Currently in America, we know 2 things about the Federal Government in Washington D.C.
1) Politicians lie, cheat, and basically do anything at all they have to, to get elected and to stay in once they are incumbents.
2) Congress had accomplished nothing substantive in all of the last several sessions.
(Whether this is actually true or not, is actually secondary just now. Every American who pays any attention at all to politics knows it.)
This sort of thing has happened before, there are many web sites with variations of "vote the bums out" or "kick them all out", referring to both houses of Congress, dating back at least a decade, and even earlier, if you check before the internet.
I don't feel that this will necessarily solve anything. Just voting out everyone across Congress, no matter what, might just clean house, but the problem is deeper than just that.
I like Alan Moore, in V for Vendetta: "people shouldn't fear their governments, governments should fear their people."
Or at least, respect them, and help them. That's what they're supposed to be sent to Washington to do, after all.
Now, my idea is a variation of "vote the bums out". It will require a bit more effort (sorry), but the little extra will be well worth the result. If we can stick to it.
It requires that we all, every American citizen, tracks our own representatives, in both the House and the Senate, to see how they vote on laws that come up. If their votes agree with your views and needs, you can vote to keep them in. If their votes don't agree with you, or their votes will do you harm, then next election, remember and vote for the other candidate, no matter who it is. And talk to anybody who does exit polls on election day, post on social media, even write to the person you voted for (and the one you voted against) exactly why you did it.
After an election cycle or two, all members of Congress will start to see that it doesn't matter how much dark money they've acquired from their rich donors; it doesn't even matter how the campaign commercials go; what matters is their actual voting. If they don't vote on laws to help you, you don't vote to keep them in power. Simple.
Don't worry; it's not that hard to track voting. govtrack.us provides a simple voting summary. Going to this page, will allow you to set up a tracker, based on your address, that will notify you, via email or RSS feed, whenever your own senators and district representative votes on anything.
Once you see how your own representatives are voting on issues that matter to you, you can determine whether to keep them or vote them out. And if you vote against them, but they stay in, that must mean that (barring electoral fraud) most people in your district like what they're doing. But, hey, that's how democracy is supposed to work.
If we all do this, the big money types that buy and sell influence with politicians won't be able to keep a politician in office for long, unless they start caring about what we the people want and need.
One catch is, this could take years, maybe decades, to really take hold. Washington DC seems to now have an attitude of "well, they're upset right now; let's wait them out, they'll stop paying attention soon" or even worse, "let's throw a manufactured crisis at them, that'll distract them from thinking about us." We will need to keep at this for several elections, until the politicians start to really realize that we mean it; you vote against us, we'll vote against you. When that finally sinks in, we'll have taken back our country from that minotiry who want it to serve them, and have the resources to block our access to our own representatives.
The other catch is, we need EVERYBODY to get on board with this. Most people have email nowadays, so we just need folks to agree to watch their congresspeople and see how they vote. And to vote against them when they vote against you. If you have email and know someone who doesn't, you can offer to track their rep for them, and let them know. If your local public library has internet, anyone can go there and get online to check.
If everybody, or even many, citizens follow through with this, we can make this a representative democracy again, instead of the rich folk calling all the shots, since the politicians owe them for their money donations.
We the people need to start paying attention to the votes, not the election hype. We need to hold our representative accountable for how they vote. We need to make sure that the richest few don't get outsized influence, simply because they can buy and sell political careers.
I hold out hope that we can do this. That we will do this. And that we will reshape our country to what it could be, what it once was; Abraham Lincoln's "government of the people, by the people, for the people." We live in the greatest age for access to any information that could possibly be desired; let's use it.
Tuesday, January 26, 2016
Monday, January 11, 2016
So the Supreme Court decision on Union "fees"
I'm actually not going to address the actual decision; many others, to be honest much more eloquent than I, will be doing that for the next year and a half or so.
Instead, I'm going to focus on the now-repeated idea than somehow money equals speech.
That was a justification for the Citizens United decision (allowing certain groups to donate limitless money to a particular candidate is their speech supporting them).
And now it's justification for gutting the funds that unions use to defend the salaries and protections of all employees, not just the union members. Quite simply, the plaintiffs claim they don't agree with what the union says, and by paying a fee for services rendered (the aforementioned protections and salary defense), they are somehow responsible for everything the union does and says.
When and how did money become speech? And how long will it take until only the rich, with lots of money, get to have the free speech?
