a future post. Should we judge talk radio hosts by how well they model behavior for my boys. That is, would we want our children interacting and debating like the person to whom we are listening on the radio? If the answer is no, perhaps we find another station.
Anyhow, no more Michael Savage on my dial. I am giving up this guilty pleasure.
Brian Lamb or Michael Savage?
Not a tough decision. Michael Savage is dead to me.
15/06: Vietnam & Iraq
Category: America and the World
Posted by: an okie gardener
While I reject the usual attempts to compare the Iraq War with the Vietnam War, there are some disturbing parallels.
In Vietnam the Soviet Union and China supplied arms and amunition to the NVA and thence to the Viet Cong without real penalty. In Iraq today the Iranians provide arms and ammunition without real penalty. And, it now is becoming apparant that China is willingly and knowlingly supplying the war material that will be used against U.S. and coalition troops. See this article.
Both of these nations must be made to pay a steep, steep penalty for their actions. Iran perhaps militarily. China economically. Unless we take quick and serious action, the parallels between Vietnam and Iraq will continue to develop.
In Vietnam the Soviet Union and China supplied arms and amunition to the NVA and thence to the Viet Cong without real penalty. In Iraq today the Iranians provide arms and ammunition without real penalty. And, it now is becoming apparant that China is willingly and knowlingly supplying the war material that will be used against U.S. and coalition troops. See this article.
Both of these nations must be made to pay a steep, steep penalty for their actions. Iran perhaps militarily. China economically. Unless we take quick and serious action, the parallels between Vietnam and Iraq will continue to develop.
Please consider this reflection from an old friend (biographical info below).
Guest Blog: Football Coach
Each October, the Christian high school that I teach at takes the entire freshman class on a week-long canoe trip down the Colorado River. It is part outdoor education, part religious retreat, and part Deliverance. Because of my commitments with football, I am usually unable to go. However, that was not the case in 2000. On that trip, the naturalist assigned to my group had recently graduated from Brown with a degree in Anthropology. She was proud of the fact that she hadn’t shaved or washed her hair in over a year and her biggest worry at the time was who to vote for (she wanted to vote for Nader instead of Gore, but was afraid she was throwing her vote away). Needless to say, we had some interesting discussions.
On one of the days, her nature lesson involved the water resources and management of the river. At the time, California was taking most of the water from the river to use for irrigation (most of the drinking water for southern California comes from northern California). The agreement between the states that had a claim to the water (primarily Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, and Utah) was almost up and each entity was jockeying for position. Of course the naturalist painted the picture that big, mean, California was taking more than her share. When she finished, one of the students asked if the other states would let California continue to have water from the river. When the naturalist did not answer, my response was “If they want to continue to eat they will.” Since California grows most of their food, it was an obvious statement, and that is, in fact, what has happened.
What does this have to do with the immigration problem? The answer is still the same. California grows most of the food, particularly fruits, vegetables, and dairy. To keep prices reasonable, agriculture relies on cheap labor. While I don’t know the exact numbers, most of the planting, growing, and certainly the harvesting is done by illegal immigrants. It seems an easy solution to send all of the illegal immigrants back to their country of origin, but who would grow the food? Are we really willing to pay $6 for a head of lettuce and $10 for a gallon of milk? We don’t like paying over $3 for a gallon of gas. If Reagan’s “trickle-down” theory of economy was effective, it would make sense that it would work in reverse. If food prices increased significantly, eventually it would drive up other prices.
To add to the problem, land in California is at a premium. Unlike many areas of the country that rely on agriculture, people want to live in California making land expensive. I know that will upset some people in other parts of the country, but there is a reason why Nebraska, Iowa, and others travel well to bowl games, while the California schools do not – who wants to leave southern California in December or January to go to San Antonio, Orlando, or Memphis? It has even become necessary for certain California counties to have restrictions on what percentages of land can be developed, leaving a certain percentage that has to be left to agriculture.
I don’t know what the solution is, but it isn’t an easy one. I’m not convinced there is a problem.
Football Coach Bio:
Guest Blog: Football Coach
Each October, the Christian high school that I teach at takes the entire freshman class on a week-long canoe trip down the Colorado River. It is part outdoor education, part religious retreat, and part Deliverance. Because of my commitments with football, I am usually unable to go. However, that was not the case in 2000. On that trip, the naturalist assigned to my group had recently graduated from Brown with a degree in Anthropology. She was proud of the fact that she hadn’t shaved or washed her hair in over a year and her biggest worry at the time was who to vote for (she wanted to vote for Nader instead of Gore, but was afraid she was throwing her vote away). Needless to say, we had some interesting discussions.
On one of the days, her nature lesson involved the water resources and management of the river. At the time, California was taking most of the water from the river to use for irrigation (most of the drinking water for southern California comes from northern California). The agreement between the states that had a claim to the water (primarily Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, and Utah) was almost up and each entity was jockeying for position. Of course the naturalist painted the picture that big, mean, California was taking more than her share. When she finished, one of the students asked if the other states would let California continue to have water from the river. When the naturalist did not answer, my response was “If they want to continue to eat they will.” Since California grows most of their food, it was an obvious statement, and that is, in fact, what has happened.
What does this have to do with the immigration problem? The answer is still the same. California grows most of the food, particularly fruits, vegetables, and dairy. To keep prices reasonable, agriculture relies on cheap labor. While I don’t know the exact numbers, most of the planting, growing, and certainly the harvesting is done by illegal immigrants. It seems an easy solution to send all of the illegal immigrants back to their country of origin, but who would grow the food? Are we really willing to pay $6 for a head of lettuce and $10 for a gallon of milk? We don’t like paying over $3 for a gallon of gas. If Reagan’s “trickle-down” theory of economy was effective, it would make sense that it would work in reverse. If food prices increased significantly, eventually it would drive up other prices.
