July 2, 2010
-
Politics
I have been following some of the cable political channels and am concerned about the political attitudes of some of our congressmen and senators.
Obama inherited a horrible mess - two wars, a record deficit, and a deep recession which he has tried mightily to pull us out of, with mixed results. On top of that he has had to cope with the most massive environmental disaster of our times. His administration, which has had to act pretty conservatively [constrained by the economic downturn] seems to have been moderately successful in turning the economy around - at least partially.
During all of his term in office his every move has been unanimously opposed by the GOP minority. Attempts to include their ideas - many of which have, in fact, been included in legislation - has failed to win any support in the Senate - even in areas where the need for reform and support is obvious.
This has led to both polarization by political party in congress and dramatic loss of confidence in the congressional process by many voters. Obama and the Democrats seem to be blamed for ineffective action at a time when most of their attempts at prompt action have been thwarted by the minority.
What do you think Obama should do that he hasn't tried in each of these areas?
Iraq War?
Afghan War?
Deficit?
Economy?
Oil Spill?
Immigration?
Comments (48)
Hi Dick. You asked, so here's what I think. If I could solve those problems, I would be a lot smarter than the past few presidents we've had (which is not saying much. LOL)
So here goes.
Iraq war? Get out. The only reason we invaded was because Bush-Cheney were out to get Saddam.
Afghan war? Get out. No more reason to be there now that Bush has allowed Osama bin Ladin to escape.
Deficit? Quit spending like drunken sailors (actually not true, cuz drunken sailors quit spending when they run out of money.)
Economy? I dunno. Maybe work like the devil to get our industry and jobs back from overseas?
Oil spill? Too late to save the poor creatures that were victims of the spill. The environment will be a mess for a long, long time. A tragically missed opportunity was in rejecting offers from Denmark--and I think Holland--to help right after the spill. As I understand it, those two countries have much experience and expertise in oil spills.
Plugging the leak should be priority one (NOT salvaging as much oil as we can.) As long as that oil keeps gushing out, we're on a treadmill. Or worse.
Immigration? Perhaps follow Eisehower's example in Operation Wetback in the fifties. He sent 1.3 million illegals back to Mexico to make more jobs for servicemen returning from WWII and Korea. His only mistake was not in taking stong measures to keep them from returning.
Mind you, these are the opinions of one man--nothing more. I'm interested in the opinions of others. I will be disappointed only if others have no opinion...
@dsullivan -
Hi Don, Oh boy, if we could solve our international problems that easily.
I think most Americans are in agreement about the wars - but ending them isn't easy - or politically acceptable - unless it's done very cleverly. Let's watch and see if Obama can pull it off.
Ending the deficit can be done fairly simply - pay as we go - but that means both raising taxes (probably on the richest - that's after all where the money is and during Eisenhower's time the upper tax rate was over twice what they pay now) and cutting spending in the largest segments of the economy - Defense, Social Security, and Medicare. A way to avoid the political death of ending SS and Medicare would be to make them self-sufficient. You could do that by: a. taxing all income and b. expanding medicare to cover everybody.
Oil spill? ; At least make sure it doesn't happen again.
Eisenhower's "operation wetback" didn't work - obviously - it was apparently unfairly implemented and included some American Citizens - it was called off. There is no way we can "send back" twelve million people - many of whom came as children and most of whom are hard-working, tax-paying residents. If we cracked down on illegal hiring, that would help some, but amnesty and opening the borders to "guest workers" would help more.
But mostly, what we need is more statesmanship and responsible action in congress.
@tychecat -
An idea just occurred to me that might help our deficit. Instead of borrowing money from China to aid other countries, why don't we just broker loans from China to those countries. That way those countries would have to pay the interest on the loans--and we could charge a broker's fee. LOL
Uhm... in my opinion Obama is the best US president i know from Reagan.
Nevertheless i think the power is not actually of the president of the US, but of the big multinational companies. Take the environmental disaster, for example. Can we really say it was a guilt of Obama (or any past US president) that didn't impose strict rules? Can we say it is Obama's responsibility to clean that mess? Mmh... I think in this problem the real power is of BP. BP made the disaster and now it is BP convenience to try to stop it. And that power comes from the economical system. Liberism, at the end, is based on giving power to echonomy. One can agree with this or not, but everybody should admit that the more power is given to economy, the less power is given to politics. And politics is us, economy is them. Oil in Mexico gulf is the price to pay for our wealth. On one side you pay with your freedom to live in a clean world, on the other side you gain your freedom of putting gasoline in your car.
I like Obama, but i believe that problems must be solved by who has the power. Being that the big companies use that power for their personal interest, i believe the only solution is to change the economical system of the world (starting for the USA's one)
The real question is: Does Obama have the power to change US economical system?
But, even before that there is another question: Does the American People really want to change economical system?
I am astonished in reading the last point of dsullivan's comment.
Wow! I believe America was a land of immigrants. Well... a land of immigrant because the native Peoples were all pretty much sterminated by the first immigrants. Yes, i believe his solution (if ever feasible) could work for the wealth of North America. Give back to Native American tribes their land and all the other illegal immigrants (illegal from their point of view) out of the borders.
Mmh... maybe that ethnic clearing is not really what dsullivan meant...
Well... as usual i think the problem must be seen by a global point of view. Immigrants immigrate to America because America is rich. And that, obviously, is not an individual goal reached by any American person, but a status that was given to Americans by their History that was the effect (as it happens in the whole rich part of the world) of the sopruse towards the poor People. Isn't it more fair to let poor immigrants share our wealth or it would be more just to let them die of hunger wherever they are just because they had the unluck to be born over there?
Do we want to be just or we just want to keep being only rich, despite any morality?
Dear Dick,
All the hubbub on the "front pages" of Xanga about lack of content, and an entry such as this only gets five comments, one of which is a reply from you. Of course those of us who know where to look for quality are never disappointed, and perhaps making people think is not what is important to many of the younger Xangans who populate those "front pages."
First of all, I want to thank you for summing up the first part of Obama's presidency so well. I think it's amazing, given how young and politically inexperienced he is, how much legislation is actually getting passed. And in light of the partisanship rampant on Capitol hill these days, his team is finding ways to exploit politics at a time when the GOP seems to plant brick walls in front of any idea not coming from their own camp.
The withdrawal in Iraq is slowly but surely happening. Perhaps not as quickly as I'd hoped, but it's incredibly difficult to withdraw from an undeclared "war" in which the U.S. had been so deeply ingrained for so long. I've been against the U.S. involvement in Afghanistan since it was announced right after 9/11, and so far the military seems to have done pretty much all it can. I hope Obama's military advisers aren't planning to push into Pakistan. That would be a deadly mistake.
Since the stimulus seems to have "worked" (and made a lot more money for Wall Street) a quick uninformed answer would be let's try it again. But if the government takes over the financial pursestrings of the country, why don't we just go all out and declare ourselves a Socialist State? (That would certainly be the trigger for the next civil war.) The media is all over a "double dip' (sounds like something you'd get at Baskin Robbins) in the recession. If only Wall Street weren't so finicky, this would all be over by now. Perhaps some more government funded social programs like FDR imposed during the depression? As long as joblessness is at such a high, the economy can't grow much larger.
Unlike a lot of his critics in the media, I think Obama has "handled" the BP crisis as well as he possibly can. When you consider that the spill is originating in international waters by a British multinational corporation, there's really not much more the government of the U.S. can do, except slap a few wrists. We've already shown Toyota that we're a bit upset about the lack of quality inherent in manufacturing these days. I only hope that this crisis puts some quality control into the QC departments of some of these giant worldwide corporations whose rich CEOs don't seem to know what's going on with the actual operation of their companies.
I think by kick starting some kind of national consensus on immigration, Obama is more than living up to his promise to at least put the dialog on the table.
For the most part, Obama is proving to be a better president, given the roadblocks he's facing in congress, than I had given him credit for.
