Who is the bigot?

Here in San Diego we have a pretty good newspaper (SDUT) and a reasonably entertaining/talented editorial staff. However, I am going to take issue with one of their writers..."Ruben Navarrette Jr."...who writes under the Opinion page. Today (Sunday July 30th) he has poked at his favorite issue (at least as measured by the occasions he addresses the issue in print)...Immigration reform.

At least on three occasions, including today's' piece, he attempts to paint those opposed to amnesty conjoined with border enforcement as guised bigotry. This popularly professed yet error-plagued tenet suggests that anyone opposing immigration reform as part and parcel of a comprehensive solution is hiding their inner-racists child.

In the past 3 decades being painted as a racists brings more rebuke than the title of "terrorists". Hence, it has been used as a tool to advance agendas by wrapping the package in the multi-colored flag of political correctness. The effort is to intimidate those on the right with the fear of being painted or singed with the inflamed brush of bigotry. Once tattooed or branded with that instrument you are politically neutered.

What Mr. Navarrettte fails to acknowledge in his PC paintings includes;

1) The basis premise that a nation at war with terrorists should, at a minimum, have control of the various points of entry to the nation.

2) That allowing employers to illegally hire and pay sub-standard wages to a wave of millions of desperate Mexican citizens probably has a suppressing impact on the U.S. wage rate of U.S. Citizens, deflects the expenses of these employees from employer paid health care (or at least co-paid support) and thereby spreads these costs across the tax payer base. These social benefit costs are incurred during a time when California is suffering from financial woes.

3) That the influx of millions Spanish-only speaking children into the school system has negatively impacted the overall education quality of all publically educated California children (check out the Californian verses the Nations test scores). Yet, we spend $28 per student per day; one of the nation's highest per student expenditure rates.

4) That the premise of propping up and supporting the practice of paying sub-standard wages to an oppressed people is morally repugnant to many people who think that this issue was resolved in 1865.

Like a ship with a leak, California has taken on a great deal of water. We are a pretty big boat and hence our bouancy can afford a certain amount of weight. I don't suggest that we start bailing out the water (deportation etc.), but I do put forward that the first step in righting the ship begins with plugging the holes in the hull. Once we have control of our borders we can then address the broken process of U.S. citizenship and temporary guest worker processes.

Have immigrants historically faced resistance...Yes! Has some of this resistance been bias-based..Yes! Have many of the waves of immigration had a positive impact on the U.S. (both culturally and economically)...Yes! Do these facts mean that anyone suggesting a controlled and sane process for immigration is an invalid goal...NO!

These are just a few of the reasons why someone (other than Ruben) may oppose the alliance of Democrats seeking a new voter base, Corp. America wanting to maintain access to a cheap labor pool, and the geo-political mi casa/su casa crowd (all of whom send their children to private school) might oppose the bundling of immigration reform with border security.

Of course, I may just be cleverly hiding my racist tendencies...I'll check with my wife Elizabeth Herrera-Boyer (formerly of Calexico, California).

Stemming the Tide

Corporate Welfare "Help Uncle Sam Please Send Money"!



I find it curious that George Bush used his first and only veto on the issue of Gov't funding for additional Stem cell research (although I agree with this action). I think there were a few funding bills that were more deserving of his veto pen or pocket over the past six years.

What is even more curious to me is the basic premise being aired that Bio-Tech, Pharmaceutical and Energy companies are dependent on the Federal Govt. to help fund their research.

If you read the last section of Exxon/Mobile's annual report concerning research and defending their profits you see a chart that compares their industry's profits to other industries. Guess which three top the "profit percent" list...

Pharmaceuticals
Bio-Tech
Heath Care

So, why is it that the cost of research must be borne on the back of the tax payers, while the profit cycle of these companies is protected by the equivalent of trade protectionist measures by our government. The anti-import FDA, the tooth-less FTC and the see no evil/hear no evil Congress all either act to protect these industries from competition, or fail to act to engage anti-trust violations.

