OK, well we've been holding up the show waiting for Mr. Weir but considering that I was planning to do this entire roundtable in a week and it's already been 2 weeks and we aren't even halfway done yet we're just going to carry on with only 3 responses this time.
Our parents probably can’t imagine working in an office without computers. We probably can’t imagine working today without the internet. The younger generation probably can’t imagine growing up without cell phones. Speculate on what the next technological break-through might be that we won’t be able to imagine ever having done without it once we have it. This doesn’t have to be something with business application. It could relate to medicine, the military, astrophysics, or anything else you can think of that relates to a technological breakthrough.
John
It may be a little further down the road, but I think it will be the growing of replacement organs through stem cells. I think the days of needing to wait to be matched up with a donor are limited. If this does come to fruition, the implications are huge. We may very well reach the point in the next 50 years where we are able to service our bodies like we service our cars. “I see you’re here for your 50-year service. The manufacturer recommends changing the heart and kidneys every 25 years.”
Mike
I expect the next big technology breakthrough to come along will have to do with transportation. The movement of man from one location to another is as primal an urge as reproduction, and I think with the planet reaching its limit for sustaining life we are in for a mass exodus soon. With current methods of propulsion, we won’t make it far enough fast enough for humans to survive the journey to our nearest neighboring stars, so someone is going to have to develop a breakthrough propulsion technique. Since this probably won’t happen for quite awhile, the next big breakthrough in my lifetime will hopefully be a way to make Hot-Pockets that don’t give you the runs.
Becky
In 50 years of tinkering, no one has yet been able to get a computer to translate nearly as well as an actual human being. Programs exist that attempt this (such as Babelfish), but the resulting translations generally make little sense and need to be corrected by humans. However, I think we may be at a point now where accurate machine translation becomes a reality. Picking up lessons from Google, Wikipedia, and others, we can theorize how a successful program might be designed (for example, it would utilize a strong human component to populate the database and rate accuracy, and it would continuously learn from its mistakes). We can even theorize about things like how it would be financed and maintained. If there is one piece of the puzzle missing as we try to increasingly flatten the Earth, it’s the language barrier; I think this is motivation enough that researchers in the near future will redouble their efforts toward this technology and finally nail this thing down.
Monday, June 30, 2008
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Roundtable - Part 2
Before we get to this I just want to jump in and thank everyone for all the well wishings I've received regarding the CPA. It's always nice to feel supported! I guess I now have to think about the next crazy scheme I want to get myself involved in. Now on with question #2!
Put yourself in one of the following camps regarding climate change: it’s not happening, concerning but is blown way out of proportion, a big problem but we can overcome, or a dire emergency? Without getting into all the statistics, briefly state what has led you to that conclusion.
John:
Have to go with dire emergency. The carbon emissions in the air today won’t be broken down for another 30 years; meaning we have already committed ourselves to at least 30 more years of damage. Add in that China and India are ramping up production of coal-powered plants and the fact that we have just recently reached consensus that climate change is real and the depth of the problem becomes clear. Finally, for the first time we have an election where both sides have vowed to act, but it may be too little too late. I’m not predicting the apocalypse, but without significant advances in carbon sequestration in the next decade we will be looking at massive levels of refugees and probably an additional 25% of populated land being rendered uninhabitable by 2050.
Mike:
Can I put myself in neither camp? I’d like to because I feel this way about climate change: We may have had something to do with it, but probably not. However, because of that possibility, and the additional financial benefits of finding alternative forms of energy, we should explore ways to limit our impact on the climate. Conservatism should include, as a cornerstone, preservation and conservation of nature and its resources.
Eric:
I believe that climate change is happening, but is a problem we can overcome. I am still not convinced, however, that global warming is entirely the fault of humankind. Weather has been around since the Earth was formed, and yet we only have reliable data that goes back 100 years. From a scientific standpoint, this is not a large enough sample size to accurately provide irrefutable proof of anything. That being said, the combination of a rise in CO2 emissions and deforestation are sure to have effected some part of the global ecosystem.
Becky:
I believe the scientists when they say Earth is warming more rapidly than it ever has before, that humans are a significant cause, and that we need to put corrective measures into place. I trust in science and believe that scientists simply aim to find out the truths of the universe—that they aren’t out to prove a point for some political purpose (as alleged by some conspiracy theorists).
As to whether we can overcome it or not, I can't be sure. Various sources have put the point of no return anywhere between 10 to 200 years, so I don't know what to think. If we only have a few years to bring carbon emissions down, realistically that's not enough time for the human race to get its act together. For my own sanity, therefore, I have to choose to believe it's not as dire as some say, either because we have more time than some scientists have calculated, or because they overestimated the influence of humans. If it's too late to fix anything and we're all doomed, we may as well all just go straight into the hoarding of resources, jockeying for power, and general warring and bloodshed.
Put yourself in one of the following camps regarding climate change: it’s not happening, concerning but is blown way out of proportion, a big problem but we can overcome, or a dire emergency? Without getting into all the statistics, briefly state what has led you to that conclusion.
John:
Have to go with dire emergency. The carbon emissions in the air today won’t be broken down for another 30 years; meaning we have already committed ourselves to at least 30 more years of damage. Add in that China and India are ramping up production of coal-powered plants and the fact that we have just recently reached consensus that climate change is real and the depth of the problem becomes clear. Finally, for the first time we have an election where both sides have vowed to act, but it may be too little too late. I’m not predicting the apocalypse, but without significant advances in carbon sequestration in the next decade we will be looking at massive levels of refugees and probably an additional 25% of populated land being rendered uninhabitable by 2050.
Mike:
Can I put myself in neither camp? I’d like to because I feel this way about climate change: We may have had something to do with it, but probably not. However, because of that possibility, and the additional financial benefits of finding alternative forms of energy, we should explore ways to limit our impact on the climate. Conservatism should include, as a cornerstone, preservation and conservation of nature and its resources.
Eric:
I believe that climate change is happening, but is a problem we can overcome. I am still not convinced, however, that global warming is entirely the fault of humankind. Weather has been around since the Earth was formed, and yet we only have reliable data that goes back 100 years. From a scientific standpoint, this is not a large enough sample size to accurately provide irrefutable proof of anything. That being said, the combination of a rise in CO2 emissions and deforestation are sure to have effected some part of the global ecosystem.