Back to the basis for Citizens United:
So, removing limits on how much one group can spend will effectively allow that group to drown out any and all other competing speech. For that matter, denying a groups a source of funds to spend, will render that group effectively mute. To my mind, that isn't just unfair, it's un-American. One man with deep pockets can drown out a multitude who have no money. That's not democracy, not by any means.
And, anyway, the fees the unions require aren't speech in even that way. (Okay, I am going to address this Supreme Court decision.) It's a payment for services rendered. The union will defend and protect even non-members, just as it protects its members.
To do that, it needs money, to hire lawyers, to perform research on whatever topic is under contention, and to simply exist to defend. It seems to a casual observer, from several states away, that the plaintiffs seem to want the effort on their behalf without paying for it. Where are the rich big-wigs protesting "takers" wanting something for nothing now? Paying for veterans' health care, needed because they were wounded when the government sent them to fight, makes them "moochers" but non-union workers are perfectly right to want protections without paying a fee for services is fine?
Without members' dues, or without service fees from non-members who unions still serve and protect and support, unions will have no resources to defend anybody from anything.
Which, honestly, is likely what the so-called Center for Individual Rights, a conservative public law firm that also been involved in some major challenges to affirmative action policies and to the Voting Rights Act (whose donors rolls have been connected to the web of dark money associated with the Koch Brothers), that sponsored and arranged the suit wants.
Instead, I'm going to focus on the now-repeated idea than somehow money equals speech.
That was a justification for the Citizens United decision (allowing certain groups to donate limitless money to a particular candidate is their speech supporting them).
And now it's justification for gutting the funds that unions use to defend the salaries and protections of all employees, not just the union members. Quite simply, the plaintiffs claim they don't agree with what the union says, and by paying a fee for services rendered (the aforementioned protections and salary defense), they are somehow responsible for everything the union does and says.
When and how did money become speech? And how long will it take until only the rich, with lots of money, get to have the free speech?
Back to the basis for Citizens United:
“A restriction on the amount of money a person or group can spend on political communication during a campaign necessarily reduces the quantity of expression by restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth of their exploration, and the size of the audience reached. This is because virtually every means of communicating ideas in today’s mass society requires the expenditure of money. The distribution of the humblest handbill or leaflet entails printing, paper, and circulation costs. Speeches and rallies generally necessitate hiring a hall and publicizing the event. The electorate’s increasing dependence on television, radio, and other mass media for news and information has made these expensive modes of communication indispensable instruments of effective political speech.”
I'll restate: "virtually every means of communicating ideas [...] requires the expenditure of money."-- from Buckley v. Baleo, 1976
So, removing limits on how much one group can spend will effectively allow that group to drown out any and all other competing speech. For that matter, denying a groups a source of funds to spend, will render that group effectively mute. To my mind, that isn't just unfair, it's un-American. One man with deep pockets can drown out a multitude who have no money. That's not democracy, not by any means.
And, anyway, the fees the unions require aren't speech in even that way. (Okay, I am going to address this Supreme Court decision.) It's a payment for services rendered. The union will defend and protect even non-members, just as it protects its members.
To do that, it needs money, to hire lawyers, to perform research on whatever topic is under contention, and to simply exist to defend. It seems to a casual observer, from several states away, that the plaintiffs seem to want the effort on their behalf without paying for it. Where are the rich big-wigs protesting "takers" wanting something for nothing now? Paying for veterans' health care, needed because they were wounded when the government sent them to fight, makes them "moochers" but non-union workers are perfectly right to want protections without paying a fee for services is fine?
Without members' dues, or without service fees from non-members who unions still serve and protect and support, unions will have no resources to defend anybody from anything.
Which, honestly, is likely what the so-called Center for Individual Rights, a conservative public law firm that also been involved in some major challenges to affirmative action policies and to the Voting Rights Act (whose donors rolls have been connected to the web of dark money associated with the Koch Brothers), that sponsored and arranged the suit wants.
Friday, December 18, 2015
The main problem with "Free Market" Capitalism
Yeah, so with Martin Shkreli arrested, I started thinking.
Yes, what he did to extremely sick people was extremely bad. And, now it seems, he's always been like that; profit for himself above basically everything else.
But, he is far from the only CEO-type that's done this. Many (even most) do it when they can get away with it. And it's totally legal. Hedge-fund types, and "investors" find out what drugs are only made by one company (mostly older drugs that are still used), and buy the company that makes it, then jack the price up as much "as the market will bear."
