When you turn on the news, or look at your paper, or turn on your favorite talk radio, what are you really getting??? Do you know who owns your favorite outlet?
(originally this was going to become a more in-depth break down of what companies own which news outlets, but there are several websites that have documented this and I don't want to spend 3 hours reinventing the wheel, you can easily do a basic websearch and find the facts for your self or I will just include a few links on the bottom of the post if you are too lazy to type)
Basically, all your major news sources are controlled by a few multinational enormous corporations. Media giants (Disney, Time-Warner, Comcast, News Corp) and defense contractors(GE, Westinghouse) which profit handsomely when we are in wars or when we have some latest craze to be scared of (Y2K, bird flu, killer bees, terrorists......). Man, it really isn't hard to come up with these things, in the spirit of Halloween I will throw in razor blade apples and LSD/arsenic laced candy. If I turn on MSNBC they are screaming about the right-wing elitists that are trying to ruin our country. If I turn on, maybe I should say flipping through and happen to catch a glance of, Fox News they are calling our president a ___________ (fill in blank with whatever seems the worst) Muslim, Communist, Socialist, Nazi, Marxist.... or make up something else up. Do they even stop to consider that most of the ideologies are diametrically opposed to one another? Nazi vs Communist have you ever heard of WW2? Communist vs Islam wasn't it the Soviet-Afghan War which led to the rise of Bin-Laden? A man that America armed and trained because at the time the politicians thought they could control him and it led to........... lets get back on topic. The point is these people profit from you and I listening to them and mindlessly repeating what they say. The greater the crisis the more we turn on our radios and tv's and listen to the pundits.
Ok, parting example, and I don't mean to pick on Fox but it really is just too easy.
Fox News can't seem to go 10 mins without talking about the ground zero mosque and saying what a travesty it is and that Muslim's are rubbing it in America's face. Did you know that News Corp's second largest share holder is a Saudi Prince? He is a member of the board and he happens to be giving hundreds of thousands of dollars to build the ground zero mosque. Why would Fox's owners be against the mosque publicly but be building it privately? Because its a win-win for them. Money pours in to the mosque from those who want to show support or disgust for the hate mongering. Money also pours in to Republican campaigners who promise to rid America of Islamic extremists and terrorists. They win, we lose.
I'm not saying you have to spend all your time searching the internet to try and find out about whats going on, but you need to know who its coming from so you can read between the lines. Most of it isn't even important or real, so don't stress yourself out over it. Think for yourself, if it sounds silly when you say it out loud, it usually is.
Have a happy Halloween, thanks for the read.
http://www.whoownsthenews.com/
http://www.mediaowners.com/
http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2010/media-ownership/dashboard.php
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Small cardboard people
Anton Tang, a talented artist and blogger from Singapore, has taken to the habit of photographing plastic “cardboard people” in typical, everyday settings and environments.
The special thing about these photos is that they add life to the tiny characters, and that gives you the impression that they all have a story to tell. The photos themselves are absolutely stunning. The right combination of lighting and angles makes the “cardboard people” look average-sized and not small.
Another artist has done a similar thing by using small cement figures and placing them on the streets of several European cities.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
There is nothing new under the sun
It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes. Distinctions in society will always exist under every just government. Equality of talents, of education, or of wealth can not be produced by human institutions. In the full enjoyment of the gifts of Heaven and the fruits of superior industry, economy, and virtue, every man is equally entitled to protection by law; but when the laws undertake to add to these natural and just advantages artificial distinctions, to grant titles, gratuities, and exclusive privileges, to make the rich richer and the potent more powerful, the humble members of society-the farmers, mechanics, and laborers-who have neither the time nor the means of securing like favors to themselves, have a right to complain of the injustice of their Government. There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils exist only in its abuses. If it would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower its favors alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing. In the act before me there seems to be a wide and unnecessary departure from these just principles....