Again, thanks for this incisive entry. Now to read the comments and to recommend. (And I was going to answer a few comments this morning. Oh well, time to get to work.) I hope you wife's condition is improving. Our 87 year old CEO came to visit on Friday. (We used to have really large 4th of July parties back in the old days) He just got out of the hospital again after complications removing his catheter forced him to stay over a week and a half. He's in great spirits, considering. It's been over a year since the stroke, and while he will never get up out of the wheelchair again, he is talking quite well, and almost seems like himself.
I really enjoyed reading your comment about how your wife inspired the people in the "stress management" wing of the hospital. I hope everything on her "reading list" is available as "books on tape".
Michael F. Nyiri, poet, philosopher, fool
@dsullivan - Dear Dan. I wish it were easy to "pull out" of our undeclared wars. We did "pull out" of Saigon back in the early 70s pretty quickly and I've always felt we sort of turned our backs on the people of Vietnam. Of course we did let a lot of the refugees into the U.S. so that dulled the sting a bit. I'd like the timetable to be amped up a bit, and I hope we don't go "into" Pakistan in our hunt for bin Laden.
I don't think there's much more Obama can do regarding the oil disaster. I agree that the first priority should have always been to plug the leak. But I don't think these drilling platforms should ever have been built in waters so far out that nobody had a back up plan for what would happen if a leak were to occur. (And the contracting snafus that occured during the construction brings to mind that old movie "The Towering Inferno.")
As I wrote in a recent piece on my blog, after over 200 years of welcoming the immigrant, now we want to keep them all out. That's a rather abrupt shift in policy. Most of the "jobs" the illegalos have here in SoCal are jobs nobody else wants to do.
MIchael F. Nyiri, poet, philosopher, fool
@italian_culture -
Hi Dario.
Your viewpoint is both interesting and refreshing. Obama's election has obviously triggered a sort of "jingoistic" response in some Americans - How dare a member of a despised minority take over "their" government. {Jingoistic means very prejudiced against foreigners}. Since their attitude is very unpopular with most Americans - who well understand their immigrant roots - they tend to disguise their attitudes by accusing him of being a socialist, or spendthrift, or incompetent and "un-American". The opposition party in congress was reduced by the last couple of elections to those representing the most conservative part of the nation. They have managed to reach a common accord to vigorously oppose any and all of the current administration's policies and attempts at reform.
One easy mark for them is to oppose immigrants. They are suspicious of the growing Latin-American, Spanish-speaking minority in the US - just as some Americans have opposed each major immigrant group as they arrived (Germans, Irish, Scandinavian, in the 19th century, Italian, Jewish, Eastern European, in the early 20th century ; Oriental during both centuries). The US has severely restricted immigration for most of the past hundred years, while at the same time welcoming illegal immigrants because they worked cheap and were politically powerless.
The US has always tried to keep an uneasy balance between economic and popular influence on politics. Obama's election was an example of the power tipping more toward the populist side and the current struggle to keep economics "free" of government oversight represents a conservative (economic plutocracy) backlash.
@baldmike2004 -
Hi Mike, Thanks for the kind words. I am used to not getting a lot of readership in either one of my Xanga blogs (This one and Socrates_cafe).
These blogs are old-fashioned "plain vanilla" as I've always supposed the written content should be easy to get to and is after all the most important part of both of these. Your much more elaborate (and popular) blogs are a delight to view and very interesting, but have different purposes.
It puzzles me that so many obvious - to me at least - political and economic problems go unanswered - even unconsidered.
A good example is the problem of what to do in Afghanistan?
This is a country with no history of a dominating central government - actually a history of rejection of central government, yet we continue to treat it like all that's necessary to settle things is to back an unpopular and corrupt central government. Afghanistan has existed for millennia as a loose confederation of tribal and regional rulers with little in common except their very basic culture. They have from time to time agreed on a weak "Ruler" or perhaps a military leader to help them repel foreigners - but regional autonomy is always their primary loyalty. This is no secret - a quick read of any Afghan history will show this. Perhaps Petraus knows this and will go to the local leaders - he did something like that in Iraq with a lot of success and, despite his ridiculous* uniform, he is a smart political general.
*He is by no means required to wear all that tinsel.
@italian_culture -
The key word here is "illegal." We are all descendants of immigrants--even the American Indians immigrated here from Asia (latest theory, anyway.) I am not against immigration when immigrants go through the established procedures, as my Irish ancestors did. Sure, they were hated and despised for taking jobs away from people, but they were legal. My Minorcan ancestors were not legal immigrants, but that is another long story (Google Dr. Andrew Turnbull--Minorcans)
Is it ant-immigrant to ask that people wanting to enter this country follow the established lawful procedures? Every country I can think of has immigration laws, many of them more strict than the U.S.
@baldmike2004 -
Hi Mike. Miss ya over on FG.
Nobody said it would be easy to pull out, Mike, just that we should pull out cuz there's no good reason to be there sacrificing our blood and treasure for an apparently ungrateful people.
I served in Vietnam as a Vietnamese translator for Psychological Operations. I know for a fact that most Vietnamese hated us. Many saw themselves as putting up with an obnoxious insect spray (the U.S.) to get rid of the mosquitoes (Viet Cong.) Sure, there were a few who liked and appreciated us. The government was corrupt from top to bottom, including the army, which collapsed the instant we pulled out.
I suspect we have a similar situation in Afghanistan.
Dick, I know you're addressing this to Dario, so my apology for butting in. You say,
Obama's election has obviously triggered a sort of "jingoistic" response in some Americans - How dare a member of a despised minority take over "their" government. {Jingoistic means very prejudiced against foreigners}. Since their attitude is very unpopular with most Americans - who well understand their immigrant roots - they tend to disguise their attitudes by accusing him of being a socialist, or spendthrift, or incompetent and "un-American".
For sure this is true of some of the fringe types. But the majority of the people I meet in community watch meetings, the barbershop, the neighbors, mechanics, home repair people,relatives and so on, who are mostly just common, everyday working people--not fringe--are unhappy with Obama--mainly for being a spendthrift and forcing Obamacare on us. Some voted for him (although I was a registered Democrat, I couldn't bring myself to vote for either Obama or McCain.) I'm now an Independent.
Again, I apologize. You merely asked for opinions on your topic, and each of us here have given our opinions--and of course, no one here is going to sway anyone else's opinion. It's heartening to see that at least a few are interested enough to comment.
@tychecat -
Mike, this is a kind of nitpicking point. Concerning medals, you said: "He is by no means required to wear all that tinsel." Unless regulations have changed since I was in uniform, all ribbons/medals were required to be worn with the dress uniform. Incidentally, what you call tinsel, we used to call "fruit salad." LOL
@dsullivan -
Dullivan,
The word "illegal" is quite a strange definition, if you think of it.
It means that it is against some law (it comes from the latin "legalis" which means something like "compliant to a law", with the prefix "in" which gives a meaning of opposite).
Usually laws are some kind of rules that are given by the resident people of a land in the territory of that land through the social organization of that people.
Well... to tell the truth there is somebody that believes that there are some absolute laws that are given from a biggest authority like, for example, God. But i hope you are not one of those buggahs...
So, the law, and hence the dialectical rule to consider something "illegal" must be some fact that come from an authority that belongs to a society which is composed by people that is resident.
An immigrant is legal when the already resident society has laws that put him/her in a position compliant to them. An illegal immigrant is somebody that is not accepted because he/she doesn't have the requisites to be compliant to the laws.
Being that the laws are relative and not absolute, i bet that the Native American population of north America could have a set of rules that say something like "if somebody comes here and sterminate all the resident people, well... somehow they are kinda illegal, isn't it?".
So, what about the glorious cowboys ancestors of the United States of America? Were they legal or illegal?
Now, those descendants of those funny guys not only say to theirselves that they are legal, not only they impose new laws, but they dare to judge who is illegal and not illegal in that territory that, in my opinion, belongs to who is living on it, immigrants included.
The key thing, i believe (well... this is the key thing in Italy - we also have lots of immigrants from Africa and eastern Europe and Asia), the key thing is that a small territory cannot give wealth to a big population. In italy it doesn't have a lot of sense that all the rest of the world immigrates into our small Boot, so that all the poverty comes here and the situation collapses.
But, as an Italian, i admit that the reason for they be wanting to immigrate to Italy is because their own lands are poor. And they are poor because they didn't economically develop as we did. And they didn't because the global capitalist economy, to survive and expand, just needed them to be poor. In other words, they are poor because of us being rich. If we didn't want to be rich despite them to die of hunger, they wouldn't have any reason to immigrate to Italy.
In other words, an efficient and just (just in my opinion), and actually easy way to defeat immigration is to defeat poverty in the original lands of the immigrants. We don't have to share our territory (by the way, they don't really want us to do it). We have to share our wealth, and that doesn't involve any mass movement of human beings.
By the way or we accept globalization at all, or we refuse it. Any other way should be atleast discussed before impose it to the whole world. We want the free movement of the goods that we produce, but we don't want the free movement of the most important good, which is labor. Maybe that is because of our convenience. Or not?
@baldmike2004 -
I agree that those platform shouldn't have to be built at all.
But i also agree that this opinion comes out only now that there is a disaster.
Maybe you are much more informed than me, but i knew about the danger of that platform only after the explosion. Then i made to myself the opinion that those platforms shouln'd have been built at all.
The thing is that society naturally tend to be blind when it is convenient for them to be blind.
BP actually put that platform over there because for extracting oil. And they want to extract oil from there because of providing us gasoline for our cars. I wonder how many gallions of gasoline extracted by BP in Mexico gulf was burnt in your or my car. And now we say that that platform shouldn't ever be built? Isn't it a tad hypocritical of us?
I believe that the real problem is that we act like automatic toys in a society that impose its rules. In other words we had to burn that gasoline, we didn't have a choice. So, BP had to extract it in the middle of the probably most beautiful echosystem of the world, they didn't have a choice.
The real wheeler-dealer, the one that had a choice, is society. And society is us.
It's a hard work, but i believe the only way to prevent a future disaster comparable to this or any other destruction of the world, is to change the rules of this society. We don't need to be so rich that we can waste, that we have to pollute to be comfortable. If we want it all, we have to accept the idea that somebody provides it to us.
@tychecat -
Dick,
As you know i always look to the ethimology of words.
"Socialist". Another strange word. It becomes from society, and, as far as i know, because it tends (atleast at words) to share wealth so that everybody that compose the society has the same access to some common goods or services that don't belong to a private but instead, in fact, to the society itself.
Which is a concept that i love so much. People belonging to a Nation, that feel to be part of a society, accept voluntarily to individually share some wealth for the common Good.
Actually the derogatory taste of the word is given by the deterioration of the political currents that was generated by this philosophy, think of the Italian fascism, the German nazism, the USSR realsocialism. It's a pity that such a charming meaning is obscured by such an ugly label!!!
Anyway, what i wanted to say is that, under this point of view, if somebody accuses Obama of some kind of socialism, well... at the end i cannot say it is a false accuse. And, anyway, that's the main reason i like Obama.
@dsullivan -
Sorry i mispelled your nickname
@tychecat - Dear Dick, The "Latin American Spanish speaking" minority in the U.S. is slowly but surely getting to be the majority in a lot of places. I've lived in Southern California all my life and this is one place where the "Anglo Saxon" majority is now the "minority". Of course I've always believed the U.S. sort of stole Calirfornia from Mexico anyway, right after gold was discovered in 1849, but that's quite another matter. The fear you point out in conservatives is also fueling more and more "white power" groups in the Bible belt.
@dsullivan - Dear Dan, The link I provided in my first reply to you on this string is actually a topic post for FG, and I linked them, but since I answered all the topic questions on which we were supposed to "vote" and I did it early, I wasn't linked for the current topic. I was lucky enough that the "war" (I hate the calling all the undeclared conflicts in which we have instigated "wars", since the last war we fought ended in 1945) in Vietnam ended just as I was about to be drafted into it. I certainly didn't want to go, and knew plenty of guys who came back with adjustment problems. It is true that most of the Vietnamese hated us, but some entreprenuers in Saigon possibly loved us as "customers" as well. I'm sure they hated the French before us. And you're right about Afghanistan. As Dick points out in his reply to me, Afghanistan is merely a "country" by dictate not by definition. The area has always been populated by a group of (warring) tribes.
@dsullivan - Dan, It was Dick who "nitpicked" about the medals. I love a little ostentation in military uniforms myself, and love the impractical uniforms of the 1800s.
@italian_culture - Dear Dario, I don't think oil platforms shouldn't be built at all in the ocean. I just don't think anyone should build them far enough out that problems can't be easily fixed. The ocean is pretty unforgiving. Sometimes we humans put our faith in technology which hasn't been proven. I think this disaster will hopefully cause us to think a bit more before trusting unproven technology. Some of my control panels end up on oil platforms, so I'm not against building more of them, just not too far out that they can't be fixed if they break, like Deepwater Horizon did.
Also, I'd like to address the subjects of socialism and illegal immigration from your replies above to others. I'll admit I've always been a socialist, but the idea of true socialism has never worked, and historically has been abused by dictatorial regimes using the idea to further their own agendas. The socialist programs began by some U.S. presidents have worked well. I'm thinking of the various programs initiated by FDR during the great depression and the Medicare program initiated by LBJ. Socialized medicine works in countries like France and Canada. I'd like to see more socialist programs in the U.S. The stigma of "communism" is still pretty high however, so I don't think this will happen. Also, I think it is highly hypocrital of the masses of Americans who seem to want to control the borders. America is a nation of immigrants. First we either shot everyone who lived here before us, or tried to turn them into us, or put them on "reservations." Then for years we celebrated our diversity. Now that diversity can plainly be seen. (Some streets in L.A. look like they could be streets in Mexico, or Korea, or India.) And the descendants of all those immigrants want to close the borders. Perhaps the "problem" isn't really a problem after all. It's been reported that the "drug wars" which fueled the fear which instigated Arizona's law which goes into effect at the end of the month are not really cause for alarm. For the most part, they've been limited to the other side of the border, and crime is down in the Arizona border cities.
@baldmike2004 -
Mike, i think about socialism we pretty much agree.
About oil platform also I agree with you. And even more, i believe that Oil shouldn't be extracted anymore, because it pollutes, and moreover it feeds the Lords of War in the middle east. And moreover again, it feeds the political control of energy, and so the accentrated control of the main source of wealth in the world.
But.
In the system we all live in, we cannot survive without energy. And we don't live enough well if we dont spend a lot amount of energy. We consider just a fact of life that we can waste energy as much as we can. So. Or we find another efficient way to produce energy (and unfortunately till now there is not such a technology to produce enough clean energy), or we will still need to extract oil. And, i am sorry to tell you that a really large amount of oil is extracted from the bottom of the oceans.
Or (there is a last option!!!) we stop using that much energy. We stop first to waste it, then we stop to feel the need to use more and more. But the reason we use more and more is because we have to produce more and more. And the need to produce more and more is a direct consequence of the capitalistic society. In other words we should stop to be wanting to be richer and richer because otherwise we will have the need to have platforms in the middle of the ocean.
It's a way to say that yes, i don't want oil to be extracted, but after i finish writing this comment i will go out of the office, take my car and use something like about one liter of gasoline to go home (well... actually i will use one liter of LPG, but no big difference, being that LPG is produced from oil anyway). "How the hell are you thinking to use gasoline without extracting oil?" you could tell me... "uhm..."
@italian_culture - Dear Dario, We are finally getting more fuel efficient hybrid cars (gas-electric) here in the U.S. and although GM leased an electric vehicle (EV-1) in the 90s mostly for the California market (where I live) it famously killed off the car. The Volt, another all electric vehicle is coming up, but if memory serves it's pretty expensive. I drive a small sports car, which doesn't use much gasoline. It's over 10 years old, but I own it outright, so I personally will not be looking for another car as long as this one keeps going.