I'm not going to rehash the arguments against a free-market mentality in health care; it's been done before (check here). Instead, I feel the need to comment on a more over-riding problem.
In an unfettered, unregulated capitalist environment, everything is considered by its value. Its monetary value. Shkreli and the others thought that what they did was perfectly fine, since they could make money at it. Others, closer to the research and manufacture of the medications, check out the needs before they begin work. To a certain extent, this does make sense; research and development does cost a lot, and they need to make some kind of money to stay in business. But that means that fatal illnesses and diseases that strike relatively few (and thus won't be sold to thousands, or even millions) don't get any medication that might very well save lives, because it won't be profitable enough. And foreign causes (remember Ebola?) only get research when it might get us. Africa tends to be among the poorest on the planet; they surely can't afford "real" medicine, so it doesn't get made, since those expected to need it won't be able to afford it, even cheap.
This time of year, it seems every movie version of A Christmas Carol runs eternally on TV. Some of them don't keep the original ending intact, but some do. The next-to-last paragraph includes:
"He became as good a friend, as good a master, and as good a man, as the good old city knew, or any other good old city, town, or borough, in the good old world."
It's not just about being nice at Christmastime; it's about being a good man, taking care of your fellows when they need it. You know, acting like Jesus himself said to.
Also, many politicians in Congress who claim to be Christian, voted against Medicare and Medicaid expansions, Veterans' benefits, and the Zadroga 9/11 first responders bill, and (of course) the Affordable Care Act, and most of them say it's because of cost.
My immediate response to that is to ask, "well, what is a human life worth, then? How much money would you, should you spend, to keep a human being healthy and alive?"
I mean it sarcastically, but it seems that many people actually consider it seriously. If saving a human life will cost me money, then let's not.
Please understand, I'm not against capitalism; good work would get rewarded. Achievement should be acknowledged and repaid. But there are some things that shouldn't be purely profit-driven.
And what of a widowed woman or a woman who's escaped abuse, raising a child (or children) alone, working 3 full-time jobs, still can't get ahead? Still descends deeper into poverty? She's not "lazy" or a "taker" or a "moocher", any more than physically or mentally damaged veterans are; they've worked and sacrificed to protect us all, just as the woman works and sacrifices for her family; who are we; what are we if we don't help them? And why not? Simply because it costs money.
Yes, what he did to extremely sick people was extremely bad. And, now it seems, he's always been like that; profit for himself above basically everything else.
But, he is far from the only CEO-type that's done this. Many (even most) do it when they can get away with it. And it's totally legal. Hedge-fund types, and "investors" find out what drugs are only made by one company (mostly older drugs that are still used), and buy the company that makes it, then jack the price up as much "as the market will bear."
I'm not going to rehash the arguments against a free-market mentality in health care; it's been done before (check here). Instead, I feel the need to comment on a more over-riding problem.
In an unfettered, unregulated capitalist environment, everything is considered by its value. Its monetary value. Shkreli and the others thought that what they did was perfectly fine, since they could make money at it. Others, closer to the research and manufacture of the medications, check out the needs before they begin work. To a certain extent, this does make sense; research and development does cost a lot, and they need to make some kind of money to stay in business. But that means that fatal illnesses and diseases that strike relatively few (and thus won't be sold to thousands, or even millions) don't get any medication that might very well save lives, because it won't be profitable enough. And foreign causes (remember Ebola?) only get research when it might get us. Africa tends to be among the poorest on the planet; they surely can't afford "real" medicine, so it doesn't get made, since those expected to need it won't be able to afford it, even cheap.
This time of year, it seems every movie version of A Christmas Carol runs eternally on TV. Some of them don't keep the original ending intact, but some do. The next-to-last paragraph includes:
"He became as good a friend, as good a master, and as good a man, as the good old city knew, or any other good old city, town, or borough, in the good old world."
It's not just about being nice at Christmastime; it's about being a good man, taking care of your fellows when they need it. You know, acting like Jesus himself said to.
Also, many politicians in Congress who claim to be Christian, voted against Medicare and Medicaid expansions, Veterans' benefits, and the Zadroga 9/11 first responders bill, and (of course) the Affordable Care Act, and most of them say it's because of cost.
My immediate response to that is to ask, "well, what is a human life worth, then? How much money would you, should you spend, to keep a human being healthy and alive?"