...Experience should teach us wisdom. Most of the difficulties our Government now encounters and most of the dangers which impend over our Union have sprung from an abandonment of the legitimate objects of Government by our national legislation, and the adoption of such principles as are embodied in this act. Many of our rich men have not been content with equal protection and equal benefits, but have besought us to make them richer by act of Congress. By attempting to gratify their desires we have in the results of our legislation arrayed section against section, interest against interest, and man against man, in a fearful commotion which threatens to shake the foundations of our Union. It is time to pause in our career to review our principles, and if possible revive that devoted patriotism and spirit of compromise which distinguished the sages of the Revolution and the fathers of our Union. If we can not at once, in justice to interests vested under improvident legislation, make our Government what it ought to be, we can at least take a stand against all new grants of monopolies and exclusive privileges, against any prostitution of our Government to the advancement of the few at the expense of the many, and in favor of compromise and gradual reform in our code of laws and system of political economy.
Part of President Andrew Jackson's Veto Message Regarding the Bank of the United States; July 10, 1832
Large banks feeding off the general public is nothing new. We just used to have presidents with enough courage to stand up to them. But now we:
Relax reserve standards.
Bail them out when they take too much risk.
Open up the discount window so they can barrow our money at super low interest, then they turn around and buy our bonds at a higher interest and make huge profits taking advantage of the system.
Congress turns a blind eye to the huge profits and bonuses since large chunks of taxpayer money now gets funneled to them through the banks lobbyist.
The courts rule that the people have no right to know where the money comes from.
And most of us will go to the poles and vote for more of the same because we like the little letter next to a candidates name.
For those of us who are fans of history, watching the political banter is both frustrating and humorous. It is both sad and ironic that a distinctly human trait is to not learn from the past.
Thanks for the read.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone
...Experience should teach us wisdom. Most of the difficulties our Government now encounters and most of the dangers which impend over our Union have sprung from an abandonment of the legitimate objects of Government by our national legislation, and the adoption of such principles as are embodied in this act. Many of our rich men have not been content with equal protection and equal benefits, but have besought us to make them richer by act of Congress. By attempting to gratify their desires we have in the results of our legislation arrayed section against section, interest against interest, and man against man, in a fearful commotion which threatens to shake the foundations of our Union. It is time to pause in our career to review our principles, and if possible revive that devoted patriotism and spirit of compromise which distinguished the sages of the Revolution and the fathers of our Union. If we can not at once, in justice to interests vested under improvident legislation, make our Government what it ought to be, we can at least take a stand against all new grants of monopolies and exclusive privileges, against any prostitution of our Government to the advancement of the few at the expense of the many, and in favor of compromise and gradual reform in our code of laws and system of political economy.
Part of President Andrew Jackson's Veto Message Regarding the Bank of the United States; July 10, 1832
Large banks feeding off the general public is nothing new. We just used to have presidents with enough courage to stand up to them. But now we:
Relax reserve standards.
Bail them out when they take too much risk.
Open up the discount window so they can barrow our money at super low interest, then they turn around and buy our bonds at a higher interest and make huge profits taking advantage of the system.
Congress turns a blind eye to the huge profits and bonuses since large chunks of taxpayer money now gets funneled to them through the banks lobbyist.
The courts rule that the people have no right to know where the money comes from.
And most of us will go to the poles and vote for more of the same because we like the little letter next to a candidates name.
For those of us who are fans of history, watching the political banter is both frustrating and humorous. It is both sad and ironic that a distinctly human trait is to not learn from the past.
Thanks for the read.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
to rent or to buy, that is the question
I've been kicking around the numbers on renting a home vs buying and I have been planning on a post about the issue. However, during my normal blog reading I found a link to another blog which had done exactly what I was planning on doing. So, a big thanks to the Seattle Bubble via Get Rich Slowly for the info. I posted a few of my own comments on the bottom.
This is a guest-post from Tim Ellis, author of Seattle Bubble, a blog and forum dedicated to discussing real estate market conditions in the Seattle area.
