I know some readers think Obama is equivalent to Stalin in his policies and actions, but I think that’s completely nuts. In general, he’s been a good President, has gotten the economy moving, gotten health care enacted, and is pulling the U.S. out of our futile entanglements in the Middle East. And really, would you have preferred Romney?
But if he has one overweening failure, it’s his confidence that he could work with the Republicans in Congress to enact bipartisan reform, particularly of immigration. That was dumb: the Republican agenda consists of four words: Defeat Anything Obama Wants. It took a while for Obama to realize this, and then he stalled his own action on immigration reform until after the mid-term elections, hoping that this cowardly delay would help the Democrats.
Well, we know how that worked out. So, yesterday, Obama announced a fairly comprehensive plan of immigration reform, to be implemented by executive order. I didn’t watch his speech since the details had already been released, but here are a few provisions as reported in today’s New York Times and CNN:
- Five million illegal immigrant will be protected from deportation.
- Four million of those can apply for legal status and receive Social Security cards, so long as they are parents of legal U.S. citizen (children born here or their children who received legal status already), have been in the U.S. five years or longer. and pass background checks. They will be required to pay U.S. taxes but will not (I think) be eligible for “Obamacare”.
- Children who were brought here illegally (the “dreamers”) will be allowed to stay.
- A federal program that allowed document checks of people stopped for small offenses like traffic violations will be ended.
- On the enforcement side, gang members and criminals will be increasingly targeted for prosecution or deportation, and there will be new provisions and funding to stem the flow of illegal immigrants (good luck with that!)
This was the right thing to do. These immigrants, though often characterized as parasites on the U.S. economy, do many of the necessary but onerous jobs that Americans don’t want. Many busboys and dishwashers in Chicago, for example, are undocumented Hispanics. This gives them a chance to work their way out of poverty and to fulfill something I still believe in: the “American dream.” There’s no way we can simply prosecute and deport every one of the millions of people who are here illegally.
So chalk one up for the President, even if this action was deferred too long. He learned his lesson about Republicans the hard way: they have no interest in ruling by consensus with the executive branch.
Two problems remain. First, there’s the goddam Republicans, who, incensed that Obama is letting brown people stay in the country, are threatening reprisal—either further pushback of Democratic legislation or even a shutdown of the government. That is the action of a petulant child. The only immigration “reform” most Republicans want is to keep all non-white people out of the country.
Second, it will be nearly impossible to stem the tide of immigrants, or so I think. Walls don’t stop them, police don’t stop them; nothing, it seems, will stop them. Life is simply better here—even as a low-wage undocumented worker with a crummy job—than in places like Honduras or much of Mexico. So the flow of immigrants is a problem deferred, not a problem solved.
One thing I noticed in all this debate: “illegal immigrant” or “illegal alien” has been replaced with the term “undocumented immigrant.” I wasn’t aware of this transformation, but I found one report saying that “illegal” is offensive to such people. I find that bizarre, for they truly did come into this country illegally, and, after all, “undocumented” means “a worker without legal documents.” This is the kind of euphemism, propagated by immigration reformers, that is supposed to defuse the illegality of what happened. (Orwell’s essay “Politics and the English Language” gives many examples.) But let us make no mistake; these people came here illegally. Nevertheless, the fact that they broke the law (many out of sheer desperation) is irrelevant to the justice that Obama meted out yesterday.
sub
If we’d followed Romney’s advice in 2008, we’d be in the 6th year of the second Great Depression.
Only the 99%… 😉
Indeed.
When it comes to the economy, I’d agree that Obama is better than Romney, but Obama is just Bush III. For example, TARP, TALF, “Stimulus”, QE 1,2,3,…, Dodd Frank and Obamacare: all programs designed to transfer wealth FROM the masses, including illegal aliens, TO the financial institutions.
And the “illegals” are a HUGE target for financial institutions because their money is in the shadows instead of on the banks’ balance sheets. They hold cash, not bank deposits. They use Western Union instead of bank wires. Much of their income doesn’t show up anywhere on paper. And when you add it all up you get a shadow economy worth hundreds of billions of dollars that the banks and insurance companies haven’t been able to tap.
Don’t kid yourselves about Obama. He shakes your right hand while stabbing you in the back with his left. Sure, that’s better than Romney — which is why I voted for him twice — but that’s not saying much.
I fail to see how the US health insurance program (“Obamacare”) differs in results from european social insurance, transferring earned money (as insurance costs and/or taxes) from everyone when not needed to everyone when needed.
It is akin to every other social transfer, and the gains has to be modeled such. (E.g. the elasticity has multiplicative effects, not additive.)
All insurance transfers earned money (as insurance costs and/or taxes) from everyone when not needed to everyone when needed. The automobile insurance I am required to have to drive an automobile requires that I purchase an insurance policy and pay a premium to an insurance company. The insurance company skims off an amount to ensure a comfortable profit and then pays the remainder to those who have an accident. The same applies to the homeowners’ policy that protects me from loss in the event of damage to my home.
Both of these insurance schemes are required either by law or by, in the case of most homeowners, the lending agent who finances the purchase of home or automobile. Health insurance is exactly the same whether it is required by law, as in Europe, or under the rather the incomprehensible “system” that we have in the USA.
I should add that we know that social medicine is beneficial towards a functional society (from Gapminder statistics) with less insecurity.
It is hence one of the effects Jerry mentions goes towards decreasing religiosity.
there’s a glaring difference between social medicine and social insurance coverage for medicine, my friend.
One is medicine and one is a financial product.
Insurance doesn’t transfer money. that’s credit. insurance transfers risk. It ENABLES insurance companies to force more product down our throats at increased costs.
Why wasn’t Obamacare a direct payment scheme like food stamps? