A Grand Cheer for the Grand Canyon State

Everyone's probably heard about it; Arizona has enacted one of the strictest immigration laws ever. So many people are quick to criticize it, but I see nothing wrong with it. I've been hearing and reading a lot about how it will incite racism and violence and it will destroy families and that America is the country of immigrants and it's the right thing to do to let them in the country. Yeah, no.

A law alone can not and will not cause racism. It is up to the individual officers in the state of Arizona to decide if they will be racist or not. It just happens to be that the state of Arizona shares a border with Mexico. Who else would be illegally entering the country through that state? Seriously, we racially profile terrorists, yet it's a crime to racially profile illegal immigrants in a state that is adjacent to the country that is the home of the largest number of illegal immigrants to this country?

I absolutely support the Arizona government for passing this. For years the federal government has had border patrols(they wouldn't racially profile, would they??) and built useless fences, yet has not solved the problem of illegal immigration. Who knows if they ever will pass legislation that will actually do something? Thank you Arizona, if not for solving illegal immigration, for at least putting it in people's minds that something actually needs to be done about it. I would probably support a federal-level bill dealing with immigration, but only if it made a difference. If it ended up nullifying the Arizona law, but left the whole issue unsolved, I would consider it a failure.

However, I am just against illegal immigration. If the system were to be tweaked so that more people could become citizens without loosening the requirements, that would be great. As many people say, America is the country of immigrants, and we shouldn't stop that. We just need to become the country of legitimate immigrants. My advice for anyone considering entering illegally is this: if you break our laws to come here, why should we take you seriously as a candidate for citizenship? You have obviously shown that you don't support our system.

So for now, go Arizona! I think that this law will help in your state, even if it pushes the illegals to other states. Hopefully you have sent a message loud enough to travel the 2000 miles to Washington, where they will respond with a national law closing opportunities for illegal immigrants, but opening up many more for individuals wishing to become citizens.

The Washington Tea Party

Well, I think it's finally time that we talk about the next big thing in politics: the Tea Party. Most people will refer to it as the "Tea Party Movement," but I refuse. By calling it a movement, you add connotations that seem to make the Tea Party something to not take seriously. Oh, it's just a temporary movement other than a serious political party. Well, I'm not buying into it, so I'm going to refer to it as simply, the Tea Party, just like I would say Democratic Party or Republican Party. (If you read, you already know my feud with the two party system)

Basically, the Tea Party simply wants less spending, less taxes, and the smaller, less intrusive government that would accompany these changes. This website gives a good description of the Tea Party and some of its history. On there, they say that the Tea Party isn't an organized party, just a movement, but that won't stop me. I want it to be a party, so I will call it one. Right now, it seems that Sarah Palin, our old friend from the '08 election, is the leader, or at least the figurehead. Her "Joe the Plumber" is a good description of the movement. (ok, I guess there's no other way) It's just a populist appeal to people who want lower taxes. In fact, some people consider it a revival f the Populist movement of the late 1800s.

Now, what will this do to our government and nation? Well, hopefully enough people take it seriously that it will force Democrats and Republicans to rethink some of their conventional approaches to government. If the word gets out there, that government spends way more money than they have yet still want to tax more, the people might start thinking, "Hey, maybe it's possible for me to have lower taxes. I'm going to go vote for an independent." Oh what a great idea, voting for someone with no ties to a party. Wouldn't that just be grand?

Well that's the idea, voting for leaders based on policy, not party. I hope that the Tea Party grows, and even if it doesn't take power and become a major party. I want it to get just big enough to where people take it seriously and it starts to inflict some real change.

Drill Baby, Drill

Environmental regulation is something that I haven't touched on at all. Which is fairly sad, because the environment could be the most dire situation facing the nation and the world. Everything else that we do in life is provided for by nature and the environment. She gave us intelligence to be able to adapt, but that has now brought us to a point where we might be doing too much. We have the knowledge and capability to save our planet, but we must first muster the will of the people.

It's so easy to just go along with the way things are now, but that's not always the right thing to do. For government, it would be extremely easy for them to just side with industry, and allow pollution to continue, but once again, that's not the right thing to do. Business wields a lot of power in this country. They are constantly influencing government to create laws that favor business. Many politicians get elected because of the interests of businesses.