A Real-World Example
For the purpose of comparing renting to owning in this article, I’ll be using real-world data gathered from my area (northeast of Seattle). Although most first-time buyers tend to move from renting an apartment to buying a larger, stand-alone house, as much as I can I will compare apples to apples.
Let’s look at how the monthly costs break down (approximately) for our hypothetical potential first-time homebuyer:
*: (less standard deduction)Right off the bat, you see that simply trading straight across from renting to owning results in a 78% more expensive monthly bill. That’s not exactly chump change. With even a slight upgrade from renting to buying (which most first-time buyers are prone to do), you can easily see how the total monthly costs would be more than double.
“If you rent, you’re throwing away your money.”
Common knowledge says that despite today’s large premium, buying a home is a “good investment”. Hey, at least you’re not “throwing away” your money, right? True, the renter in our scenario spends $1,515 every month that they will never see again. I wouldn’t exactly say it has been “thrown away” any more than money spent on any other good or service is “thrown away,” but granted, there is zero financial return on that money.
However, when you take a look at the breakdown of the homebuyer’s monthly expenses, a large amount is money that will never return, either. Insurance, property tax (less tax savings), and maintenance, add up to $517 every month that is being “thrown away.” Even worse is the amount spent on mortgage interest. Consider how much of a mortgage payment is applied toward loan interest throughout the life of a 30-year fixed loan:
In the first five years, approximately 80% of the mortgage payment goes toward interest. That’s an additional $1,674, for a total of $2,191 being “thrown away” every single month by the homebuyer for the first five years. Ouch! In fact, not until the homebuyer has been paying down the mortgage for over 20 years will the amount they are “throwing away” be less than the renter.
“Owning your own home is a forced savings plan.”
As you can see above, if home buying is like a savings plan, it’s probably the worst savings plan on Earth. Would you voluntarily sign up for a savings plan where well over half of the money you deposit in the first 20 years simply vanishes, and from which you can only withdraw money by relocating and paying a 6-9% fee (not on the amount you have “saved” mind you, but on the total sale price of the home)? Of course not. That doesn’t sound anything like a savings plan.
If our potential homebuyer has that $85,000 saved up for a down payment and deposits it along with just half of the monthly savings over buying ($578 per month) into an account at 8% interest, the balance will be nearly $300,000 in just 10 years. That’s a liquid investment, that can be used for whatever you want, no relocation required. Buying a home is not a savings plan. Actually saving money every month is a savings plan.
“Home ownership is an excellent path to build wealth.”
If your goal is to build wealth, you will be much better off investing your money in the stock market than buying a home. While both stocks and housing are cyclical markets, long-term historic trends show that housing appreciates at a rate barely above inflation, while stocks tend to return an inflation-adjusted 7-10%.
In our hypothetical scenario, a renter who invested in the stock market with the $85,000 down payment plus the monthly difference between the $1,515 rent and the $2,690 home-buying costs would be over $500,000 better off after 30 years than the homebuyer, assuming 4% average appreciation.
An important thing to consider is that home prices in the United States are just now beginning to correct from an enormous unprecedented run-up in recent years. Despite what those in the business of selling real estate may insist, the correction in housing is still in the early stages. Four percent is most likely overly optimistic for most areas in the next 5-10 years. The only thing we know for sure is that double-digit gains are gone and won’t be coming back any time soon.
Also keep in mind — I mentioned it above but it bears repeating — in order to cash in on any “wealth” you build through your home you will need to sell that home and move. No, “extracting equity” does not count, since that simply results in a larger debt. Debt is not equal to Wealth.
Conclusion
For most people buying a home will result in their largest monthly bill (by far), and because they believe that it will bring them wealth or that they are “throwing away their money” if they rent, they often take on a much larger home debt than a prudent budget would allow. It is a real shame when people are driven to get into the housing market because of misplaced notions of imagined financial benefits. Of course, everyone’s circumstances are different, and for some (particularly those that live away from the coasts) the numbers may actually work out in favor of buying.