I mean it sarcastically, but it seems that many people actually consider it seriously. If saving a human life will cost me money, then let's not.
Please understand, I'm not against capitalism; good work would get rewarded. Achievement should be acknowledged and repaid. But there are some things that shouldn't be purely profit-driven.
And what of a widowed woman or a woman who's escaped abuse, raising a child (or children) alone, working 3 full-time jobs, still can't get ahead? Still descends deeper into poverty? She's not "lazy" or a "taker" or a "moocher", any more than physically or mentally damaged veterans are; they've worked and sacrificed to protect us all, just as the woman works and sacrifices for her family; who are we; what are we if we don't help them? And why not? Simply because it costs money.
Monday, November 16, 2015
bombing response to Paris attacks
First off, let me say that my heart goes out to the Parisiens, both those who were injured or slain, and those whose world is now composed of fear. I live near New York City, and I still remember what it was like, and that wasn't close-up, face-to-face killing. I cannot begin to imagine how much worse it is now for them.
That said, I want to reproach many American politicians and pundits who seem intent on using the Parisian attacks to justify their own brand of hateful fear-mongering, pointing to different aspects of Daesh's (see here for why I'm not calling it "ISIS") operation to defend their call to deport undocumented people, to refuse humanitarian aid to refugees, even to fight against any, any, attempt at curbing armed violence in the US, and to call for yet more attacks on Daesh holdings.
DON'T. YOU. GET. IT?! That's what they want! They need an external enemy attacking to hold them together. Their vision of Islam is so narrow, that without someone outside to hate on, they'll turn on each other and destroy themselves.
Also, they need the multiple civilian casualties ("acceptable collateral damage") to justify their rule in their conquered territories. "See?" they cry. "Look at the non-Muslims. They kill us without any care. If we were not here fighting them, they would kill you all."
And, of course, video footage of American (and European) bombs falling all over the Middle East figures into most of their recruitment images and propaganda. That, and the rhetoric spewing from many far-right speakers, denouncing all Muslims as terrorists. Is it really that surprising, with such speech coming from elected leaders, those vying for election, and popular radio and TV personalities, that young Muslims think they have to join Daesh, or Al-Qaeda, or another like them, lest them be hunted down and "detained" or even killed outright?
Does Daesh need to be stopped? Yes, of course they do.
Is a military solution the best one? Honestly, I'm not sure any more.
Most Americans, especially those who served in the Middle East, or know someone who did, are exhausted with endless war. We don't want to spend more American lives and deaths over there. Besides, there are prominent nations right there who could step up and do something. (Saudi Arabia, for one; they have the wealth and the military strength to do something.) We can't traipse through the Middle East, killing and bombing, without myriad enemies springing from the ground like dragons' teeth. Our continued involvement there is only culling the less-capable terrorists and allowing those who survive to replace their lost ranks with new, scared, young people. Scared of bombs dropped from drones; scared of being rounded up and shipped to who knows where for being Muslim.
I know one of the excuses people use to lump all Muslims together. "Why don't you 'good' ones stand up and stop them? Don't you really support them secretly?"
One: the so-called 'good' ones are usually unarmed civilians, dominated by heavily armed and skilled fighters. Trying that will get them killed. Would you yourself stand up in a futile gesture that will get you killed, and your family too, without even making the 'bad guys' stumble?
Two: All you christians out there; do you support the Westboro Baptist Church? They call themselves Christian. How about the KKK? They base their actions on (selected portions of) the Bible.
You don't support them? Then why don't you stop them? They can't even kill you; that's illegal here. Or at least speak out against them; that won't violate their "free speech". You won't even do that? Then you don't get to lump all Muslims together because they won't "stand up" to Daesh and those like them.
That said, I want to reproach many American politicians and pundits who seem intent on using the Parisian attacks to justify their own brand of hateful fear-mongering, pointing to different aspects of Daesh's (see here for why I'm not calling it "ISIS") operation to defend their call to deport undocumented people, to refuse humanitarian aid to refugees, even to fight against any, any, attempt at curbing armed violence in the US, and to call for yet more attacks on Daesh holdings.
DON'T. YOU. GET. IT?! That's what they want! They need an external enemy attacking to hold them together. Their vision of Islam is so narrow, that without someone outside to hate on, they'll turn on each other and destroy themselves.
Also, they need the multiple civilian casualties ("acceptable collateral damage") to justify their rule in their conquered territories. "See?" they cry. "Look at the non-Muslims. They kill us without any care. If we were not here fighting them, they would kill you all."