Becky:
I believe the scientists when they say Earth is warming more rapidly than it ever has before, that humans are a significant cause, and that we need to put corrective measures into place. I trust in science and believe that scientists simply aim to find out the truths of the universe—that they aren’t out to prove a point for some political purpose (as alleged by some conspiracy theorists).
As to whether we can overcome it or not, I can't be sure. Various sources have put the point of no return anywhere between 10 to 200 years, so I don't know what to think. If we only have a few years to bring carbon emissions down, realistically that's not enough time for the human race to get its act together. For my own sanity, therefore, I have to choose to believe it's not as dire as some say, either because we have more time than some scientists have calculated, or because they overestimated the influence of humans. If it's too late to fix anything and we're all doomed, we may as well all just go straight into the hoarding of resources, jockeying for power, and general warring and bloodshed.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Interjection
Update (6/20): Didn't want to do a new post, but just wanted to let everyone know that this morning my final CPA exam grade was posted and I am in fact now officially a CPA!
OK, so I had planned to post all of the roundtable questions in consecutive posts but we seem to have reached another delay in the process and there are some other things I wanted to talk about.
After taking Ms. Clinton to task on numerous occasions for making some definitive statements one day and then reversing herself when it became convenient to do so, I feel I would be remiss if I didn't express my extreme disappointment that Obama announced today that he has decided to opt out of the public financing system for the general election. This completely contradicts a statement he made last November in a questionnaire where he said he would use public funding.
You can read his entire response to the question on page 2 here (http://tinyurl.com/4p7zuo) but here are some excerpts. The question was: If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?
"Yes. I have been a long-time advocate for public financing of campaigns combined with free
television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests."
"My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election."
"If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election."
Much of the argument now boils down to the semantics about whether this represented a "pledge" (as Republicans contend) or merely an "option" (as the Obama camp maintains). However you want to characterize it, I think it's very clear that he intended to use public financing as long as John McCain did (which he agreed to do), and now he is reversing himself. For those that aren't very familiar with what this means, public financing for presidential elections comes from taxpayers (remember that "do you want $3 to go the presidential election campaign fund?" question on your 1040?). When a candidate accepts public financing, he is limited to using only that amount (currently about $85 million) in the general election campaign. By opting out, Obama can now use unlimited funds. And considering he has raised a total of $272 million since January 2007 (including $31 million in April alone) it's clear why it is an advantage for him to opt out.
So, what is his rationale for this reversal? In an e-mail to supporters today he said "the public financing of presidential elections as it exists today is broken, and we face opponents who've become masters at gaming this broken system." That may be true, but I'm pretty sure it didn't break in the last 7 months, so that begs the question why did he support it then but not now? This appears to be another one of those stunning coincidences whereby a candidate reevaluates an earlier position and ends up with the epiphany that the correct position is the one that benefits them the most. And most insulting to me personally is the fact that he makes no mention of his earlier statement when announcing the decision. Not to mention the fact that he spent the entire primary deriding Hillary on the Iraq War by saying that we need a president who gets decisions right the first time. I don't want to blow this out of proportion; I am still an Obama supporter. But for someone who can credit his meteoric rise to the promise of a "new kind of politics" this sure looks like "old politics" to me. And while I can't say it's completely unexpected, it's nevertheless very disappointing.
I would also like to take a second to applaud McCain for his call yesterday to build 45 new nuclear reactors by the year 2030. As I have stated before, the danger of nuclear energy has been blown way out of proportion and I consider it to be a critical stop-gap in lowering carbon emissions and reducing our dependence on foreign oil. Again, as of right now it is only rhetoric, but it's good to hear the right rhetoric coming from both sides of the aisle.
Lest everyone start to think that I'm moving to the right, I'd also like to comment on the recent Supreme Court decision to allow Guantanamo Bay detainees to challenge their detention in federal court. To me, this is simply a matter of upholding habeas corpus. I believe that Justice Kennedy succinctly said it best by stating that "the laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times. Liberty and security can be reconciled; and in our system reconciled within the framework of the law." Of course, critics of the decision were quick to revert to the time-tested retort of "be afraid; be very afraid!" New Gingrich said that "this court decision is a disaster which could cost us a city." He also called it "the most extraordinarily arrogant and destructive decision the Supreme Court has made in its history. . . worse than Dred Scott." Now, I actually really like Newt Gingrich (I'm in the middle of his book right now) but this is a laughably ridiculous statement. The Dred Scott case returned a free man to slavery, while this decision did not free one detainee and offered absolutely no guarantee that any detainee would ever be set free.
Presumably the claim that this "may cost us a city" is based on the notion that some judge will eventually determine that some real terrorist has been wrongfully held and they will be released and then be integral in a plot that destroys a U.S. city. Well, if we want to go to extremes then how about considering the flip side of that? How about the terrorists we create because we hold an innocent person indefinitely and their family grows up hating the U.S. and gets recruited by Al Qaeda? I don't view either of these situations as very likely, and I fail to see the harm in forcing the government to present some form of evidence when deciding to indefinitely take away someone's freedom. If a foreign government held one of our citizens indefinitely and said simply "they are a terrorist" while providing no evidence to support it we would never accept that and, indeed it would probably be grounds for an attack. The problem with being the good guy is that you have to act like the good guy all the time, even when it has the potential to come back and bite you.
As a final note on this, 2 days after the decision was announced about 400 Taliban extremists escaped from an Afghan prison (read about it here if you missed it: http://tinyurl.com/5n56xd). You would think that would offer a little perspective, no?
OK, so I had planned to post all of the roundtable questions in consecutive posts but we seem to have reached another delay in the process and there are some other things I wanted to talk about.
After taking Ms. Clinton to task on numerous occasions for making some definitive statements one day and then reversing herself when it became convenient to do so, I feel I would be remiss if I didn't express my extreme disappointment that Obama announced today that he has decided to opt out of the public financing system for the general election. This completely contradicts a statement he made last November in a questionnaire where he said he would use public funding.
You can read his entire response to the question on page 2 here (http://tinyurl.com/4p7zuo) but here are some excerpts. The question was: If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?
"Yes. I have been a long-time advocate for public financing of campaigns combined with free
television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests."
"My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election."
"If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election."