Don’t misunderstand me here. I am not saying that no one should buy a home, or that my example scenario is a golden standard of truth for all. Don’t take my word for it. Run the numbers for yourself, check out other articles (a small collection is listed below), and do what works for you. I highly recommend the great graphical calculator from The New York Times for comparing the financial aspects of renting and buying. Many people will consider all of the consequences — financial, emotional, etc. — and conclude that buying a home is the best decision. Just don’t trick yourself into thinking it’s a good financial decision if it’s not.
I myself intend to buy a house some day. However when that day comes, I will be buying a house because I want a nice, “permanent” place to live where I’m the boss, not because I think it will help me get me rich.
So, here is my take after doing some research. It totally matters on where you live. If you live in a town where the median home price is less than 100k, it probably will be a lot cheaper to buy. If you live in a dense urban area or a city with really high property values, it probably make sense to rent. The lesson to learn from all this is.... do your homework. Examine your own living decisions carefully and realize money is finite. Hope you get something from this. Thanks for the read.
This is a guest-post from Tim Ellis, author of Seattle Bubble, a blog and forum dedicated to discussing real estate market conditions in the Seattle area.
“If you rent, you’re throwing away your money.”You’ve probably heard statements like these plenty of times. On television, radio, the internet, and in casual conversation. Such sentiments are common in any discussion that involves home-buying and personal finances. It’s common knowledge that buying a home is a better financial move than renting. After all, you’re building equity instead of throwing away your money, right? Well, maybe not quite… Rather than assuming the “common knowledge” on this subject is accurate, let’s take a look for ourselves at some of the financial differences between renting and home-buying.
“Owning your own home is a forced savings plan.”
“Home ownership is an excellent path to build wealth.”
A Real-World Example
For the purpose of comparing renting to owning in this article, I’ll be using real-world data gathered from my area (northeast of Seattle). Although most first-time buyers tend to move from renting an apartment to buying a larger, stand-alone house, as much as I can I will compare apples to apples.
- For rent, I located a 3-bed, 2.5-bath, 1,840 sqft house with an attached 2-car garage, on 0.2 acres. Monthly price: $1,495.
- For purchase I found a 3-bed, 2.5-bath, 1,850 sqft house with an attached 2-car garage, on 0.22 acres. Price: $424,950.
Let’s look at how the monthly costs break down (approximately) for our hypothetical potential first-time homebuyer:
| Renting | Buying | |
| Rent/Mortgage: | $1,495 | $2,093 |
| Insurance: | $20 | $163 |
| Property Tax: | - | $407 |
| Tax Savings*: | - | ($327) |
| Maintenance: | - | $354 |
| Total: | $1,515 | $2,690 |
“If you rent, you’re throwing away your money.”
Common knowledge says that despite today’s large premium, buying a home is a “good investment”. Hey, at least you’re not “throwing away” your money, right? True, the renter in our scenario spends $1,515 every month that they will never see again. I wouldn’t exactly say it has been “thrown away” any more than money spent on any other good or service is “thrown away,” but granted, there is zero financial return on that money.
However, when you take a look at the breakdown of the homebuyer’s monthly expenses, a large amount is money that will never return, either. Insurance, property tax (less tax savings), and maintenance, add up to $517 every month that is being “thrown away.” Even worse is the amount spent on mortgage interest. Consider how much of a mortgage payment is applied toward loan interest throughout the life of a 30-year fixed loan:
| Years | % toward interest |
| 0-5 | ~80% |
| 6-10 | ~70% |
| 11-15 | ~60% |
| 16-20 | ~50% |
| 21-25 | ~35% |
| 26-30 | ~10% |
“Owning your own home is a forced savings plan.”