I'm remembering a documentary I saw years ago about Brazil. Back during the first "energy crisis" in the early 70s, Brazil attempted to find an alternative, and if I remember the documentary correctly, they have been selling ethanol fuels alongside gasoline in their service stations ever since. (And are possibly the #1 ethanol producer in the world) The cars sold in Brazil can run on either fuel. I always thought this seemed pretty foresighted. Other nations should follow suit. But the oil industry has some pretty long tentacles. I drive by both a Conoco Phillips and a BP refinery on my way home from work, and they take up most of the land on either side of a two mile stretch of highway.
I also saw a documentary about solar power a few years ago. A "test home" here in California was able to generate so much solar power that it could "sell" the energy back to the power company! The power companies probably don't like this too much and that's why solar power is not widely used. Of course there was that rumor years ago that somebody had invented a "pill" that you could put in your gas tank that would increase your mileage to over 100miles per gallon (42.7kpl) Rumor has it that the oil companies acquired the patent.
@italian_culture -
Dario, not to worry, you may call me anything but late for dinner. LOL. You may get into semantics, as you are apparently wont to do, but I see people crossing the border of one country and entering another country without passports, work permits, etc, as breaking the law. That's just the way I see it. You see it from a different perspective and I respect that. We can disagree without being disagreeable. Difference of opinion is what makes the world go around.
I would like to note that I truly grieve--and I sincerely mean that--for the peoples who were here when the Europeans first landed. The first people who were wiped out were the Taino, a peaceful, friendly people who welcomed Columbus with open arms--only to be enslaved and slaughtered.
Now, none of us here in the U.S. chose to be born here--it was an accident of birth. Also, none of us here had a choice in choosing our ancestors. Further, we had no control over what our ancestors did. I may have had an ancestor way back who raped and killed children, if so I had no control over that either. I refuse to share the guilt of my ancestors. I am responsible for what I do.
LOL. Ok I'll get off the soap box now.
@baldmike2004 -
Mmmh...
I know a couple of types of pills. One is blue and oval, and it works. The one you refer doesn't at all.
Sure there are alternatives. Hybrids can make more kilometers (miles) with the same liter (gallion) of gasoline. A Toyota Prius runs pretty much the double distance than a Toyota RAV4 with the same fuel. But the problem is not solved if, owning a Prius you drive the double distance!
Sure there are completely clean cars, like the electric ones you mention. But i think that their batteries need to be recharged, and that is done plugging something in the electric lines. Somebody has to provide electricity, and i wonder if the producer uses only clean sources or they use also oil.
Sure there are other kind of fuels. Methane, for example. It is extracted by the Methane hydrates from the deep bottom of the ocean, and that process puts in risk the entire echosystem of the ocean, and also the bases of the continental slopes, which can endanger the coasts of the continents.
Also there is ethanol/bio-ethanol and bio-diesel, but they demand wide large amount of lands to grow crops of corn or rape (? sorry for my translation if not correct) for biodiesel, or sugar (for ethanol) in order to produce those types of fuel. I don't think it's a good idea that fuel producers start a competition with food producers right in an age where poverty and starvation is the main danger for humanity.
There is a post in my blog over here http://italianroots.blogspot.com/2008/04/alternatives.html that speak about that.
The ways, to solve this problem, are actually two, as far as i can see:
1) use clean sources of energy
2) use fuel more efficiently
The main problem of solution #1, i think, is that technology is not ready to produce cheap clean energy, so that people will use the dirty one.
The main problem of solution #2, instead, is that using less fuel, the amount of money saved for not buying fuel will be spent for driving more kilometers (and so, use more fuel). This last is my point of view that makes me conclude that the only way to stop this vicious circle is to change our life style, agreeing to stop wasting wealth. Or, in other words, abandon liberism and capitalism.
I try to explain better, because i don't think i did enough.
) or... Anyway, i will buy something that was produced by somebody else.
Nowadays i drive about 20 km a day just to go to work. Say that i spend 2 liters of gasoline just to do that. Gasoline is about 1 euro a liter (it's more than that but i don't want to make difficult calculations!), so i spend 2 euros a day just in gasoline.
Suppose that i change my car and i buy one that "drinks" only one liter for 20 km. Now it will drink one liter per day, so that i will spend only 1 euros a day for my needs to go to work. I will save 1 euro a day. What do you think i will do with that euro? I cannot just hide it into a hole in the wall, because if everybody does something like that economy will slow down to the half, which means that the value of one euro, compared to the cost of life will be the double, which means that i will still spend 1 euro for driving to work, but that euro's value will be even to the 2 euros i spent with my old car. In other words i didnt have any advantage. Our organization of society say that when there is a value in our pockets we have to spend that value to produce more and more.
So, my saved euro for driving a more efficient car will be spent to buy some other goods, which can be more gasoline to drive to holiday, or to buy a new cellphone, or a flat screen tv-set or a plastic toy for my doggies (or one for my wife?
And how did that buggah produce that good? Using less or more clean raw material and trasforming it with less or more clean energy. Or, in other words, burning oil. Why not from the sun? Because if they use the sun, which is for free, they will save money, and those money should be spent to buy something else that was produced with oil. Why oil? Because if it was produced with the sun, the producer would have saved money that would be used to buy some product that was produced with oil....
That is a semplicistic explaination. But the bottom is that as much as energy will be accessible, as much our need of energy will grow. And, atleast nowadays, we don't have a cheap source that is not oil.
We should stop to demand cheap energy. But to do that we should have a political decision, because economy goes towards using more and more cheap energy. Or, in other words, defeat capitalism.
Politics should impose me to use ONLY clean energy. To put solar panel on my roof, to build windmill or whatever. Yes, i know a couple of farmhouses that sell back the excess of solar energy to the electric company, but that didn't cover, yet, the initial amount of money they spent to build the plant.
"I cannot do that, i cannot afford!". What? I can afford to use 4 euros to drive to work with a supersolar hypertechnological car that cost 1 million euro. I can. Obviously i couldn't afford to go to holiday. I couldn't afford to buy a new tv-set or a new plastic toy for my dogs or my wife. So, i will not be able to run my part of economy. Why? Because energy is not enough cheap.
@dsullivan -
oh... i am sorry... the thing is that when i comment something that i am involved to i put too much passion, especially if i am writing in english. I didn't want to point my judging finger towards you or anybody just because of their origins.
On the opposite i wanted to say that everybody has the right to "use the world" in the same way. Obviously i won't ever be on the side of those europeans that enslaved, raped and killed the native americans. But it was not their guilt having the need to cultivate that dirt that didn't belong to them at first, to grow their families, to build their house there. It just happened that they were there because they couldn't be some other place. Just right the immigrants that cross the border.
See like that. You have the right to refuse the guilts of your ancestors, in my opinion. But i am not sure that you can enjoy the wealth that those same ancestor gave to their children that gave to their cildren that... that gave you your parents that gave to you. If you are a US citizen is because you were born in US from US citizens that were there because they were legal (i hope for them) immigrants in the US. In other word you belong to a society which wealth is based on a system that uses the poverty outside the border to feed the tummies of who is inside the borders (you included). And that system was obtained artificiously drawing lines on a map and naming those lines with the name "border". And i am not accusing USA for that. Italy, for example, is the same, with the only little exception that Italian history is based of a couple of millennia more than American. I am not child of an immigrant, atleast if i look back a tenth of generations (actually i am a green-eyed blond, so somewhere in my genes there is a barbaric Saxons immigrant, probably from northen europe. Which, by the way, must be immigrated over there from Asia. Which went over there from center Africa... they say Adam and Eve were born over there isn't it?
You say that illegal that somebody from out the border just crosses that border without a passport or a visa or whatever else they need to immigrate legally in the US.
I say that it is illegal that there is actually a border over there. You say that it is not your guilt, because that border was created by your ancestors. Okay. I say that if it is not your guilt, well, even less it is a guilt of that immigrant. But in that situation you feel okay to push him out of the way, and not vice versa.
You know why USA is rich? Because it produces Coke and Pepsi, which are mostly sold outside the borders that you ancestor draw on that map. If you just stop to sell those cans outside the border, well, i believe that you will drop into extreme poverty in few years (obviously i am not speaking only of those 2 products, but of all the economy). The fact is that you buy something from outside and sell something outside, and that makes your economy doing good. And that makes the ousiders economies doing bad.
