Letters to the Editor
-
Thank you Pollyanna
Oh good, another vector of the strain of wishful thinking currently virulent on the left, especially among the Democratic party where it brings the welcome message that they don't have to actually do anything or have any ideas because the Bush administration, heck the entire Republican party, will simply fall apart on its own and we'll all suddenly find ourselves at the end of "It's A Wonderful Life."
The only reason that various factions on the right are openly bickering is because they know that their hold on power is secure as long as the left is passively waiting for things to change.
-
Re: Poppycock
"So if the Democrats don't stand for anything, what is all this...? http://www.democrats.org/agenda.html
What you are really saying is that unless the Democrats act like Republicans and talk in Fascist lockstep with 1 voice, 1 talking point list, 1 "Vision for America", they cannot win?"
---
I assume this is in response to my post here.
If the vague banalities of the Democratic party web site you reference above is your defense of the Democratic party, you have made my rebuttal easy. I see little or nothing here but right-wing fear mongering and empty rhetoric.
It is telling that there is not even so much as even a MENTION of the Iraq War on this so-called 'agenda' of the Democratic party. When vague banalities won't do, just avoid the issue entirely, seems to be their strategy.
The Democratic party site you reference does boast that the Dems 'led the fight to create the Department of Homeland Security.' Some strategy that is in the wake of the spy scandals and Katrina.
The Democratic party site you reference boasts that, 'Our nation stands as a shining example to all the world of freedom and democracy, a unique honor that comes with a responsibility to lead.' If that is their position, one can see why many now consider the Democratic party as the Bush Administration's most important political prop.
The Democratic party site you reference boasts that, 'Democrats believe we must support our troops by modernizing our military to that it better meets the threats of the 21st century.' Is this ANY different than the rhetoric we hear from the Bush Administration?
The Democratic party site you reference boasts that, 'The Democratic Party believes in balanced budgets and paying down our national debt..' Really? How are they going to do that? Tax hikes? Pulling out of Iraq? Reducing spending on the military and domestic security apparatus?
If the US continues the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, as by their silence one can only presume they will do, and if the US continues to spend on the military and project our forces wherever we see fit, as by their own statements one can also only assume, and we have no tax hikes or end to the bush tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy, as one must assume by their silence here as well, then whose backs is the budget going to be balanced on? The answer must lie with those who, in their own words, must be 'more competitive' - that is, the American working population.
No, taking a stand is not about 'talking in fascist lockstep.' It is, however, about taking actual positions on issues and spelling out in a somewhat specific, coherent and reasonable manner how a particular broad goal is to be accomplished.
Whether eminating from the Rebublicans or their supposed opponents, the Democrats, banalities and platitudes mean absolutely nothing. Avoidance and empty rhetoric on the part of the Democratic party has not in the past, nor will it in the future, result in progress.
Progress requires taking actual stands - one might hope even opposition stands - on the great issues of the day. By now, one would think that it should be pretty apparent that we are not going to see this from the Democratic party, or anywhere else from within the political establishment.
Progress is going to come up from below, outside the established political realm, not from within it. When that occurs, one can expect that the so-called 'left,' along with the Democratic party bureaucracy, will be left standing, once again, on the political sidelines along side their corporate and wealthy paymasters. And the sooner, the better.
-
An Immigrant -- Stop Begrudging Others
You can delude yourself into believing that millions of people can
be moved without the US adopting fascist techniques, but many of us
can't.
-
Of course...
...hate, fear, intolerance, selfishness NEVER last for very long. It's always just been a matter of time.
-
No, Dennis
The only delusion here is your false dichotomy of open-borders v. mass deportations.
To begin with, normal enforcement of existing laws + sealing the border would make being an illegal alien a less attractive thing for foreigners. Combined with some incentives program, many would leave on their own. And remember, that in a way, none of this is new. We cut off immigration 1924-1965, and it's time we do this again.
Remember: when it comes to enforcement, where there is a will, there is a way. Examples: enforcing the ban of cigarette sales to minors, providing disabled access on virually every public building in teh U.S., and many other seemingly overwhelming things that we put our minds to, we can do.
-
Immigrant -- That's YOUR False Dichotomy
You must have forgotten my original message: I applauded Bush's trying to
navigate a course between the radical wing of his party, and those who
advocate a more rational course.
The false dichotomy of Open Borders v. Mass Deportation is what is being sold
by rabid anti-immigrant types.
BTW: The US doesn't have Open Borders -- just very porous, fixable ones. The mob is
anxious to cast them as such tho, to increase the sense of urgency for extreme
action.
Also, the US admitted millions of immigrants between 1924 and 1965. It simply
admitted fewer.
-
A puzzlement about immigration
Earlier a letter writer complained that illegal immigrants work unskilled jobs and do not pay enough in taxes to offset their draw upon public services, so they shouldn't be here. There are some implications to this position that the letter writer may not have thought of.
1) Should no one be allowed to work an unskilled job? How will this necessary work get done then? Or are we to give up on all agricultural products (as one example)?
1b) Should skilled workers be forced as part of their jobs to work at unskilled labor part time, since no one will be allowed to concentrate all their effort for low pay? Lawyers picking strawberries?
2) Should no one with dependents be allowed to work an unskilled job, and as a corollary no one with an unskilled job would be allowed to have dependents? Unenforceable.
3) Should minimum wage be raised so that people who do a necessary job have minimum standard of living? This is probably the best approach, though it will raise the price of many commodities.
4) Or should we simply realize that people who work unskilled work are systematically underpaid; public cost to support their education and emergency health care is returning to them what they should have received in their pay, and the taxes on it.
As far as the solution goes, I am in favor of a mixed solution: guest worker cards with path to citizenship; a better minimum wage; a good fence with strong patrolling; prosecuting businesses that use illegal labor (particularly if they are abusive or coercive); pressure on other countries to reform their own economy; i.e. both a carrot and a stick.