And, of course, video footage of American (and European) bombs falling all over the Middle East figures into most of their recruitment images and propaganda. That, and the rhetoric spewing from many far-right speakers, denouncing all Muslims as terrorists. Is it really that surprising, with such speech coming from elected leaders, those vying for election, and popular radio and TV personalities, that young Muslims think they have to join Daesh, or Al-Qaeda, or another like them, lest them be hunted down and "detained" or even killed outright?
Does Daesh need to be stopped? Yes, of course they do.
Is a military solution the best one? Honestly, I'm not sure any more.
Most Americans, especially those who served in the Middle East, or know someone who did, are exhausted with endless war. We don't want to spend more American lives and deaths over there. Besides, there are prominent nations right there who could step up and do something. (Saudi Arabia, for one; they have the wealth and the military strength to do something.) We can't traipse through the Middle East, killing and bombing, without myriad enemies springing from the ground like dragons' teeth. Our continued involvement there is only culling the less-capable terrorists and allowing those who survive to replace their lost ranks with new, scared, young people. Scared of bombs dropped from drones; scared of being rounded up and shipped to who knows where for being Muslim.
I know one of the excuses people use to lump all Muslims together. "Why don't you 'good' ones stand up and stop them? Don't you really support them secretly?"
One: the so-called 'good' ones are usually unarmed civilians, dominated by heavily armed and skilled fighters. Trying that will get them killed. Would you yourself stand up in a futile gesture that will get you killed, and your family too, without even making the 'bad guys' stumble?
Two: All you christians out there; do you support the Westboro Baptist Church? They call themselves Christian. How about the KKK? They base their actions on (selected portions of) the Bible.
You don't support them? Then why don't you stop them? They can't even kill you; that's illegal here. Or at least speak out against them; that won't violate their "free speech". You won't even do that? Then you don't get to lump all Muslims together because they won't "stand up" to Daesh and those like them.
Friday, November 6, 2015
When a new law is proposed or enacted
One other lesson from Houston, and the voter fraud stuff too, is how to think about a new, proposed law.
Just ask two questions about it:
1) Will it actually prevent a bad thing?
2) Will it actually prevent a good thing?
"Actually" here means, not only as the law is intended, but also as it will be enforced/continued. The "unintended consequences" need to be thought of, too.
If the answer to 1 is "no" why are you bothering with the law at all?
If the answer to 1 is "yes" and the answer to 2 is "no" then by all means, enact the law.
If the answer to 1 is "yes" and the answer to 2 is "yes", it needs to be decided, is the loss of the good thing worth the prevention of the bad thing?
For example: the Houston Transgender Equality law.
1) There's really no way that law can prevent rape, or kidnapping of women, in bathrooms. (How could you even do it? Station police in every women's room to make sure that nobody with a penis goes in?)
Thus, there's no reason for that law. But, anyway
2) it will prevent transgender people from using their preferred gender. Personal comfort and freedom is supposed to be the sum total of goals in the USA. Even if you don't agree with their lives.
(Note: I really don't think that gay/straight or transgender is a conscious choice. It's part of the biological make-up. I'm not going to get into the juvenile, stupid jokes from certain politicians about "finding their feminine side")
Just ask two questions about it:
1) Will it actually prevent a bad thing?
2) Will it actually prevent a good thing?
"Actually" here means, not only as the law is intended, but also as it will be enforced/continued. The "unintended consequences" need to be thought of, too.
If the answer to 1 is "no" why are you bothering with the law at all?
If the answer to 1 is "yes" and the answer to 2 is "no" then by all means, enact the law.
If the answer to 1 is "yes" and the answer to 2 is "yes", it needs to be decided, is the loss of the good thing worth the prevention of the bad thing?
For example: the Houston Transgender Equality law.
1) There's really no way that law can prevent rape, or kidnapping of women, in bathrooms. (How could you even do it? Station police in every women's room to make sure that nobody with a penis goes in?)
Thus, there's no reason for that law. But, anyway
2) it will prevent transgender people from using their preferred gender. Personal comfort and freedom is supposed to be the sum total of goals in the USA. Even if you don't agree with their lives.