To add to the problem, land in California is at a premium. Unlike many areas of the country that rely on agriculture, people want to live in California making land expensive. I know that will upset some people in other parts of the country, but there is a reason why Nebraska, Iowa, and others travel well to bowl games, while the California schools do not – who wants to leave southern California in December or January to go to San Antonio, Orlando, or Memphis? It has even become necessary for certain California counties to have restrictions on what percentages of land can be developed, leaving a certain percentage that has to be left to agriculture.
I don’t know what the solution is, but it isn’t an easy one. I’m not convinced there is a problem.
~~Football Coach
Football Coach Bio:
14/06: Bush & Libby: Why Not?
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
From the Washington Post:
Judge Won't Delay Libby's Prison Term for Appeal
"A federal judge today ordered I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby to report to prison within weeks to begin serving a 30-month sentence ...."
"U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton rejected defense attorneys' request to allow Libby to remain free on bond while they appeal his conviction for perjury and obstructing justice."
"Walton...said he disagreed with defense attorneys' contention that Libby's trial had generated a series of close legal questions and judicial rulings that might well be reversed by higher courts."
Full story here.
Already today, I have heard repeatedly on several different media outlets this chestnut of conventional wisdom/analysis/punditry/blather:
"President Bush will not pardon Libby because the political fallout will be too intense."
WHAT!?! Are you kidding?
This is the same George Bush who refuses to budge on Iraq against the backdrop of a disapproval rating in the mid-60s; he continues to support Alberto Gonzales in the face of increasingly vocal consternation; and he intends to resubmit the bone-crushingly divisive and destructive (to Republicans) comprehensive immigration reform.
But, we are told that he is skittish about some bad press over a Libby pardon?
That is completely ridiculous. Seriously, even if you weren't the most stubborn person on the planet, how much lower can any president expect to dip than 29 percent approval?
In truth, a Libby pardon would bring his numbers back up. Bush's steep decline is the result of GOP anger. A Libby pardon, and the ensuing firestorm among the mainstream media and Democrats in Congress, would re-energize the formerly faithful.
But I predict he will not pardon Libby. Why won't he do it?
My Speculation: it is mostly a desire to not be Clinton. Of all the things that have gone to hell for Bush, he still sees himself as superior to his predecessor in terms of modeling virtuous behavior.
In Bush's view, pardons and vitriolic attacks and procedural assaults on the justice system are Clintonesque. I am afraid Bush is going to let Scooter fry--rather than compromise this principle.
Of course, it is easier to hold to your principles when other people are going to jail. I would not be shocked if the President found a way to alleviate Libby's suffering (commutation has been floated as a moderate measure). On the other hand, I would be surprised if Bush pardoned Libby Clinton style.
Judge Won't Delay Libby's Prison Term for Appeal
"A federal judge today ordered I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby to report to prison within weeks to begin serving a 30-month sentence ...."
"U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton rejected defense attorneys' request to allow Libby to remain free on bond while they appeal his conviction for perjury and obstructing justice."
"Walton...said he disagreed with defense attorneys' contention that Libby's trial had generated a series of close legal questions and judicial rulings that might well be reversed by higher courts."
Full story here.
Already today, I have heard repeatedly on several different media outlets this chestnut of conventional wisdom/analysis/punditry/blather:
"President Bush will not pardon Libby because the political fallout will be too intense."
WHAT!?! Are you kidding?
This is the same George Bush who refuses to budge on Iraq against the backdrop of a disapproval rating in the mid-60s; he continues to support Alberto Gonzales in the face of increasingly vocal consternation; and he intends to resubmit the bone-crushingly divisive and destructive (to Republicans) comprehensive immigration reform.
But, we are told that he is skittish about some bad press over a Libby pardon?
That is completely ridiculous. Seriously, even if you weren't the most stubborn person on the planet, how much lower can any president expect to dip than 29 percent approval?
In truth, a Libby pardon would bring his numbers back up. Bush's steep decline is the result of GOP anger. A Libby pardon, and the ensuing firestorm among the mainstream media and Democrats in Congress, would re-energize the formerly faithful.
But I predict he will not pardon Libby. Why won't he do it?
My Speculation: it is mostly a desire to not be Clinton. Of all the things that have gone to hell for Bush, he still sees himself as superior to his predecessor in terms of modeling virtuous behavior.
In Bush's view, pardons and vitriolic attacks and procedural assaults on the justice system are Clintonesque. I am afraid Bush is going to let Scooter fry--rather than compromise this principle.
Of course, it is easier to hold to your principles when other people are going to jail. I would not be shocked if the President found a way to alleviate Libby's suffering (commutation has been floated as a moderate measure). On the other hand, I would be surprised if Bush pardoned Libby Clinton style.
Category: Same-Sex Marriage
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
Off the wire via Breitbart:
Mass. Keeps Gay Marriage Ban From Voters
(By STEVE LeBLANC)
"BOSTON (AP) - Massachusetts lawmakers on Thursday blocked a proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage from reaching voters, a stunning victory for gay marriage advocates and a devastating blow to efforts to reverse a historic 2003 court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage."
View the full Associated Press story here.
Mass. Keeps Gay Marriage Ban From Voters
(By STEVE LeBLANC)
"BOSTON (AP) - Massachusetts lawmakers on Thursday blocked a proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage from reaching voters, a stunning victory for gay marriage advocates and a devastating blow to efforts to reverse a historic 2003 court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage."
View the full Associated Press story here.