You would say, why shouldn't i sell coke and pepsi in Africa?. Africans would say, then, why shouldn't i sell labor in the US? You, in the US, own excess of cans of soda, they own excess of labor. But you are allowed to sell coke in africa, while africans are not free to sell their labor in the US. Damn. If i was an african i would be mad of this injustice, and i will eventual boycot all the US products... well... also European products... and also Australians... and Japanese... .and Korean.... and....
Too bad their economy is so bad that they cannot live without our economy!
Following up on Mike's plug on this site. Wow.
For starters, though I've friends who [in accusatory tones]refer to me as [depending on who you ask] a "bleeding-heart liberal" or [in condescending tones] an uptight conservative.
I don't know...by the time any potential candidate climbs the proverbial Jacob's ladder to full ballot legitimacy, the vote gets reduced to either red, blue, or "throwaway". [Funny, but it was commented elsewhere, "why are there 50 candidates for Miss America, but only two for Presidency?].
Back to where I was...I heard somewhere that, regardless of which direction your vote was cast, "...it's like voting for either cheek of the same a**..." - and, from either direction, there's a bit of a tainted hot air getting blown hither and yon, regardless of red vs. blue.
Now that I threw that out of the way...I've always had a hard time with politricks [intentional spelling, in case it is wondered].
I became disenchanted with politics right about the time that Bush Sr. said, back in '90 [or was it '91?], "...I've told the American people before that this will not be another Vietnam, and I repeat this here tonight...We have no argument with the people of Iraq... "
My father, a second lieutenant who served in Vietnam and never quite returned "right", muttered a few choice epithets while regarding the situation with a tired eye in the face of the distinctly uncomfortable feeling it was yet another 'police action' we had no business in.
Meanwhile, in Dubya's time, I'm just curious...why isn't Osama Bin Forgotten on the FBI's Most Wanted list in regards to 9/11? What drew us out to Iraq in the first place? Where were ties and connections that drew us from the Towers to Iraq?
Dubya got hired again. By the People. Sucked resources straight into tax cuts for a specific income bracket, elimination of funding in regulatory boards in several directions, redirected funds towards the [now let's say it...] war, and precipitated expansions of the war[s] we're currently involved in.
Naturalization centers: I personally know of two offices down here in Florida that no longer exist. One of the gals I worked alongside had a hard time getting her work permit updated, due to its inaccessibility. So, of course there's an incredible amount of illegal immigrants, seeking refuge - but without a streamlined naturalization process, and with hella fear on their heels of abuses and maltreatment [including such unfortunate situations like deaths of 14 YO Sergio Adrian Hernandez Huereka - with all witnesses forcibly removed from the scene - and 42 YO Anastasio Hernández Rojas, father of five U.S.-born children...and others] - how likely could anyone legally seek political asylum without ridiculous amounts of money to lubricate the process?
Of note: I'm the seventh known generation of Born N Raised Americans. There's no "special interest" going on in my acknowledgment of fractures in "the system".
Now, to switch the thought process to BP...the oil company that had racked up 760 OSHA Fines - compared to 1 [one] for Exxon [yesteryear's Oil Spill Bad Guy]. Big difference now: there's no visible end to the spill. Why? It's not a spill - it's a geyser. To cap and seal it is to cost billions [trillions?] in unclaimed revenue [and jobs] - and to "wait til we figure out how to separate salinated water and oil" is costing wildlife, sea life [oh, and, incidently: you kill the water, you kill the land...]
So, they're tied in red tape, with BP trying to negotiate paying for its own damages by percent rather than paying for repair to damages, in full, and abandoning the oil on the site by sealing it off entirely before conditions prohibit explorations to solutions entirely.
Meanwhile, the uninvolved franchisee gas station owners are watching the day's take dwindle, the gas jockeys are being "let go" in favor of the owners [locked by contract] working the station themselves [and approaching red ink status, if not already there].
On the other side of the coin - the cleanup process - now the primary dispersant [Corexit, is it?] has been shown to have damaging effect on land - theories are that in inland Mississippi the dispersant that is illegal in most countries is causing the rains out there to kill crops.
Yes, I collect obscure information. I'm sure most of this can be Google-researched. While I sit at my desk and theorize solutions, great gobbin' tar globs have finally hit Texas shores. Lovely. I wonder if they got around to shutting down the beaches yet? I know it took nearly the whole month before Louisiana did, despite the false, "red tide" mentions that were later determined to be, you guessed it, oil.
Still, OPEC insists we "look again" at offshore drilling. Yikes.
Okay, now let me enter your topics, after my little rants.
What do you think Obama should do that he hasn't tried in each of these areas?
Iraq War?
Afghan War?
Deficit?
Economy?
Oil Spill?
Immigration?
I haven't kept up too much, though, like I said, I did collect a lot of peripheral information.
Iraq and Afghanistan: set a mandatory, no-holds barred, 1 year, "No Matter What" pull-out schedule. Let the other politicians quibble about the basics, and fire outright [and with prejudice] those who deviate from the core objective.
Economy: with the military industrial complex reduced to just protecting our shores, and not jumping on pre-emptive strikes [Reminds me of fights as a kid, "I hit him 'cos he was gonna hit me first!]. Saddam is dead. Osama Bin Forgotten has no place in this situation. Kindly tell me: what the hell are we doing out there anyways, when there's holding tanks here, in the U.S., that [according to a couple studies] would see the U.S. through at least the next 40 years [by which time, as we all know from our experiences switching from leaded gas to unleaded, we'll have formed a solid technology independent of such heavy taxing of our oil resources]. Enough already.
Put less money into the ineffective prison/jail/corrective facilities that are breeding like rabbits, and stick it into public education, housing, transition programs, private industry councils, job training partnership associations, transitional living, and streamlined naturalization processes.
If you start running short, yank from the $3000 hammers the American Public doesn't realize the incongruities of. While there, start with that Transparency of Government that we kept hearing so much about.
Present the One Subject at a Time Act. Pass it before anyone has a chance to tack on exceptions.
Present the Read the Bills Act. Put it on the table alongside the OSTA. Sign and deliver. No one can be expected to read through a given 1000+ pages of agendas, side-issues, and misleading titles between sessions - you'd have to be a superhuman.
Oil Spill - create an enclosed series of environments and present a contest to the first engineer who can successfully create a plug for the geyser. Make it the BP CEO's retirement benefits package and full annual pay including adjunct bonuses. Plug it. Uncap resources we already have stored and resume ethanol/gas mix processing - and give auto companies a new regulation to work under - the creation of multiple-fuel-utilizing vehicles. Those who can, can sell em. Those who can't - pay exorbitant fines based on a percentage of annual gross [not net] income.
These are each glib responses by someone who is politically less than novice and honestly believes that the likelihood of any of the above solutions would be immediately dismissed if ever presented, so, to continue on that vein: I'd recommend Obama wake up from the nightmare presented in the thought of actually making a vague attempt at trying any of the above solutions...but it does give the average voting John and Jane a bit of mental fodder.
@the_kcar -
I think I had a bit too much caffeine. Mybad. You can delete if you wish. Secondary sidenote, though: if all illegal aliens were to be run out of the U.S., and we were only to speak its native tongue upon naturalization...why aren't we all speaking Ojibwe?
My Goodness! Thanks to Mike, I've had more action here than I've had in years.
I'm short of time right now, but I'll get back in and comment on "green driving" and Socialism ASAP
@the_kcar -
ROFL
Good humorous post, but there's a lot of truth there, too. You've been called a "bleeding heart liberal" and an "uptight conservative." You must be an Independent moderate. As one in the center (mostly), I've been accused of being too far left by the right and too far right by the left. LOL.
Liked your comment. Now I'm preparing to write my congressman and demand that Ojibwe be made our official language.
@the_kcar -
It's the rules of immigration that i don't understand. Actually, although my wife is US resident, i don't know in detail all the rules for which it's allowed to immigrate over there. I can mention three of them
1) one can have a green card because he/she's married with a US citizen (but only after the 2nd year of wedding because otherwise the marriage is suspicious)
2) one can win a green card, with the Green Card Lottery (50 thousands applications randomly extracted from all the applications) (if you didn't hear about it before, well... i am not joking at all!)