Much of the argument now boils down to the semantics about whether this represented a "pledge" (as Republicans contend) or merely an "option" (as the Obama camp maintains). However you want to characterize it, I think it's very clear that he intended to use public financing as long as John McCain did (which he agreed to do), and now he is reversing himself. For those that aren't very familiar with what this means, public financing for presidential elections comes from taxpayers (remember that "do you want $3 to go the presidential election campaign fund?" question on your 1040?). When a candidate accepts public financing, he is limited to using only that amount (currently about $85 million) in the general election campaign. By opting out, Obama can now use unlimited funds. And considering he has raised a total of $272 million since January 2007 (including $31 million in April alone) it's clear why it is an advantage for him to opt out.
So, what is his rationale for this reversal? In an e-mail to supporters today he said "the public financing of presidential elections as it exists today is broken, and we face opponents who've become masters at gaming this broken system." That may be true, but I'm pretty sure it didn't break in the last 7 months, so that begs the question why did he support it then but not now? This appears to be another one of those stunning coincidences whereby a candidate reevaluates an earlier position and ends up with the epiphany that the correct position is the one that benefits them the most. And most insulting to me personally is the fact that he makes no mention of his earlier statement when announcing the decision. Not to mention the fact that he spent the entire primary deriding Hillary on the Iraq War by saying that we need a president who gets decisions right the first time. I don't want to blow this out of proportion; I am still an Obama supporter. But for someone who can credit his meteoric rise to the promise of a "new kind of politics" this sure looks like "old politics" to me. And while I can't say it's completely unexpected, it's nevertheless very disappointing.
I would also like to take a second to applaud McCain for his call yesterday to build 45 new nuclear reactors by the year 2030. As I have stated before, the danger of nuclear energy has been blown way out of proportion and I consider it to be a critical stop-gap in lowering carbon emissions and reducing our dependence on foreign oil. Again, as of right now it is only rhetoric, but it's good to hear the right rhetoric coming from both sides of the aisle.
Lest everyone start to think that I'm moving to the right, I'd also like to comment on the recent Supreme Court decision to allow Guantanamo Bay detainees to challenge their detention in federal court. To me, this is simply a matter of upholding habeas corpus. I believe that Justice Kennedy succinctly said it best by stating that "the laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times. Liberty and security can be reconciled; and in our system reconciled within the framework of the law." Of course, critics of the decision were quick to revert to the time-tested retort of "be afraid; be very afraid!" New Gingrich said that "this court decision is a disaster which could cost us a city." He also called it "the most extraordinarily arrogant and destructive decision the Supreme Court has made in its history. . . worse than Dred Scott." Now, I actually really like Newt Gingrich (I'm in the middle of his book right now) but this is a laughably ridiculous statement. The Dred Scott case returned a free man to slavery, while this decision did not free one detainee and offered absolutely no guarantee that any detainee would ever be set free.
Presumably the claim that this "may cost us a city" is based on the notion that some judge will eventually determine that some real terrorist has been wrongfully held and they will be released and then be integral in a plot that destroys a U.S. city. Well, if we want to go to extremes then how about considering the flip side of that? How about the terrorists we create because we hold an innocent person indefinitely and their family grows up hating the U.S. and gets recruited by Al Qaeda? I don't view either of these situations as very likely, and I fail to see the harm in forcing the government to present some form of evidence when deciding to indefinitely take away someone's freedom. If a foreign government held one of our citizens indefinitely and said simply "they are a terrorist" while providing no evidence to support it we would never accept that and, indeed it would probably be grounds for an attack. The problem with being the good guy is that you have to act like the good guy all the time, even when it has the potential to come back and bite you.
As a final note on this, 2 days after the decision was announced about 400 Taliban extremists escaped from an Afghan prison (read about it here if you missed it: http://tinyurl.com/5n56xd). You would think that would offer a little perspective, no?
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Roundtable - Part I
OK, so we at least have all of our submissions for question 1 in, so let's go ahead and get started. I know pretty much everyone knows everyone, but as way of introduction in addition to me we have Mike Smith (who most people know as Christy's brother), Eric Weir (a friend of ours from college), and Becky DeForest (a friend of ours from high school) participating. I presented a total of 5 questions to each member of the panel and asked them to craft responses of around 100 words each. All involved have conceded that this is far more challenging than it first appears to be. The responses are not meant to be exhaustive and complete, but rather jumping off points for discussion and debate. As such, everyone else reading (which is, um, probably like 3 of you) are invited to comment on any/all of our responses as well as contribute your own.
One final note before we get to it is that no one read anyone else's responses (inculding me) prior to responding so any similarities are coincidental. Also, all I did was copy and paste the responses into here, so all emphasis and any typos/incoherence is the creation of the original authors. Now, on with question 1:
Who do you think was the most positively influential person in the last 100 years? I say positively in the sense that you believe the world is better off because of them (i.e. Stalin and Hitler were quite influential, but not in a good way).
John:
Albert Einstein. It’s true that many of his ideas contributed far more to the realm of academia than to the day to day life of the majority of the world’s population (when was the last time the theory of relativity affected your life?). But I think his biggest contribution and legacy is that of the celebrity scientist. He dispelled the image of the stuffy, sterile researcher and showed that it was possible to have genuine passion for math and science and to have those complement, rather than restrict, your imagination. He dedicated his life to learning and wasn’t afraid to alter his positions when the facts demanded it. His contribution in inspiring young minds to pursue math and science and to solve the seemingly unsolvable is immeasurable.
Mike:
In researching this question, I checked out the Time Magazine “100 most important people of the century” article from a few years ago as a starting point. So I started tearing apart their list. No sports figures, politicians or royals (Princess Diana… C’mon!), and no entertainers. All those people are pretty much full of it anyway, and to say the have had great influence would sadden me way too much to go on living.
So that leaves science, medicine, and business as the only PURE categories of people to make my list. My pick is Albert Einstein for his many contributions to Physics and Mathematics, and his views on politics and religion.
Eric:
Muhammad Yunus has applied microcredit to enable the poor to borrow small amounts of money for the purpose of creating new, or upgrading existing, small businesses. Since its inception in 1976, his Grameen Bank has grown to include 1,181 branches with a staff of 11,777. They have collectively loaned $3.9 billion with a recovery rate of 98%, or $3.6 billion. More than 94% of loans have gone to women, who suffer disproportionately from poverty. Grameenphone, an offshoot of the bank, has brought cell-phone ownership to 260,000 rural poor since 1997. In 2006, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
Note: The loan statistics referenced above were taken from Yunus’ 1999 book Banker to the Poor. Wikipedia cites total Grameen loans at $6.38 billion to 7.4 million borrowers as of July 2007.
Becky:
I’m going to have to go with Henry Ford. He streamlined and popularized mass production, which changed the face of American industry. Plus, his serviceable (with interchangable parts!), affordable Model T's changed the way average Americans lived, traveled, and worked. The argument could even be made that the network of highways that were constructed to handle the boom of automobile traffic was a stepping stone for the telecommunications industry.
One final note before we get to it is that no one read anyone else's responses (inculding me) prior to responding so any similarities are coincidental. Also, all I did was copy and paste the responses into here, so all emphasis and any typos/incoherence is the creation of the original authors. Now, on with question 1:
Who do you think was the most positively influential person in the last 100 years? I say positively in the sense that you believe the world is better off because of them (i.e. Stalin and Hitler were quite influential, but not in a good way).
John:
Albert Einstein. It’s true that many of his ideas contributed far more to the realm of academia than to the day to day life of the majority of the world’s population (when was the last time the theory of relativity affected your life?). But I think his biggest contribution and legacy is that of the celebrity scientist. He dispelled the image of the stuffy, sterile researcher and showed that it was possible to have genuine passion for math and science and to have those complement, rather than restrict, your imagination. He dedicated his life to learning and wasn’t afraid to alter his positions when the facts demanded it. His contribution in inspiring young minds to pursue math and science and to solve the seemingly unsolvable is immeasurable.
Mike:
In researching this question, I checked out the Time Magazine “100 most important people of the century” article from a few years ago as a starting point. So I started tearing apart their list. No sports figures, politicians or royals (Princess Diana… C’mon!), and no entertainers. All those people are pretty much full of it anyway, and to say the have had great influence would sadden me way too much to go on living.
So that leaves science, medicine, and business as the only PURE categories of people to make my list. My pick is Albert Einstein for his many contributions to Physics and Mathematics, and his views on politics and religion.
Eric:
Muhammad Yunus has applied microcredit to enable the poor to borrow small amounts of money for the purpose of creating new, or upgrading existing, small businesses. Since its inception in 1976, his Grameen Bank has grown to include 1,181 branches with a staff of 11,777. They have collectively loaned $3.9 billion with a recovery rate of 98%, or $3.6 billion. More than 94% of loans have gone to women, who suffer disproportionately from poverty. Grameenphone, an offshoot of the bank, has brought cell-phone ownership to 260,000 rural poor since 1997. In 2006, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
Note: The loan statistics referenced above were taken from Yunus’ 1999 book Banker to the Poor. Wikipedia cites total Grameen loans at $6.38 billion to 7.4 million borrowers as of July 2007.
Becky:
I’m going to have to go with Henry Ford. He streamlined and popularized mass production, which changed the face of American industry. Plus, his serviceable (with interchangable parts!), affordable Model T's changed the way average Americans lived, traveled, and worked. The argument could even be made that the network of highways that were constructed to handle the boom of automobile traffic was a stepping stone for the telecommunications industry.
Monday, June 16, 2008
Short Update
Well, today was to begin the roundtable discussion but certain member(s) who shall remain nameless (at least for now) have missed the submission deadline so we'll be delayed on that.
Christy and I have a busy week ahead of us. First, I got us free tickets to see an advance screening of Get Smart tonight, so that should be fun. I am hoping for the best, while expecting the worst. Something tells me that when it's over I'll wish that I had stayed home and just watched the original show for those 2 hours instead. Don Adams was great! Even if you didn't remember him from Get Smart, anyone near my age would certainly remember him as the voice of Inspector Gadget.
Then on Thursday we are going to see Mike Doughty at Martyr's. Kind of cool because he was only scheduled to play at Taste of Randolph on the 20th but an e-mail went out to his fan club members letting them know that he was actually playing a "secret" gig the night before. Very cool because Martyr's is a really small venue and you rarely get a chance to see him in such a small place anymore. Should be a lot of fun. It's doubly good because on the 20th we already had tickets to see Willie Nelson at Ravinia and now we don't have to make a choice between the 2. I'm not a huge Willie Nelson fan (although Stardust is a phenomenal album) but I had opportunities to see Oscar Peterson and Johnny Cash and didn't and now that they are gone I regret it and who knows how much longer Willie will be around for?
Still no word on the CPA exam, and they haven't even updated their stupid little memo to tell me when they're expecting to receive the scores. From past experience, it's supposed to be ~3 weeks after the testing window ends, which would be this Friday/Saturday. Really hoping I find out then. I've been able to put it out of my mind the last couple weeks but now that the time is once again approaching the restlessness has returned in earnest.
Finally, I'd just like to join in with everyone else in expressing my sadness in learning about Tim Russert's passing. The first time I remember seeing him was on election night 2000 when he grabbed a small wipe board and said (at about 5:00 before any of the polls had closed) "I'm going to write down 3 keys to this election tonight" and when he turned it around it read "Florida, Florida, Florida." After taking a long break from politics I've only gotten really into it over the past 2 years or so. Over that time, though, one of the things I looked forward to every week was coming into work on Monday mornings and listening to the Meet the Press podcast. It's really common when someone passes to hear people say "he was one of the good guys" but here I just can't think of a better way to succinctly describe him. His love for politics and politicians came through in every interview he did, and politicians on both sides describe him the exact same way professionally: tough but fair. This primary season was extremely gruelling but now I'm a little happier that it went on so long because in addition to Mondays I got to hear from him on umpteen Tuesday nights too, in his element doing what he loved. Not only did he push his competitors on the Sunday morning talk circuit to be better journalists, he also pushed politicians to be better candidates. He wasn't out for the "gotcha" moment, but if you came on the show unprepared he would nail you for sure. In the words of comedian Dave Allen: "Good night, and may your god go with you."
Christy and I have a busy week ahead of us. First, I got us free tickets to see an advance screening of Get Smart tonight, so that should be fun. I am hoping for the best, while expecting the worst. Something tells me that when it's over I'll wish that I had stayed home and just watched the original show for those 2 hours instead. Don Adams was great! Even if you didn't remember him from Get Smart, anyone near my age would certainly remember him as the voice of Inspector Gadget.