(Note: I really don't think that gay/straight or transgender is a conscious choice. It's part of the biological make-up. I'm not going to get into the juvenile, stupid jokes from certain politicians about "finding their feminine side")
Voting and Fear
So, last Tuesday, local elections happened. Several things of note: New Jersey democrats went from a small minority in the state government, to a large minority (though still a minority), surprising basically everybody. Several states that already had the Medicaid expansion elected new governors who have vowed to remove it. And, in Houston, transgender people's rights were removed.
I take a lesson from New Jersey: if you're legal, register and VOTE! The statistically most common reasons for not voting are, I believe, my vote doesn't matter, there are thousands of people voting. How could I make any difference? Well, NJ is how. Nobody thought so many Dems would take seats. But they did. Why? Because people who wanted them to, showed up and voted them in.
The other reason, is that certain areas are making it basically impossible to vote, calling it protection against "voter fraud". Look up the numbers yourself; there have been less than 10 actual cases of voter fraud in the last decade or so. That is so statistically tiny that it won't even show up in percentile data analysis.
The Houston thing got me thinking. The act was voted down, basically because the anti-rights people terrified the populace by essentially threatening that rapists (no, not "sexual predators"; see the George Carlin bit on Euphemisms) would just dress in women's clothes to get in the women's bathroom.
My first thought about this was: "Wait. People planning to commit the worst, vilest crime that can be committed against someone is going to not do it in a bathroom because they're not supposed to be in the women's bathroom?" Really? The most heinous crime will be prevented by a social norm keeping men out of bathrooms?
To me, this seems transparent, make up something to be scared of, and tell them this law will make it happen. Whether or not it's going to be true or not. It's kinda nasty. Unfortunately, it seems effective.
I take a lesson from New Jersey: if you're legal, register and VOTE! The statistically most common reasons for not voting are, I believe, my vote doesn't matter, there are thousands of people voting. How could I make any difference? Well, NJ is how. Nobody thought so many Dems would take seats. But they did. Why? Because people who wanted them to, showed up and voted them in.
The other reason, is that certain areas are making it basically impossible to vote, calling it protection against "voter fraud". Look up the numbers yourself; there have been less than 10 actual cases of voter fraud in the last decade or so. That is so statistically tiny that it won't even show up in percentile data analysis.
The Houston thing got me thinking. The act was voted down, basically because the anti-rights people terrified the populace by essentially threatening that rapists (no, not "sexual predators"; see the George Carlin bit on Euphemisms) would just dress in women's clothes to get in the women's bathroom.
My first thought about this was: "Wait. People planning to commit the worst, vilest crime that can be committed against someone is going to not do it in a bathroom because they're not supposed to be in the women's bathroom?" Really? The most heinous crime will be prevented by a social norm keeping men out of bathrooms?
To me, this seems transparent, make up something to be scared of, and tell them this law will make it happen. Whether or not it's going to be true or not. It's kinda nasty. Unfortunately, it seems effective.
Tuesday, October 20, 2015
Immigrants
Okay, I think I finally figured out why so many white people (yeah, fine, mostly Republicans) are scared of immigrants.
They think the new immigrants are going to be like them; or more accurately, their ancestors. You know, the ones who came here fleeing religious persecution and set up a perfect replica of their religious ideal, then proceeded to starve to death when they couldn't figure out how to plant.
They got help and support from the indigenous people, food and supplies, and teaching how to plant and reap crops, then after a while, killed them all and took over. Or, if not killed them, made them lose their culture and identity, forcing them to tiny areas much smaller than the land they occupied before (often in a completely different part of the continent), and giving them no self-rule or authority at all, no opportunities for living, and making them go to white schools and learn "correct" history. History with no mention of them except as conquered and deserving of it.
Now, the descendants of those religious settlers are the "natives" and they're terrified that the new crop of immigrants and refugees from persecution will follow their own example: accept their help and be incredibly grateful, and then destroy them, just like their own ancestors did.
There are two basic problems with that thinking:
1) not everybody is as selfish and violent as you are. These immigrants want to be American; we really are the "shining city on the hill" and we are (mostly) admired and envied by others in the world; when they get the chance, they want to be part of the USA. If our demographics are changing, we need to keep up. The USA has always been a melting pot; many peoples, from many places and cultures, coming together to make a great amalgam, better than, but still holding to, the places and cultures they came from.
2) These refugees and immigrants are already being turned away from everywhere. They are homeless, desperate, and have nothing. Giving them aid, a place, a life, will earn their love and loyalty for those who gave it. Giving them nothing and telling them there is no room at the inn, will make them even more desperate and who knows what might happen, to them or to anywhere they may be stranded, if and when they finally break?