3) with a work visa you can stay in the States for the duration of your work.
I believe you all agree that it's a kind of bizarre set of rules, isn't it?
For example, the 3rd look like that they want you to be able to support yourself in the States if you want to live in the States. But for rule #1 you can stay in the States forever although you are not able to support yourself nor your wife/husband. And for rule #2 you are allowed to be in the States never mind if you are rich, poor, good, bad or whatever, as if the ability to support oneself can be obtained only with a handful of good luck.
If you are a clandestine, your state of clandestinity is the effect of your bad luck when you applied to the lottery. Or of lack of charming with the relationship with the other half of the world (so that you didn't have a chance to marry one).
By the way if you work in US and you have a visa, well, loosing that job means that you have to move in another continent - or to find another job.
And that is funny. When i was fiance' i tried to apply to several jobs in the US, because i wanted to live with my furure wife atleast for a period before getting married (actually the history developed in a different way, but in the beginning we did want to live together but we didn't want to get married at all!). Well, few companies sent me back negative responses, while several just didn't answer at all. But only one sent me a significative mail: there is a law in the states that say something like that an American company, in order to hire somebody with a different nationality has to proove in a public process that they made applications in big media to cover the same role, but they couldn't find any resident, or because nobody wanted or because the ones that answered were not enough skilled to.
That, they explained me, is obviously a deterrent for companies to hire immigrants, because the "public process" (i don't know what they really mean, but i believe what they told me) means that you have to pay a lawyer to support your cause.
Moreover hiring immigrants for doing low level labor is useful, being that rich americans don't want to do those jobs. But for high level there is another disadvantage. That this way to hire an immigrant is only temporary, for two year. After the two year the visa decades, and it can be renewed only if the company hires the immigrant again, and to do so, the company has to demonstrate in another public process that there is no resident that can do the same dirty work. Sorry if i entered too much in details.
This to show who still thinks that illegal immigrants should stay out of the borders just because they don't have the right papers. When i applied to US jobs, when i applied to the green card lottery, and at the end when we decided to get married (although i don't regret this step at all), well, i felt humiliated by US government (don't tell my wife, now, please).
Illegal immigrants in the US want to go to the US because they want to live a little better than how they live in their own land (well, it's not my case, i just wanted to live with my wife....). Probably with a job that can support theirselves. Preserving the border against this means living in an enclosed glass bell, means wanting their money but not wanting to share with them.
They probably want a job in the states because they don't have a job in their countries. And that, because the economy of their countries is not strong enough. Now, the real difference between a resident in south texas and one in north mexico is that one lives this side of the border and the other the other side. Mr. Texas is a citizen of a nation with a good economy. But good economy is not a good merit of him. While, also if Mr. Mexico had really wonderful skill of ability to make wealth, he still lives in a place where there's no opportunities because economy is bad. That's actually the real difference between residents and immigrants.
Nationality is not a genetical fact. And also if it was, i think that emargination for genetical factors should be overcome, already.
Just to explain: my wife lives with me in Italy, but she still have a US passport. I guess she could be considered US citizen, although, in fact, she is not a US resident, now.
@italian_culture -
I had spent the previous week in an experiment of cutting down on coffee. Last night, coffee was the only beverage available - so, coffee it was...about 23 cups of it. Whups.
@the_kcar -
Mmh... yes, i think it's for the coffee...
@italian_culture -
Dario - Nobody understands the US rules of immigration , their rationale, or their implementation. To the extent that they are understood, they seem to bring out the worst in those of us who are concerned about them.
If you are out of work and there is a job waiting on the other side of the river, you may try swimming over and are probably confused by rules which say these jobs are only for those already on this side of the river - they swam over before the rule was passed. But, you say "No one wants that job and my cousin swam over last year - he works hard, his kid was born on that side and he says jobs are plentiful - even if unlawful"
I want to work, you apparently need me and my cousin, so what's ll the fuss about?
Ah Ha! we say - if we let you in, everybody will want to come. As proof we point to all your friends and neighbors who have swum over to fill the job demand. Since we [farmers and business owners] make quite a profit on all those" illegals" we encourage them to break the rule and keep on swimming. They don't really put much of a strain on our public services - most are afraid to use them - but they do add positively to the economy.
Actually, of course, if there was no notch to fill, few would take the trouble to swim over and our entrepreneurs don't hesitate to outsource jobs if they can be filled cheaper overseas anyhow - there is no law against that.
I feel bad that I haven't been here before. Sometimes I get too caught up with the kids on Xanga. I've never been a fan of the two party system here in America, it does more harm than good these days and spreads division. I think it would be advantageous for us to select who will run by different means than who has the best chance of winning for a party. There should be much more conscientious control over top leaders by representatives from all walks of business and leaders in universities, and perhaps even a system whereby candidates are chosen based on a conclave of the best minds in the country. In this way, we get candidates that are qualified for the position. We should have more control over top government officials by watchdog organizations, (multi-layered), and increase term limits by a factor of 2 or 3 times what they currently are in order to promote a more stable direction for America and it's foreign policy. Cabinet officials should be chosen from people who have no affiliation with Wall Street, now or in the past, nor should they be on the board of directors of any major industry.
Iraq War? Leave now
Afghan War? Leave now
Deficit? Stimulate employment
Economy? Establish a standard again, put back banking regulations
Oil Spill? Investigate all of BP's off shore drill sites, this isn't a singular event for them, I bet they have other wells in nearly the same condition.
Immigration? Make it a non issue by open borders. Require all Mexican immigrants to register, and offer assistance with becoming Americans. In other words, make them a resource we can use, not a drain on the economy.
@Da__Vinci -
This personal blog has never had as much action as the other one I'm involved with - Socrates_Cafe Which right now is discussing politics from a more philosophic viewpoint.
The format starts with some philosophers of the past offering their comments (Sometimes the philosophers are sort of obscure - makes it more fun)
Give it a try you might find it interesting.
On this blog I offer my opinions sort of interspersed with more personal comments. Right now we should be at a lake in Maine - we've had our summer cottage there for forty years - but my wife has serious medical problems which have made us at least a month later getting there.
@tychecat -
Dick,
Cool that thing that the river signs the border.... eheh... in Italy the borders are signed more on the summits of the mountains, which makes your metaphore more difficult
Actually most of immigrants come to italy on small boats packed with human meat, all ready to fall to feed the sharks... but that's another story.
Yes. That's kind of what happened to my wife's family. She was born in the US, and also her parents. But the grandparents, they all were born in the Philippines, and they immigrated to the state of Hawaii (was it already a State? Sorry for my atavic ignorance of US History) because for working in sugar cane and coffee plantations. Now, it happens that i know about another philippino woman that would really like to immigrate in the US, and she would accept any kind of job in order to do it, including working in sugar cane or coffee plantations, but unfortunately they don't want her. This girl's condition is not very different from my wife's grandparents' one, but they were asked to immigrate, this girl is not allowed. So, immigration politics do not depend on the will of potential immigrants, but instead on the will of the US citizens. How wierd is that!
No, my previous post was in order to answer Dsullivan when he speaks about illegal/legal immigration.
On one post he says that he doesn't feel responsible of the guilt of his ancestors that sterminated the Native American (ok, that's a strong simplification, but allow me now).
On another one he says that he doesn't want illegal immigration just because it is illegal. In other words if some immigrant doesn't have the requisite to immigrate to the US he just shouldn't immigrate to the US.
But legal or illegal immigration look like concepts that are based on two obvious things:
1) borders (if there were no borders, "immigration" would have been a word with no meaning)
2) laws about immigrations (if US was widely open to any kind of immigration, "illegal" and "legal" would have been not appliable to the noun "immigrant").
Well, it happens that the same ancestors that sterminated the Native American tribes were the same that decided if and where to line up a border and established laws for regulating immigration. Or not?