Then on Thursday we are going to see Mike Doughty at Martyr's. Kind of cool because he was only scheduled to play at Taste of Randolph on the 20th but an e-mail went out to his fan club members letting them know that he was actually playing a "secret" gig the night before. Very cool because Martyr's is a really small venue and you rarely get a chance to see him in such a small place anymore. Should be a lot of fun. It's doubly good because on the 20th we already had tickets to see Willie Nelson at Ravinia and now we don't have to make a choice between the 2. I'm not a huge Willie Nelson fan (although Stardust is a phenomenal album) but I had opportunities to see Oscar Peterson and Johnny Cash and didn't and now that they are gone I regret it and who knows how much longer Willie will be around for?
Still no word on the CPA exam, and they haven't even updated their stupid little memo to tell me when they're expecting to receive the scores. From past experience, it's supposed to be ~3 weeks after the testing window ends, which would be this Friday/Saturday. Really hoping I find out then. I've been able to put it out of my mind the last couple weeks but now that the time is once again approaching the restlessness has returned in earnest.
Finally, I'd just like to join in with everyone else in expressing my sadness in learning about Tim Russert's passing. The first time I remember seeing him was on election night 2000 when he grabbed a small wipe board and said (at about 5:00 before any of the polls had closed) "I'm going to write down 3 keys to this election tonight" and when he turned it around it read "Florida, Florida, Florida." After taking a long break from politics I've only gotten really into it over the past 2 years or so. Over that time, though, one of the things I looked forward to every week was coming into work on Monday mornings and listening to the Meet the Press podcast. It's really common when someone passes to hear people say "he was one of the good guys" but here I just can't think of a better way to succinctly describe him. His love for politics and politicians came through in every interview he did, and politicians on both sides describe him the exact same way professionally: tough but fair. This primary season was extremely gruelling but now I'm a little happier that it went on so long because in addition to Mondays I got to hear from him on umpteen Tuesday nights too, in his element doing what he loved. Not only did he push his competitors on the Sunday morning talk circuit to be better journalists, he also pushed politicians to be better candidates. He wasn't out for the "gotcha" moment, but if you came on the show unprepared he would nail you for sure. In the words of comedian Dave Allen: "Good night, and may your god go with you."
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Recount!
OK, confession time. I actually voted for George Bush in 2000. Does that tinge my view of the following? I’d like to think not, but probably. I would like to add that I alleviate myself of responsibility for electing him though, on the grounds that Gore carried Illinois by a wide margin and thus my vote did not electorally contribute to him in any way. Is that rationalization? Yes. Yes it is. Does it help me sleep better at night? Yes. Yes it does.
So I watched the HBO film Recount the other night. For those poor souls without HBO and who haven’t heard of it, it’s a dramatization of the 2000 election in Florida and the days of madness that followed. Coming at the end of the Bush presidency, I think this is the right time for this film to have been made. The 36-days of confusion that occurred are of historic significance to the U.S. and is (hopefully) something we’ll never have to live through again. Had this film been made any sooner, the country wouldn’t have been ready to reflect on it. Any later and we might have collectively started to forget about it. Overall, the events depicted appear to be largely accurate, as they are approximately how I remember them. However, from listening to some of the filmmaker’s thoughts, it appears that they believed they were making a non-partisan film and I would have to say that in that regard they came up short. First of all, the story is told largely from the perspective of Al Gore’s chief legal counsel (played by Kevin Spacey). This inherently makes him the protagonist and, as the underdog, all of cinematic expectations lead us to want to root for him. That’s not by itself a bad thing, but it deals a blow to the claim of neutrality. Also, while I think they do a generally fair job of portraying each camp’s legal teams as simply doing whatever it takes to win within the confines of the law, where I think the film gets out of focus is in the portraying of the lower-level supporters of each candidate. If the film is to be believed, all Gore supporters wanted was to ensure that the intent of the voters was recognized, and all Bush supporters wanted was to stifle any and all efforts to give Gore any additional votes. While I’m quite sure there are lots of people that fall into those two categories, on balance I think Gore supporters weren’t quite as noble as they like to think they were, and Bush supporters weren’t quite so devious.
If there is one thing that is apparent and, I believe, true about the film is that the U.S. Supreme Court decision was exceedingly . . .odd. In case your memory of the events is a bit hazy, the Florida Supreme Court, on December 8th, ordered manual recounts in counties with a large number of undervotes. Then on December 9th the U.S. Supreme Court issued an injunction stopping the recount and set a hearing for December 11th. Then on December 12th they ruled that the recounts hadn’t been valid because different counties were using different standards in the recount, and that now there was no time to complete the recount under new standards. So basically, they said, “We really don’t know who actually won, but we can’t trust these new numbers and they’re incomplete anyway, and now there’s no time left so we have to go with what the previous result was.” But perhaps the oddest part of the decision was that it was "limited to the present circumstances", meaning that it could never be cited as precedent. The film indicates that this is the first time the US Supreme Court has ever done that; I can neither confirm nor deny that.
My belief is that, under the way that the system was set up, you ultimately couldn’t call that election any other way. But the system should have worked better. I am reminded of the 2002 baseball All-Star game (stay with me here), which ended in a tie in the 11th inning after both teams ran out of relief pitchers. The fact that it ended in a tie didn’t really bother me. After all, it was an exhibition game (this was the year before the winner determined home-field advantage for the World Series). What bothered me was the 20-minute stoppage of play before the 11th inning while league officials met to discuss what to do. It was as if it had never occurred to any of them that this was a possibility, despite the fact that 5 games per week end up in extra innings. A lot of baseball games are close, so it seems like there probably should have been some guidelines in place. Well, some elections are really close, so it kind of seems like there should have been some guidelines in place there too. What are the standards for manually recounting ballots? How should you deal with pregnant or dimpled chads? I don’t know, but I know this: the day after the election is not the time to hold a debate about it. In a stunning coincidence, people’s opinion about those line up almost exactly with the position of the candidate they support.
Now, to bring this into the current realm, once you have standards you need to stick to them! Last year, in a stunning display of stupidity that only the Democrats can produce, the DNC voted to strip Michigan and Florida of their convention delegates for moving their primaries up. In October, Hillary Clinton said of Michigan “It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything.” Well, apparently something happened between October and April to make it less clear, because suddenly she was champion of the people of those two states and decided to do everything in her power to make sure they counted. When the DNC ended up allowing half the states delegates to be represented, and further awarded Clinton slightly more delegates in Michigan it was the Clinton camp that was outraged. But the group that should have been outraged was Obama (which, of course, he would have been had it actually mattered). What is the point of establishing the rules and standards if you’re just going to change them “when it counts”? I can’t believe that any Democrat who complains about Bush's supposed trampling on the Bill of Rights during his presidency could possibly support Clinton in this type of ridiculous logic. With the Patriot Act and things like warrantless wire-tapping, our president has basically said that sometimes the security of the nation is more important than an individual’s rights when the country is in danger. I disagree. I think that when the country is in danger, that’s when our civil rights are the most important. Similarly, it is during close elections where it is most important to adhere strictly to our established standards and guidelines. At the end of the day, the main goal in counting ballots is objectivity. Do I believe that the butterfly ballot was confusing? Yes, but so what? There was a process in place to approve it 30-days prior to the election and neither party filed a complaint. Hence, that argument holds no water. Don’t like the ballot? Then change it next time.