That is, if you need selfish reasons to help, instead of just helping those in need because you're a good person. We have so much to gain from them if we offer help, and so much to lose if we don't.
I know, I know, enemies of giving assistance to "brown people" keep saying "ISIS has said they're going to take advantage of this to sneak into the US." Well, we have vetting processes. Far too many actually. It can take more than 3 months to even clear the background checks, let alone get in with a visa. Homeland Security, medical, FBI, CIA, NSA, and many others all do independent checks on everybody coming in. It's kind of insane, how much checking is done, but are you really saying that all those various and different agencies, doing their own checks, will all miss an ISIS mole sneaking in? Really? Are all of those agencies totally incompetent?
Then, there's the other thought. ISIS has proven themselves quite savvy in PR and new media. It's entirely possible (maybe even likely?) that they're releasing these statements so that other countries will turn away the refugees, who will tell their families and friends back home, who will then stay put, under ISIS control, rather than trying a horrendous journey that will end with them being sent back anyway. Consolidating their control and the hold over the people they've taken.
They could also try to use it as recruiting: "see, the West is so scared of us, they won't even help the detritus that flees our nation," or "see? The infidels don't really care about you. We do." or even both. Goodness knows that even in the US, a particular group can say two completely contradictory things at different times and have both be accepted.
Again, there are many reasons to help; not least of which is it's a human, and humane, thing to do. And few, if any, valid reasons not to.
They think the new immigrants are going to be like them; or more accurately, their ancestors. You know, the ones who came here fleeing religious persecution and set up a perfect replica of their religious ideal, then proceeded to starve to death when they couldn't figure out how to plant.
They got help and support from the indigenous people, food and supplies, and teaching how to plant and reap crops, then after a while, killed them all and took over. Or, if not killed them, made them lose their culture and identity, forcing them to tiny areas much smaller than the land they occupied before (often in a completely different part of the continent), and giving them no self-rule or authority at all, no opportunities for living, and making them go to white schools and learn "correct" history. History with no mention of them except as conquered and deserving of it.
Now, the descendants of those religious settlers are the "natives" and they're terrified that the new crop of immigrants and refugees from persecution will follow their own example: accept their help and be incredibly grateful, and then destroy them, just like their own ancestors did.
There are two basic problems with that thinking:
1) not everybody is as selfish and violent as you are. These immigrants want to be American; we really are the "shining city on the hill" and we are (mostly) admired and envied by others in the world; when they get the chance, they want to be part of the USA. If our demographics are changing, we need to keep up. The USA has always been a melting pot; many peoples, from many places and cultures, coming together to make a great amalgam, better than, but still holding to, the places and cultures they came from.
2) These refugees and immigrants are already being turned away from everywhere. They are homeless, desperate, and have nothing. Giving them aid, a place, a life, will earn their love and loyalty for those who gave it. Giving them nothing and telling them there is no room at the inn, will make them even more desperate and who knows what might happen, to them or to anywhere they may be stranded, if and when they finally break?
That is, if you need selfish reasons to help, instead of just helping those in need because you're a good person. We have so much to gain from them if we offer help, and so much to lose if we don't.
I know, I know, enemies of giving assistance to "brown people" keep saying "ISIS has said they're going to take advantage of this to sneak into the US." Well, we have vetting processes. Far too many actually. It can take more than 3 months to even clear the background checks, let alone get in with a visa. Homeland Security, medical, FBI, CIA, NSA, and many others all do independent checks on everybody coming in. It's kind of insane, how much checking is done, but are you really saying that all those various and different agencies, doing their own checks, will all miss an ISIS mole sneaking in? Really? Are all of those agencies totally incompetent?
Then, there's the other thought. ISIS has proven themselves quite savvy in PR and new media. It's entirely possible (maybe even likely?) that they're releasing these statements so that other countries will turn away the refugees, who will tell their families and friends back home, who will then stay put, under ISIS control, rather than trying a horrendous journey that will end with them being sent back anyway. Consolidating their control and the hold over the people they've taken.
They could also try to use it as recruiting: "see, the West is so scared of us, they won't even help the detritus that flees our nation," or "see? The infidels don't really care about you. We do." or even both. Goodness knows that even in the US, a particular group can say two completely contradictory things at different times and have both be accepted.
Again, there are many reasons to help; not least of which is it's a human, and humane, thing to do. And few, if any, valid reasons not to.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)