As you can see above, if home buying is like a savings plan, it’s probably the worst savings plan on Earth. Would you voluntarily sign up for a savings plan where well over half of the money you deposit in the first 20 years simply vanishes, and from which you can only withdraw money by relocating and paying a 6-9% fee (not on the amount you have “saved” mind you, but on the total sale price of the home)? Of course not. That doesn’t sound anything like a savings plan.
If our potential homebuyer has that $85,000 saved up for a down payment and deposits it along with just half of the monthly savings over buying ($578 per month) into an account at 8% interest, the balance will be nearly $300,000 in just 10 years. That’s a liquid investment, that can be used for whatever you want, no relocation required. Buying a home is not a savings plan. Actually saving money every month is a savings plan.
“Home ownership is an excellent path to build wealth.”
If your goal is to build wealth, you will be much better off investing your money in the stock market than buying a home. While both stocks and housing are cyclical markets, long-term historic trends show that housing appreciates at a rate barely above inflation, while stocks tend to return an inflation-adjusted 7-10%.
In our hypothetical scenario, a renter who invested in the stock market with the $85,000 down payment plus the monthly difference between the $1,515 rent and the $2,690 home-buying costs would be over $500,000 better off after 30 years than the homebuyer, assuming 4% average appreciation.An important thing to consider is that home prices in the United States are just now beginning to correct from an enormous unprecedented run-up in recent years. Despite what those in the business of selling real estate may insist, the correction in housing is still in the early stages. Four percent is most likely overly optimistic for most areas in the next 5-10 years. The only thing we know for sure is that double-digit gains are gone and won’t be coming back any time soon.
Also keep in mind — I mentioned it above but it bears repeating — in order to cash in on any “wealth” you build through your home you will need to sell that home and move. No, “extracting equity” does not count, since that simply results in a larger debt. Debt is not equal to Wealth.
Conclusion
For most people buying a home will result in their largest monthly bill (by far), and because they believe that it will bring them wealth or that they are “throwing away their money” if they rent, they often take on a much larger home debt than a prudent budget would allow. It is a real shame when people are driven to get into the housing market because of misplaced notions of imagined financial benefits. Of course, everyone’s circumstances are different, and for some (particularly those that live away from the coasts) the numbers may actually work out in favor of buying.
Don’t misunderstand me here. I am not saying that no one should buy a home, or that my example scenario is a golden standard of truth for all. Don’t take my word for it. Run the numbers for yourself, check out other articles (a small collection is listed below), and do what works for you. I highly recommend the great graphical calculator from The New York Times for comparing the financial aspects of renting and buying. Many people will consider all of the consequences — financial, emotional, etc. — and conclude that buying a home is the best decision. Just don’t trick yourself into thinking it’s a good financial decision if it’s not.
I myself intend to buy a house some day. However when that day comes, I will be buying a house because I want a nice, “permanent” place to live where I’m the boss, not because I think it will help me get me rich.
So, here is my take after doing some research. It totally matters on where you live. If you live in a town where the median home price is less than 100k, it probably will be a lot cheaper to buy. If you live in a dense urban area or a city with really high property values, it probably make sense to rent. The lesson to learn from all this is.... do your homework. Examine your own living decisions carefully and realize money is finite. Hope you get something from this. Thanks for the read.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Crossing the Border, a look at immigration
So as promised about 7 weeks ago, here are some thoughts on immigration.
Listen, before I go into this, I feel like I need to lay out a few things. I don't really agree with any major position I've heard in the news. I'm sick of slogans and people just mindlessly repeating whatever talking points they have heard from their favorite talk radio cartoon. Most importantly this is an issue that deals with real people, you know human beings, and any position that treats them as anything else is unjust. So here it goes.
Here are my issues with what appears to be the right wing's positions.
1. I don't get how the state of Arizona can pass a law requiring you to show proof of citizenship on a whim. What are the criteria for when you have to show proof? Who has the right to force this on someone? How does one do this exactly??? Does that mean you would have to have a national I.D. card??? (something the right wing seems to oppose) Or should I just carry my birth certificate around? But just because I was born on American soil does that make me a citizen or an.......