Someone could astutely point out that I voted for Bush and Obama, so of course I support these two outcomes. I would argue that I’m also an accountant, and as such hold a particular affinity for the absolute nature of numbers and recognize the need for rules and standards to clarify the subjective.
One final note on the 2000 election that I encountered. Being from Wikipedia, take it with a grain of salt. I did find it interesting though:
The National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago, sponsored by a consortium of major U.S. news organizations, conducted a Florida Ballot Project comprehensive review of all ballots uncounted (by machine) in the Florida 2000 presidential election, both undervotes and overvotes. The media reported the results of the study during the week after November 12, 2001. The results of the study showed that had the limited county by county recounts requested by the Gore team been completed, Bush would still have been the winner of the election. The recount also showed that had there been a full statewide recount of all counties, Al Gore would have received more votes than Bush. However, neither campaign requested such a total statewide recount, and it was never formally carried out.
So I watched the HBO film Recount the other night. For those poor souls without HBO and who haven’t heard of it, it’s a dramatization of the 2000 election in Florida and the days of madness that followed. Coming at the end of the Bush presidency, I think this is the right time for this film to have been made. The 36-days of confusion that occurred are of historic significance to the U.S. and is (hopefully) something we’ll never have to live through again. Had this film been made any sooner, the country wouldn’t have been ready to reflect on it. Any later and we might have collectively started to forget about it. Overall, the events depicted appear to be largely accurate, as they are approximately how I remember them. However, from listening to some of the filmmaker’s thoughts, it appears that they believed they were making a non-partisan film and I would have to say that in that regard they came up short. First of all, the story is told largely from the perspective of Al Gore’s chief legal counsel (played by Kevin Spacey). This inherently makes him the protagonist and, as the underdog, all of cinematic expectations lead us to want to root for him. That’s not by itself a bad thing, but it deals a blow to the claim of neutrality. Also, while I think they do a generally fair job of portraying each camp’s legal teams as simply doing whatever it takes to win within the confines of the law, where I think the film gets out of focus is in the portraying of the lower-level supporters of each candidate. If the film is to be believed, all Gore supporters wanted was to ensure that the intent of the voters was recognized, and all Bush supporters wanted was to stifle any and all efforts to give Gore any additional votes. While I’m quite sure there are lots of people that fall into those two categories, on balance I think Gore supporters weren’t quite as noble as they like to think they were, and Bush supporters weren’t quite so devious.
If there is one thing that is apparent and, I believe, true about the film is that the U.S. Supreme Court decision was exceedingly . . .odd. In case your memory of the events is a bit hazy, the Florida Supreme Court, on December 8th, ordered manual recounts in counties with a large number of undervotes. Then on December 9th the U.S. Supreme Court issued an injunction stopping the recount and set a hearing for December 11th. Then on December 12th they ruled that the recounts hadn’t been valid because different counties were using different standards in the recount, and that now there was no time to complete the recount under new standards. So basically, they said, “We really don’t know who actually won, but we can’t trust these new numbers and they’re incomplete anyway, and now there’s no time left so we have to go with what the previous result was.” But perhaps the oddest part of the decision was that it was "limited to the present circumstances", meaning that it could never be cited as precedent. The film indicates that this is the first time the US Supreme Court has ever done that; I can neither confirm nor deny that.
My belief is that, under the way that the system was set up, you ultimately couldn’t call that election any other way. But the system should have worked better. I am reminded of the 2002 baseball All-Star game (stay with me here), which ended in a tie in the 11th inning after both teams ran out of relief pitchers. The fact that it ended in a tie didn’t really bother me. After all, it was an exhibition game (this was the year before the winner determined home-field advantage for the World Series). What bothered me was the 20-minute stoppage of play before the 11th inning while league officials met to discuss what to do. It was as if it had never occurred to any of them that this was a possibility, despite the fact that 5 games per week end up in extra innings. A lot of baseball games are close, so it seems like there probably should have been some guidelines in place. Well, some elections are really close, so it kind of seems like there should have been some guidelines in place there too. What are the standards for manually recounting ballots? How should you deal with pregnant or dimpled chads? I don’t know, but I know this: the day after the election is not the time to hold a debate about it. In a stunning coincidence, people’s opinion about those line up almost exactly with the position of the candidate they support.
Now, to bring this into the current realm, once you have standards you need to stick to them! Last year, in a stunning display of stupidity that only the Democrats can produce, the DNC voted to strip Michigan and Florida of their convention delegates for moving their primaries up. In October, Hillary Clinton said of Michigan “It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything.” Well, apparently something happened between October and April to make it less clear, because suddenly she was champion of the people of those two states and decided to do everything in her power to make sure they counted. When the DNC ended up allowing half the states delegates to be represented, and further awarded Clinton slightly more delegates in Michigan it was the Clinton camp that was outraged. But the group that should have been outraged was Obama (which, of course, he would have been had it actually mattered). What is the point of establishing the rules and standards if you’re just going to change them “when it counts”? I can’t believe that any Democrat who complains about Bush's supposed trampling on the Bill of Rights during his presidency could possibly support Clinton in this type of ridiculous logic. With the Patriot Act and things like warrantless wire-tapping, our president has basically said that sometimes the security of the nation is more important than an individual’s rights when the country is in danger. I disagree. I think that when the country is in danger, that’s when our civil rights are the most important. Similarly, it is during close elections where it is most important to adhere strictly to our established standards and guidelines. At the end of the day, the main goal in counting ballots is objectivity. Do I believe that the butterfly ballot was confusing? Yes, but so what? There was a process in place to approve it 30-days prior to the election and neither party filed a complaint. Hence, that argument holds no water. Don’t like the ballot? Then change it next time.