I think the people of the country, and thus, government, should ignore what business wants. People should support whatever solution they think is appropriate. Businesses should have to defend themselves in public, just like any individual would. After all, business creates most of the pollution. Government should be stricter.

As for oil, we do need to figure out a way not only to stop using it, but to stop having to ship it in. Importing oil not only costs huge amounts, but you have to use a lot of oil to ship a lot of oil! It just doesn't make as much sense as producing domestically. That's why I think this is a good idea... open up American waters for drilling, allow companies to drill in Alaska. The oil will only last for so long, anyway.

Immigration isn't free

Now that huge fiasco of healthcare reform is over, it seems that senators are searching for new imaginary issues in order to gain votes this fall. Yesterday, Sen. Harry Reid of Las Vegas gave a speech saying that Congress is now going to pass an immigration overhaul. Think someone is needing some Latino votes? Immigration is great, it's what this country is made of, but is it necessary to just admit everyone who has already broken our laws by coming here illegally? Reform supporters criticize deportation, but if individuals are breaking the law by coming here illegally, they should be deported. And if they can't respect our immigration laws, why should they respect any of our laws as citizens? Lastly, why should they have the right to protest laws in this country? They shouldn't have any say over what Congress does.

I don't want to sound like a total dick, but seriously, come here legally. I support any person from any country who comes to the United States of America legally. That's why the only reform I would support and the only reform I can see taking place is allowing more individuals to become legal citizens, but without loosening the rules. It just doesn't seem right to allow anybody to come here, become citizens, and take advantage of our system without appropriate measures taken to insure that they would be productive citizens. Simply being present in the country doesn't constitute a right to citizenship.

As for deportation, go ahead. People need to realize that we're serious; they need to come here legally. If they enter without appropriate documentation and then work without paying taxes, they should be punished. And they better not be staying in the jails that I pay for. I'd much rather pay for them to be deported. If they don't want to be deported, they should enter legally. Once they learn English and take a US History class, they're pretty much good to go. Find a job, become productive to society, and you're good to go. The test really isn't that hard if you've learned US History. (As an insider, it's easy for me, but it's the very basic stuff. The Constitution stuff is the hardest, but with some time, anyone could learn it. Take this quiz to see if you would pass.)

As non-citizens, illegal immigrants screw the system. Many people come to America with perfectly good documentation that allows them to live here without citizenship, but the ones that don't mess everything up. They come here and take jobs from American citizens. They go to our hospitals. Their kids go to our schools. They just don't have a respect for our laws, and why should we allow them as citizens? By coming illegally, they damage their own prospects for a life here.

Then there are the illegal immigrants who think they can protest in this country. Uhh, no. They don't vote for officials and as citizens, they aren't protected by the 1st amendment right to assembly. Congress shouldn't have to listen to their demands.

Any jobs are good jobs

We hear a lot about jobs. Here's a recent CNN article on the topic. I have some things of my own to say about the government and its constant endeavor to create jobs.

First of all, quit crying about our 9.7% unemployment rate. I've been to South Africa and seen their 25% unemployment rate. It sucks. We live in luxury in this country. Plus, in this country, the unemployed are able to receive assistance. Let's keep things in perspective.

With such a relatively low unemployment rate, lets not complain that only 162,000 jobs were created in one month! Call me crazy, but that seems like a lot for one month. To me, any growth in jobs should be considered a great achievement when businesses have been struggling. Add to that the increasingly high pay rates that American unions demand, it's surprising that we have such a low unemployment rate.

I applaud the Census, as it is putting people to work to do something beneficial for the nation. I would much rather have tax money go toward employing 48,000 people for the census than toward a gigantic bureaucracy that only gets lost in its own paperwork. Just like the census, construction projects get things done, and I fully support them. I would be much happier paying my taxes if more of it went to improving the nation's highways, electrical systems, and other infrastructure.

For Republican leaders to be criticizing job growth is outrageous. I would rather see the unemployment rate stay constant than see it increase any day. When 162,000 people find themselves out of work in one month, 162,000 lives are crushed. Their finances get ruined, their marriages may suffer, their children may suffer. However, when 162,000 people find themselves with new jobs, 162,000 lives are turned around. They may find themselves able to buy new clothes, cars, and a house. More jobs, no matter how many, mean more spending. More spending means more jobs...