2. Anchor baby??? What the heck is this exactly? An evil plot by illegals to come to America while they are pregnant and then wait 20+ years till that child is an adult so that he/she can file for parental citizenship. Oh, that pesky 14th amendment to the Constitution. I'm pretty sure this is how I became a citizen. So you should also carry your parent' birth certificate??? Oh and their parents, and their parents, and ........... That's it! If you don't have documented proof that you are a direct descendant of a recognized Native American tribe then you can just go back to wherever your ancestors came from.
3. Do you really plan on rounding up millions of people? To send them back across the border? People are coming here to seek opportunity and a better life for their children. Life is really really bad in northern Mexico right now and people have been crossing the "border" for thousands of years. (Both ways, in fact Texas was settled 200 years ago by Americans who were crossing into Mexico for land and opportunity, you have to be a fan of history to enjoy the irony)
Here are my issues with what appears to be the left wing's postions
1. um
2. well
3. they don't have one! And that is a huge problem. At least have the guts to take a stance. Don't spend all day spouting out obscure legal precedents on MSNBC. Most people zoned out before you even started your sentence. Why don't they take a position on the issue? I think its because the left realizes the problem that immigration causes in the existing party structures.
They're caught in a pickle. (A baseball term when a runner is stranded between two bases and the opposing side keeps him there by throwing the ball back and forth) Warning, I'm about to get really general here just to demonstrate the problem both sides face. Obviously it is much more complicated.
The right's pickle: which base do you choose? The wealthy and large-business class who would benefit from the dilution of the labor pool by allowing the immigrants to stay and compete for jobs(driving wages down)?Or the southern whites who would rather not see America get any "browner"?
The left's pickle: which base do you choose? The immigrant, if they became citizens, would probably vote for you? (and you can feel very philanthropic as the different .edu's gave out humanitarian awards) Or do you consider the small businesses, trade unions, and labor workers who will see their earnings driven down by the influx of cheap workers? (your traditional voters)
Whats the answer then? Well, I'm not fully sure but I think we have to start with what the realities are and work our way form there.
We need to help end all the violence. I'm sick of being the world's policeman, but this isn't half way around the world. This is happening off our southern border. This doesn't mean we should charge in, but we should be spending time meeting with the local and national Mexican govs and trying to find solutions. These people want to be here. So lets look at the positives of a growing population instead of just the negatives. There are cities all across the mid-west that are shrinking and falling apart. Some cities are bull-dozing houses just to re-claim the land. Is there a way to direct the flow of people in order to turn the situation around for these metro areas. Finally, we need to ask what is the just thing to do? What choices honor our highest held beliefs and ideals? How would we want to be treated if we were in their shoes?
Anyways, I'll end it on a lighter note. (one that will only make sense to "Arrested" fans)
Thanks for the read.
Michael: "I'm going to have to start putting people in the trunk."
Narrator: At that very moment, Buster was climbing into the trunk.
Buster: [videotaping himself] "Mother, when you see this tape, you will know that I've left. Not out of cowardice, but out of... man, it's tired in here!"
Narrator: Six minutes later, Michael stopped to drop off his mother's housekeeper.
Buster: [Buster climbs out of the trunk] "Mexico."
Narrator: In fact, Buster was in Santa Ana, a town six minutes inland from his own, but the combination of losing his glasses and breathing carbon monoxide had impaired Buster's judgment.
Buster: [seeking shelter] "This will keep me safe from the hot Mexican sun."
Lupe: "Excuse me, what are you doing?"
Buster: "I'm trying to find a place to live!"
Listen, before I go into this, I feel like I need to lay out a few things. I don't really agree with any major position I've heard in the news. I'm sick of slogans and people just mindlessly repeating whatever talking points they have heard from their favorite talk radio cartoon. Most importantly this is an issue that deals with real people, you know human beings, and any position that treats them as anything else is unjust. So here it goes.
Here are my issues with what appears to be the right wing's positions.