So, Dsullivan (well... i hope he doesn't take it as a personal attack: it looks as the same odd logic is used by most of people in America, and in Italy too)... Dsullivan refuses the guilts of those ancestors when they conquired with violence those lands, but he accepts the rules that those same ancestors established to protect the lands that they conquire with violence against the people that just wanted to live in peace and live with the fruits of the erath.
Allow the metaphore: its like that somebody goes somewhere and takes a piece of land, he plants a big tree and defend that tree against anybody (which happens to be the owners of that piece of land). Now you are the child of the child of the child of that bizarre guy. The children of the children of the children of the owner of the land comes there and say "hey, we are starving, can you share some of those fruits?" and you say "no, this land is mine and the tree is mine, and the rule is that i eat all the fruits, and, if you want one fruit you have to give me all the water the tree needs, all the fertilizer, and you have to give me all your children to collect the fruits, but only during the harvest. I will give you one fruit and we are even". Those people will accept this, because one fruit to share among all the descendant of that ancestor is much better than nothing, although it's nothing compared to you having plenty of fruits. They will give you water (so they will suffer lack of water for their poor plantations), they will give fertilizer (so they won't be able to use that fertilizer for their plants) and they will give you also their children (and they wouldn't be able to cultivate their plantations with that labor).
Well, you could say that you are the clever one that was able to grow a so good tree, while those stupid ones have crops that do not produce enough to feed theirselves. But i believe that it is not your personal ability to do that, but the one of your ancestor. If you were alone in a desert land you would die of hunger, just like the children of the children of the children of the owner of those lands.
So, you would say that it is legal to enjoy the fruits of that tree because you belong to a descent of somebody which was clever, but in the same time you would also say that you refuse to suffer for the responsibilities of that clever ancestor that just stole a piece of land. That, to me, is a bit hypocritical.
My opinion is that we have to re-think about the meaning of borders and state. A state is just an organization of people that is useful to govern those people (hopefully it is chosen by those people). And borders were invented when the wealth of the people that lived in a land was produced within the borders. So, you don't want to produce something for your people and then somebody else come there and steal that good. Now this is questionable. But the fact is that nowadays the things are a bit different.
The things are that economies within the states are doing good or bad depending on import-export. The rich half of the world is doing good because there is a poor half that is dying of hunger. And it's not their guilt. As much it's not our credit. We are just enjoying the fruits that our terrible ancestors cultivated for us.
@tychecat -
Uhm... let me develop my last statements.
We want globalization. We want that the goods that we produce are freely sold all around the world. We want that our cans of soda can be freely sold in Burundi (eheh... i like to use this example... a friend of mine volunteered a couple of years in Burundi - center Africa - and she told me that Coke is the most commonly drunk liquid - more than water - in that forgotten-by-god place).
Obviously if we sell our soda over there, they have to pay what they buy. Being that they are poor, at the end the way they pay for our can of soda is public debt. Which make them even more poor. And as much they are poor, as much they get more poor. And if they are poor they won't be able to invest in a company that produce their own soda. So, as much we produce cans of coke, as much we become more rich, because we get money from outside the border, in Burundi, in the form of public debt.
Our economy expands, but that makes us more rich because they become more poor. That is a merit (or a guilt) of our ancestors, not of us.
Anyway there is another good that Barundi own, with which they could pay for that damn can of coke. Labor.
But they can sell their labor only if they can immigrate close to the Coca Cola factory. In a free market, although they had a Barundi Coke, they would have to win the competition against the American Coke, because American Coke is freely sold in Burundi.
But, in my opinion, also Labor should be a valuable good, so, under the same logic Barundi labor should be freely sold in America in a context of free market against American labor. But that cannot be, because the borders are defended by laws against immigration.
I believe that is really very injust. But that is my opinion.
Another way to see the problem is that the free market around the world (globalization) is not fair. If we enclose the borders, well, we enclose also against import/export.
Unfortunately i believe that it makes our economy collapse, because we don't have the strength to survive without importing/exporting. Moreover our capitalistic system need economy to expand to produce wealth, and one cannot expand if the borders are closed.
On the other side, closing Barundi borders won't be good, for now, not even for Barundi people. They are so poor (due for us) that they cannot survive for theirselves. Actually i think that with centuries they will eventually be able to grow food for supporting theirselves, just like in centuries we will be able to grow fruits instead of producing cans of coke, and be able to live with the ground fruits. But it will take centuries (well... i am not an economist, so i am just guessing).
Better it would be that we (that sucked our wealth from their lives) help their economies so that they begin to stand on their feet. If they stand on their feet, i believe that Barundi people would much better work on Barundi Coke Company in Bujumbura, instead of immigrating to America.
Obviously this is only science fiction because this won't be good for our economy. If they drink Barundi Coke, they won't import American coke anymore.
Of course i used Coke as a symbol of capitalism and free market, but i could use any other kind of consumistic good produced in America or in any other nation of the rich slice of the world, including Italy.
@italian_culture -
In times of economic recession (like now) when jobs are scarcer - people tend to become more xenophobic and jingoistic - it's easy to blame your misfortune on foreigners and "illegals" - in fact there is likely to be a clamor for tightening laws so as to make more "illegals" and run those already here back "home" even if they came here involuntarily as small children and are for all intents and purposes are "one of us". Politicians are sometimes quick to take advantage of this attitude and resort to encouraging the worst kind of behavior. Remember Hitler?
Actually, you are pretty much right - national boundaries really have very little meaning nowadays - they are often artificial constructs that admit the passage of just about anything but people - and don't do a very good job of even that.
@tychecat -
Uhm... Hitler?... Who?...
Dick, there are two words that look like coming back from a far past, in Italy, due to the shame of our absolutistic soft dictature we are living now in Italy (just think that nowadays 10 over 11 of the main news in Italian on TV is controled by Berlusconi). Nationalism and Patriotism.
Even though also in Italy there is no sane of mind people that would say that there is anything like an "italian race", a lot of people begin to think that Italy is an entity of people that must be preserved by the attack from outside.
If i see somebody dying of hunger on the side of the road next door, or in the middle of the desert in Africa, or in a cardboard house in the outskirts of south american big towns or wherever, well, to me it's not very different. I cannot help everybody (actually i cannot help pretty much anybody), but it's not that i feel more compassion because he is italian.
This principle was statued from the humanitarian point of view by the chart of human rights.
From the economical point of view this was established by the concept of globalization.
Although i don't like liberism at all, the tendence is to establish, atleast at words, that everybody has the same access to the resources. Everybody in the world, i mean. I don't feel big licking for liberism because who has the power will tend to defend his power against who doesn't have, so everybody has theoretically access to the resources, but only who have power will be able to take advantage of it, obtaining the consolidation and the enlargement of that power. It's like girafs with long neck and girafs with short neck in the evolution. Everybody had all the freedom to get the fresh leaves of the tall trees, but only the ones with long neck could really do it, and the effect of this is that the short neck-ed girafs all died of hunger, although there was plenty of tall trees. Well... somebody could argue that it's their guilt to have short necks, but that's another story.
The thing is that it's not true that resources are really available to all the human beings. Somebody was born poor and he has to suffer hunger for the rest of his short life.
That makes me feel hypocritical when i ask for a raise of my salary, for example, because that means that i would like to make my life better although, honestly, nowadays it's not bad at all. Looking around me i feel that i deserve it, because i work good an hard more than other people that get more money and have a life style better than mine. But that's an illusion. Global wealth is not enough to make every human being rich as rich i am.
The most "visible" effect of immigration in Italy is prostitution. In italy prostitution is allowed (or... mmmh... tolerated). What is forbidden is exploitation of prostitution (obviously). But catching who exploits prostitution is a hard work, also considering that usually it's the big criminal organization that control this trafic.
Well... It's hard to say, i would like that prostitution never existed - not for a moral thing about that "activity", but because of the miserable life those prostitutes must do almost like slaves.
On the other hand pushing them back to their lands (usually africa or east europe) means give them back to even more miserable condition. In other words it's more convenient for them collecting our crumbs, being slaves in our rich and fat society than being free but starving in their own lands.
Well... on this consideration one could suggest them to make a revolution, to take the power, to work to better their lives, to save money and build their own economy. But no, for how the world runs, they cannot solve this problem, because we (our economy) won't allow it.