Someone could astutely point out that I voted for Bush and Obama, so of course I support these two outcomes. I would argue that I’m also an accountant, and as such hold a particular affinity for the absolute nature of numbers and recognize the need for rules and standards to clarify the subjective.
One final note on the 2000 election that I encountered. Being from Wikipedia, take it with a grain of salt. I did find it interesting though:
The National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago, sponsored by a consortium of major U.S. news organizations, conducted a Florida Ballot Project comprehensive review of all ballots uncounted (by machine) in the Florida 2000 presidential election, both undervotes and overvotes. The media reported the results of the study during the week after November 12, 2001. The results of the study showed that had the limited county by county recounts requested by the Gore team been completed, Bush would still have been the winner of the election. The recount also showed that had there been a full statewide recount of all counties, Al Gore would have received more votes than Bush. However, neither campaign requested such a total statewide recount, and it was never formally carried out.
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
Moving on to Something Less Controversial: Immigration!
One of the things I remember most from my life as a student was one particular night in my Taxation course during my MBA program. We were in about the 7th or 8th week and discussing the nuances about a particular tax code item. I won’t bore you with all the specifics here (but feel free to ask me about it if you care) but it had to do with a change that was made in order to close a loophole that existed and ended up resulting in some fairly disastrous consequences that were completely unintended and unforeseen. That led our professor to make the following statement (and I’m paraphrasing); “whenever I hear debates about making major changes or simplifications to the tax code, I always say ‘unless you can tell me at least one major negative that this change will cause, you haven’t thought hard enough about it.’” That’s actually how I feel about a lot of our problems where it is common to hear 30-second sound bite solutions of “we just need to do X” and everything will be fine.
I am using this as the intro to my discussion on immigration because, simply put, it’s quite a tangled mess that has no easy answers. Every solution I’ve heard either has serious negatives attached to it or is logistically impossible (or both). That’s not to say that none of them are the “correct” choice, but it’s just infuriating to hear various solutions presented as though they are the clear “right” answer and that there are no drawbacks. By the way, this could also be said (especially) of health care, but that’s a blog for another day.
Of course, the long-term solution to the immigration problem is a prosperous and stable Mexican economy. However, I haven’t seen and don’t anticipate any politicians campaigning on the platform of “Your tax dollars for Mexico!” so I think that doing what we can from our end and continuing to encourage free trade is about the best we can do.
First, I want to start with the fence on the border. I never really got to the point of thinking about this on a philosophical level, because I have a very practical objection to it- it doesn't work. I hate always citing this, but on Penn and Teller's Bullsh!t they studied the specifications of the wall and built a replica of a section of it. They picked up a group of illegal Mexicans at a Home Depot and had them build the wall (but didn't tell them what it was for). Then they had them, in groups of two, try to get around it. One group tried to go over it, one group through it, and the other one under it. It took the group going through it the longest: just over 5 minutes. The group going over got through in less than 3. Even if we build double or triple layers, that's still slowing them down by less than 10 minutes. That hardly seems an efficient use of taxpayer money. A tv stunt is certainly not a scientific experiment, but considering there are large sections of the wall that are being built by recent immigrants I think it’s at least somewhat valid. Then there’s just the obvious problem that the fence only covers an extremely small portion of the border. Sure, that may be where the majority of illegals cross but is our goal really just to get them to cross somewhere else?
OK, so if a fence won’t work then what will? Well, I’m sure it comes as a surprise to no one that the reason immigrants come here is due to the economy and job opportunities being vastly superior over here than in the majority of Mexico. Hence it would make sense that in order to stem the flow of illegal immigrants we need to remove that motivation. That means tougher laws and penalties on businesses that hire illegals. However, we also need to be careful here. You don’t want to make the documentation rules so oneruous that you cause businesses to discriminate against legal immigrants just so they can avoid any possibility of having legal problems. Creating that kind of climate would further exacerbate the situation because then illegals lose more motivation to ever become legal. Nevertheless, better enforcement and creating incentives for adherence to the existing laws seems like a reasonable course of action and a good place to start. I am fully in support of that.
Then we get to the question of what to do with the millions of illegals currently in the country? The common answer given to this is "send 'em back!" Again, I immediately have an objection to this on the practical level. I don’t know, and have never heard of, a reasonable way to do this. One of the most frequent arguments used to expound on the need to get a handle on immigration is “we know nothing about who these people are, where they come from, or what they are trying to do.” This is definitely true and is a problem. While few would argue against the statement that the vast majority of Mexican immigrants are simply seeking to raise their standard of living, it is probable that at least a few are exploiting the open border for more sinister purposes. But the reason it is a problem is also the problem with any solution. How do you identify and round up a group you have no information on? You are literally chasing invisible people. How will you ever know if you have them all? Actually, how will you even be able to quantify it at all?
Then there’s the problem from the U.S. economy side. If we actually were successful at rapidly expelling all illegals out of the country our economy would be absolutely decimated (at least in the short term). The last report from DHS (issued last August for data through 1/06) estimates that there were approximately 11.6 million “unauthorized” immigrants living in the U.S. It is further estimated that 7.8 million of these were in the workforce. At that time, total unemployment in the U.S. was 7 million. That means that in the event that we actually were wildly successful in expelling immigrants, we would end up, in a best case scenario, with a deficit of almost a million jobs that we’d have no way to fill. And of course, practically speaking it would be far higher than that. The 7 million unemployed come from all over the country while the population of illegals is much more concentrate in the southern states. Eventually, Americans and legal immigrants can fill the jobs of illegals, but not immediately and not at the same rate. The biggest part of motivation to hire illegals from an employer side is the ability to pay them less than the minimum wage. This keeps the cost of goods and services lower and allows the business to be more competitive. Now, if all of a sudden they are required to pay minimum wage, then one of two things occurs. If their competitors are still employing illegals, they can no longer compete and go out of business. Or, assuming everyone now has to use legal workers, the result is a definite increase in price to the consumer. How much? Well, again since we don’t have great information no one really knows for sure.