1. I don't get how the state of Arizona can pass a law requiring you to show proof of citizenship on a whim. What are the criteria for when you have to show proof? Who has the right to force this on someone? How does one do this exactly??? Does that mean you would have to have a national I.D. card??? (something the right wing seems to oppose) Or should I just carry my birth certificate around? But just because I was born on American soil does that make me a citizen or an.......
2. Anchor baby??? What the heck is this exactly? An evil plot by illegals to come to America while they are pregnant and then wait 20+ years till that child is an adult so that he/she can file for parental citizenship. Oh, that pesky 14th amendment to the Constitution. I'm pretty sure this is how I became a citizen. So you should also carry your parent' birth certificate??? Oh and their parents, and their parents, and ........... That's it! If you don't have documented proof that you are a direct descendant of a recognized Native American tribe then you can just go back to wherever your ancestors came from.
3. Do you really plan on rounding up millions of people? To send them back across the border? People are coming here to seek opportunity and a better life for their children. Life is really really bad in northern Mexico right now and people have been crossing the "border" for thousands of years. (Both ways, in fact Texas was settled 200 years ago by Americans who were crossing into Mexico for land and opportunity, you have to be a fan of history to enjoy the irony)
Here are my issues with what appears to be the left wing's postions
1. um
2. well
3. they don't have one! And that is a huge problem. At least have the guts to take a stance. Don't spend all day spouting out obscure legal precedents on MSNBC. Most people zoned out before you even started your sentence. Why don't they take a position on the issue? I think its because the left realizes the problem that immigration causes in the existing party structures.
They're caught in a pickle. (A baseball term when a runner is stranded between two bases and the opposing side keeps him there by throwing the ball back and forth) Warning, I'm about to get really general here just to demonstrate the problem both sides face. Obviously it is much more complicated.
The right's pickle: which base do you choose? The wealthy and large-business class who would benefit from the dilution of the labor pool by allowing the immigrants to stay and compete for jobs(driving wages down)?Or the southern whites who would rather not see America get any "browner"?
The left's pickle: which base do you choose? The immigrant, if they became citizens, would probably vote for you? (and you can feel very philanthropic as the different .edu's gave out humanitarian awards) Or do you consider the small businesses, trade unions, and labor workers who will see their earnings driven down by the influx of cheap workers? (your traditional voters)
Whats the answer then? Well, I'm not fully sure but I think we have to start with what the realities are and work our way form there.
We need to help end all the violence. I'm sick of being the world's policeman, but this isn't half way around the world. This is happening off our southern border. This doesn't mean we should charge in, but we should be spending time meeting with the local and national Mexican govs and trying to find solutions. These people want to be here. So lets look at the positives of a growing population instead of just the negatives. There are cities all across the mid-west that are shrinking and falling apart. Some cities are bull-dozing houses just to re-claim the land. Is there a way to direct the flow of people in order to turn the situation around for these metro areas. Finally, we need to ask what is the just thing to do? What choices honor our highest held beliefs and ideals? How would we want to be treated if we were in their shoes?
Anyways, I'll end it on a lighter note. (one that will only make sense to "Arrested" fans)
Thanks for the read.
Michael: "I'm going to have to start putting people in the trunk."
Narrator: At that very moment, Buster was climbing into the trunk.
Buster: [videotaping himself] "Mother, when you see this tape, you will know that I've left. Not out of cowardice, but out of... man, it's tired in here!"
Narrator: Six minutes later, Michael stopped to drop off his mother's housekeeper.
Buster: [Buster climbs out of the trunk] "Mexico."
Narrator: In fact, Buster was in Santa Ana, a town six minutes inland from his own, but the combination of losing his glasses and breathing carbon monoxide had impaired Buster's judgment.
Buster: [seeking shelter] "This will keep me safe from the hot Mexican sun."
Lupe: "Excuse me, what are you doing?"
Buster: "I'm trying to find a place to live!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)