Actually, to be honest, we are not individually guilty of this situation. I enjoy being "rich", but it's not a choice of mine. I could make the "St. Francis" and give the poor people all my wealth, but i won't solve the problem anyway, because the poor ones will always be poor, the only choice is for me to become poor like they are. My wealth won't be used other than enrich somebody that rich already is.
The only way to solve this problem is political. But i was not pointing out the solution of the problem.
Atleast i believe we should admit that if they die of hunger is to feed our fat tummies. Pushing the problem out of the door (or, in other words, pushing the "illegal" immigrants out of the border) means accepting and enjoying the status quo of our full tummies fed with human meat.
If we don't change the system (and we won't do it, becouse who has the power won't ever allow us, even if we wanted - and we don't apparently want), this crisis won't help to level the wealth among human beings. It will only create more disparities. Who is rich will be more rich, who is poor more poor. That's why rich countries tend to close their borders against immigration
@italian_culture -
Suppose all national boundries were eliminated - what would be the result?
Would we have some kind of "World Leveling" of standards of living? Should we on the top keep those on the bottom down? Would it be in our long-term self interest to try to spread the "good life" to everyone?
What's going to happen when China (with a fifth of the world's population) actually moves into the "Age of economic abundance"?
@tychecat -
Dick,
Few years ago... mmmh.... 10 years?.... not sure... anyway, a not far past, passing the border between the states of European Union was not free. One had to pass the check of the custom, to show the international passport, they had to stamp a mark on it and bla bla bla. And the Custom had to check if one thing was just bought the other side of the border, in that case there was a fee to pay, because commerce between the states was allowed only upon particular rules.
Then all of the sudden the barreers were opened. If you go to france from Italy on Mongenevre pass, for example, there is still a wooden building, kind of nice, where customs and police used to stop the cars. Somebody uses one side of the building to run a bar, the other side is still empty. You go there and you say "hey, what a nice bar!" and if you don't need a coffee, you just pass by, and you notice that you are in Frannce just because there is a brown sign with a red bar covering the word ITALIA and another brown sign with no red bar on the word FRANCE. There is also a flag and another sign that specify the speed limits in France, which is kind of different from the Italian ones.
Nothing that traumatic happened. No flocks of french criminals invaded italy, and no hords of italian criminals invaded France. We still live pretty much like we used to live before that day. I guess there was a bit more of changing for the people living in Mongenevre (France) and Bardonecchia (Italy), but still nothing so terrible!
Yes, i am dreaming a word without borders, although i feel that it is somehow impossible nowadays to act as when the borders were abolished among the states of the EU. But why should it be so different? Because, while the states of EU were already living the same level of wealth, the difference between Italy and Albania (which is not part of EU), or Tunisia, or Lybia or any other state of Africa, Eastern Europe, Middle East, Asia, South America is evident. Those people are poor, and they would like to migrate to countries more rich. The reason they would is because in a rich country there is actual possibility to eat food and drink water, while where they live also those needs could be a real problem.
Obviously i don't want to open the barreers so that all Asia, Africa, South America invade Italy. Simply because if they do that we cannot survive and they cannot survive. Italy is already overpopulated, and if they come over here there will be a collapse on everything. Public services, jobs, water supply, electric supply... in one word there are of course good practical reasons for not being possible that all the population of the world to live in this small Boot.
But that is a false problem. The problem is not if there are barreers between Italy and Albania. The problem is that Albainan people want to go to Italy. And they want because they are poor. And they are poor because Italy is rich. If italy was not that rich, Albania would not be that poor, and those buggers wouldn't want to migrate to Italy. So that there wouldn't be any need to preserve Italy from Albanian immigrants. Just the same way there is no need, on Mongenevre Pass, of a Custom/Police service to check all the people passing by.
Now, this is an utipistic point of view, you would say. And i agree. So, it's not that i want this to happen tomorrow.
But, for sure, an attitude like that one that makes laws to preserve internal jobs for citizens against immigrants, or, in other words the one that makes laws to control immigration, and innocently say that he would like that illegal immigrant stay outside the borders, well, that one in my opinion didn't really understand the bottom line of the problem.
I dream a world without poverty, so that also without borders. But that is just a dream. In the mean time what i would like is some politics that work for trying to reach that goal. That take a lot of effort and time, i admit. In the mean time, i more modestly atleast try not to be hypocritical saying that what i have is what i have and i don't want to share with those invaders, and i admit that if they actually want to come here is because they are just unlucky and they suffer that bad luck because of my good luck. It's our duty to share this fortune with them.
Dario's point about the takedown of barriers between countries who a members of the European Union is well taken. What, for example would be the result if we took down the customs and travel barriers between the US and Mexico, Canada, and the Caribbean Nations? Would there suddenly be a flood of immigrants? Suppose we required some kind of "proof of citizenship" in order to get a job?
I think we might find that easing travel/immigration might actually help the economies of all the nations concerned - somewhat like the result of NAFTA, which has been on the whole positive.
I am not sure that there is anything that Obama can do besides what he is doing. The Republican party seems determined to oppose anything he does and they are relentless in their criticism of him.
I think he has accomplished a lot in 18 months. The economy is improving according to most analysts and things should be looking better before too much longer. I say give the man a chance! I am quite ashamed of our legislature at this point!
Dear Dick,
Just stopped by to see if you've posted any new discussion topics. Nice to see this one is still going strong. My apologies that I haven't involved myself in Socrates Cafe lately. My computer is broken down at home, so I'm really not "internetting" (except what time I get to squeeze in at work, like now)
I am making a promise to go over to Socrates Cafe and get more involved. You have my permission to goad , coax and rail against me on my blog if I don't make good on my promise.
I did one of my "experiments" lately. I posted three or four highly positive and uplifting entries in a row, without really returning comments or visiting blogs. I noticed that although I still got responses from the dozen or so "regulars" and friends without whom I would not even be on Xanga these days, I seemed to get less comments than usual. I wonder if I posted "negative" entries, or "rants" I bet I'd get more comments. The tenor of the times seems to warrant more discussion when one asks questions rather than when one give answers.
Michael F. Nyiri, poet, philosopher, fool
Michael F. Nyiri, poet, philosopher, fool
@baldmike2004 -
http://italianroots.blogspot.com/
I write any sort of posts, translated from my other blog:
http://radiciitaliane.blogspot.com/
(in Italian), but the rare times i can enjoy one single little comment, although just like a "hi" to any of my logorrheic post i declare to be happy.
@italian_culture - Dear Dario,
I always make an attempt to "return comments", like answering letters, but as I said, my home computer is broken down. I first "met" you commenting on another blog, but you never visited my blog, so we don't "converse", since for the most part I only visit the bloggers who visit me. I've had blogs on blogspot, and they hardly ever get comments. Xanga is by far the best service I've seen in over a decade of being on the internet for social networking. Although it's not as active as it was in 2004-2006. I've often said that I'd rather get "one" heartfelt and interesting comment, however, than a dozen "nice blog" type comments which don't really say anything.
Ciao.
Michael F. Nyiri, poet, philosopher, fool
@baldmike2004 -
Mike,
I didn't mind to accuse you or anybody else for non visiting my blog.
Obviously if not a big lot of people doesn't visit my blog (or maybe visit and doesn't leave a comment) it's because my blog is not very interesting. If i visit your blog and actively participate to your conversations, well, you will visit me back, but i wouldn't know what to do with it if you just come to reply the favor.
On the opposite, if you find my blog interesting but you don't come to visit anymore just because i don't return the favor, well, i think you are kind of dumb.
Actually i bet that the reason you don't visit my blog is that you don't have time or you just prefer to go somewhere else. Personally i visited your blog some times in the past and i noticed that your posts are very long. In general i like that fact, but it makes me use a lot of time, which i don't have. That's not a good reason for you to change that style, or, if you do change the style, it's not a good reason for me to visit you instead of anybody else. It does happen like that. Probably my posts are not very interesting for the mass of people that pass by.
I'm glad you guys have gotten together - you are both interesting writers with something to say -Keep it up