Lastly, one of the biggest objectives of the Republican party in recent years is to eradicate terrorism. Around 3,000 people were killed on 9-11. Yet they complain that only 162,000 jobs were created? They spend trillions of dollars fighting something that has only affected a few thousand people, and complain when 162,000 jobs are created? That makes absolutely no sense to me.

Rollin' in the Nixons

This just makes me laugh. Seriously? You really want to take President Ulysses S. Grant off the $50 bill to make way for President Reagan? Civil War hero vs. California movie star. Hmmm. Not that Reagan did anything bad, I think he was a fine president, but really? And you're seriously going to put this bill up for debate? Doesn't Congress have better things to do, like investigate steroid use in pro baseball? Thanks Rep. McHenry, but I don't think it's that necessary.



But whatever, that doesn't matter. We're going to keep cash and coin around. But that doesn't mean we need to change them to honor presidents who were alive just a few years ago. The faces on our bills are tradition at this point. the one has Washington; the five, Lincoln; the ten, Hamilton; and the most famous of all, the $100 has Benjamin Franklin! How does it sound to be rollin' in the Nixons? It just doesn't work for me.

Why don't we just cut Teddy Roosevelt off of Mount Rushmore to make room for LBJ? Shouldn't every President get a turn at glory? No, because Mount Rushmore would be defaced if we did that. In much the same way, I believe changing the face on any of our currencies would deface the money.

Find other ways to honor presidents, and quit bringing dumb bills to Congress.

I want to meet Ezra Klein

In the previous post, (and likely others) I touched on the fact that Congress is very partisan. Well it seems I'm not alone in this opinion. By the way, the picture at the top of the page is awesome. Obama is saying, "I kick ass. You know it, I know it." Uncle Joe in the background is thinking, "Wow, Barack is the man. And I have the sniffles." Lastly, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is next to Uncle Joe thinking, "My mouth hurts from smiling. But don't stop! Bright lights!" Anyway, their faces are cool, and it's just a cool shot. In fact, it's so cool, I'm going to provide it for your optical entertainment.


You like?

That was pathetic. Anyway... Ezra Klein makes four main points.

Point one: Some senators hate their jobs to the point that they envy university presidents.

That's sad. Isn't something wrong when elected officials hate their jobs? I would think that elected positions would be the best and most rewarding, because you put so much time and effort into reaching that spot. And you're serving your people. What could be better than that? Serving your party, duh.

Point two: Congress needs to do its job rather than bicker so much that they leave it to someone else.

In theory, Congress really should be more powerful than the president. That's the way the whole system was designed. However, with the rise of party politics, Congress really has become less effective. That's why Klein says that many things Congress used to do are now run by government agencies or the President because Congress couldn't work well enough together to get it all done. Some items then required executive order to be finished. I do have to say though, that it kind of should be harder for a group of 535 people to come to agreements than it is for the President to agree with himself. Even so, Congress should be representing the people of the United States of America when making decisions, and if they did that instead of working along party lines, they might get more done.

Point three: Congress doesn't work anymore due to old rules and party politics that cause gridlock.

Not much to say there that I haven't already said. Party politics are ridiculous. They reduce issues to two sides, when there are actually many, many different solutions. Then they force people to pick, because after all, who else are they going to vote for? America is taught to be either Republican or Democratic, and that other groups are just too far out there to be taken seriously. In Iowa, you pretty much have to be either a Republican or Democrat to caucus.

Point four: The way we think about our government in terms of individuals has led to majority vs. minority which, along with the filibuster, lets no one govern.

Once again, Congress being ineffective has passed some of their former responsibilities to other agencies and the President. I don't know who has noticed, but the power of Mr. President seems to have grown quite a bit. Jefferson didn't even dare engage in war without a declaration by Congress. He even balked at making the Louisiana Purchase. Today, presidents can virtually fight wars without a Congressional declaration. All they need is funding from Congress, which is remarkably easy to get when the Congressional majority is aligned with the president's party. Plus, who is going to vote against funding for troops? If a senator did that, they would be criticized as uncaring or unpatriotic.

We need to be careful. Without some changes to the system, (and soon) control in this country is going to get messy. Without strong control, not much gets done, and spending goes through the roof. (Not like it isn't already) This is why I will vote for who I think is right no matter what party they're from, what religion they practice, what the color of their skin is, what gender they are, if they wear boxers or briefs... You get the point. I'm going to do what's right for me, and I encourage everyone else to do the same.