As you look at history, and the most meaningful advances in medicine and science,...The occasions where the government sponsored the research that found the cure/discovery are paled by the individual or private enterprise funded advances.

We need to get these industries off the government dole and the government out of the research business. Government can dangle a carrot to those that find the cure, the alternative fuel, the discovery,..But taking risk out of business is not the business of the government nor healthy in promoting true advancements. The result of taking risk out of business is to weaken the talent, energy and innovation that comes from the angst of business fundamental risk/reward dynamics.

Taking intelligent, calculated and well-considered research risks comes under the purview of enterprising business concerns. When government provides risk-less access to capital or painless dole no one is well served. The result of this squander-mongers process is businesses siphoning off precious capital in projects that may or may not have the merit. Traditional business scrutiny provides the risk/reward calculation that forces research advocates to be credible and results-centric. Moreover, far too often the tax-payers funds go to companies that are "connected" with Congressional members and other government decision makers, not necessarily connected with any relevant path to an advancement. We simply fund busy-work. Or as some accurately call it...Corporate welfare.

Stem Cell may very well be (as described by proponents) "the best opportunity for discovery and advances in health care in a century". If that is indeed true, this avenue of research will have no trouble finding capital to continue this worthy journey.

You don't have to have a religious-based objection to support the President's decision. Acknowledging that a significant part of the electorate objects to playing God is a political reality. While that may have been the President's motivation, I won't touch that argument with a ten foot pole. I do acknowledge the existence of many tax payers who object to stem cell research as the first turn on the roadway to organ harvesting, cloning misuse and other slippery slopes that run upstream to their of moral compass. Is it so far fetched to think that a company that found the upside of profiting from a government-sanctioned harvest program could bleed into other areas not yet on the horizon?

I just hope that in the coming two years Mr. Bush finds that veto pen and/or pocket on federal spending on order to address the 9-trillion dollar debt.

Message to Canada, quit sending us comics and journalist

Okay, I have fallen too deep down this rabbit hole. The article attached to this link
http://adelphia.net/news/read.php?id=12953087&ps=1012&cat=&cps=0&lang=en
actually informs us that our Dept. of Homeland Security lectured the Canadians on THEIR lack of border integrity. I can only assume we decided to engage the CTI crisis ("Comedian Trade Imbalance") that we have with our Northern neighbors.

So, Mueller and Chertoff decided to deliver a joke (deadpan style)...

...Lecturing Canada on their poor border management.

We have apparently delineated between the positive impact of cheap labor from our Southern Border, from the negative impact on higher paid imported labor from Canada (i.e. comedians, entertainers, TV talk show hosts etc).

So, Homeland Security and the FBI have decided to protect us from the invasion of Comic Relief...Just at a time when the nation needs a good laugh or two.

Hopefully, the Canadian Mist was poured generously as our defenders took the plane home, or maybe it was the inbound flight to Toronto?

Help I've fallen and I can't get up...

If it weren't true this would be funny. As of this writing, the Bush decree to deploy 6500 National Guard troops to assist in Border Security has actually resulted in less than 500 Guardsman on station.

This administration can deploy 130,000 troops halfway across the globe in a moments notice. (Complete with supporting equipment, supplies and privately-contracted infrastructure rebuilders).

This adminstration can artfully avoid judical scrunity and secure the phone records of millions of American's.

This administration can detain citizens and non-citizens for mulitiple years with no trial, no access to family or council.

...but they just can't seem to muster and coordinate 6,500 National Guard to administrative and infrastruture support roles along the U.S. Border. Most of whom could drive themselves to the required location in their own vehicles in a day or two.

Of course, we can dis-assemble the organization responsible for tracking and capturing Osama Bin Laden and friends.

C-A-N-'T=

C-Clumisly
A-Attempt
N-No Action
T-To Appease