Thus, it seems like this is a problem that, by necessity, needs to move slowly and incrementally. I’d say that Congress has the slowly part down but I don’t think “inert” quite qualifies as a speed. It doesn’t seem practical to just round up nearly 12 million people and it seems as though we’d have a lot of problems if we actually were able to do it. It is for that reason that I’ve come around to support at least a limited policy of amnesty. I detest the idea of rewarding people for their illegal actions, and I fully admit that at this point I don’t have much of an idea as to hammering out the specifics for how this would happen. And the absolute worst thing for the U.S. would be to encourage a sudden rush of border hopping to get into the country before some arbitrary date. Nevertheless, it seems like setting up some way of encouraging illegals to come forward and identify themselves is the only likely way to get the situation moving forward. I'd also like to further clarify that this would only apply to those who come forward. Those caught in an INS raid should rightfully be deported. This would have the dual effect of encouraging more illegals to come forward rather than be caught, and also to discourage businesses from continuing to hire illegals.
So in summary and to paraphrase a quote on democracy, I believe that amnesty is the worst solution to the immigration problem; except for every other solution. So, for those of you ready to jump on me and propose your own solution I ask that you please list at least one significant negative to what you propose. If you cannot do that, I believe you do not have a true appreciation for the real complexity of this situation.
I am using this as the intro to my discussion on immigration because, simply put, it’s quite a tangled mess that has no easy answers. Every solution I’ve heard either has serious negatives attached to it or is logistically impossible (or both). That’s not to say that none of them are the “correct” choice, but it’s just infuriating to hear various solutions presented as though they are the clear “right” answer and that there are no drawbacks. By the way, this could also be said (especially) of health care, but that’s a blog for another day.
Of course, the long-term solution to the immigration problem is a prosperous and stable Mexican economy. However, I haven’t seen and don’t anticipate any politicians campaigning on the platform of “Your tax dollars for Mexico!” so I think that doing what we can from our end and continuing to encourage free trade is about the best we can do.
First, I want to start with the fence on the border. I never really got to the point of thinking about this on a philosophical level, because I have a very practical objection to it- it doesn't work. I hate always citing this, but on Penn and Teller's Bullsh!t they studied the specifications of the wall and built a replica of a section of it. They picked up a group of illegal Mexicans at a Home Depot and had them build the wall (but didn't tell them what it was for). Then they had them, in groups of two, try to get around it. One group tried to go over it, one group through it, and the other one under it. It took the group going through it the longest: just over 5 minutes. The group going over got through in less than 3. Even if we build double or triple layers, that's still slowing them down by less than 10 minutes. That hardly seems an efficient use of taxpayer money. A tv stunt is certainly not a scientific experiment, but considering there are large sections of the wall that are being built by recent immigrants I think it’s at least somewhat valid. Then there’s just the obvious problem that the fence only covers an extremely small portion of the border. Sure, that may be where the majority of illegals cross but is our goal really just to get them to cross somewhere else?
OK, so if a fence won’t work then what will? Well, I’m sure it comes as a surprise to no one that the reason immigrants come here is due to the economy and job opportunities being vastly superior over here than in the majority of Mexico. Hence it would make sense that in order to stem the flow of illegal immigrants we need to remove that motivation. That means tougher laws and penalties on businesses that hire illegals. However, we also need to be careful here. You don’t want to make the documentation rules so oneruous that you cause businesses to discriminate against legal immigrants just so they can avoid any possibility of having legal problems. Creating that kind of climate would further exacerbate the situation because then illegals lose more motivation to ever become legal. Nevertheless, better enforcement and creating incentives for adherence to the existing laws seems like a reasonable course of action and a good place to start. I am fully in support of that.
Then we get to the question of what to do with the millions of illegals currently in the country? The common answer given to this is "send 'em back!" Again, I immediately have an objection to this on the practical level. I don’t know, and have never heard of, a reasonable way to do this. One of the most frequent arguments used to expound on the need to get a handle on immigration is “we know nothing about who these people are, where they come from, or what they are trying to do.” This is definitely true and is a problem. While few would argue against the statement that the vast majority of Mexican immigrants are simply seeking to raise their standard of living, it is probable that at least a few are exploiting the open border for more sinister purposes. But the reason it is a problem is also the problem with any solution. How do you identify and round up a group you have no information on? You are literally chasing invisible people. How will you ever know if you have them all? Actually, how will you even be able to quantify it at all?
Then there’s the problem from the U.S. economy side. If we actually were successful at rapidly expelling all illegals out of the country our economy would be absolutely decimated (at least in the short term). The last report from DHS (issued last August for data through 1/06) estimates that there were approximately 11.6 million “unauthorized” immigrants living in the U.S. It is further estimated that 7.8 million of these were in the workforce. At that time, total unemployment in the U.S. was 7 million. That means that in the event that we actually were wildly successful in expelling immigrants, we would end up, in a best case scenario, with a deficit of almost a million jobs that we’d have no way to fill. And of course, practically speaking it would be far higher than that. The 7 million unemployed come from all over the country while the population of illegals is much more concentrate in the southern states. Eventually, Americans and legal immigrants can fill the jobs of illegals, but not immediately and not at the same rate. The biggest part of motivation to hire illegals from an employer side is the ability to pay them less than the minimum wage. This keeps the cost of goods and services lower and allows the business to be more competitive. Now, if all of a sudden they are required to pay minimum wage, then one of two things occurs. If their competitors are still employing illegals, they can no longer compete and go out of business. Or, assuming everyone now has to use legal workers, the result is a definite increase in price to the consumer. How much? Well, again since we don’t have great information no one really knows for sure.
Thus, it seems like this is a problem that, by necessity, needs to move slowly and incrementally. I’d say that Congress has the slowly part down but I don’t think “inert” quite qualifies as a speed. It doesn’t seem practical to just round up nearly 12 million people and it seems as though we’d have a lot of problems if we actually were able to do it. It is for that reason that I’ve come around to support at least a limited policy of amnesty. I detest the idea of rewarding people for their illegal actions, and I fully admit that at this point I don’t have much of an idea as to hammering out the specifics for how this would happen. And the absolute worst thing for the U.S. would be to encourage a sudden rush of border hopping to get into the country before some arbitrary date. Nevertheless, it seems like setting up some way of encouraging illegals to come forward and identify themselves is the only likely way to get the situation moving forward. I'd also like to further clarify that this would only apply to those who come forward. Those caught in an INS raid should rightfully be deported. This would have the dual effect of encouraging more illegals to come forward rather than be caught, and also to discourage businesses from continuing to hire illegals.
So in summary and to paraphrase a quote on democracy, I believe that amnesty is the worst solution to the immigration problem; except for every other solution. So, for those of you ready to jump on me and propose your own solution I ask that you please list at least one significant negative to what you propose. If you cannot do that, I believe you do not have a true appreciation for the real complexity of this situation.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
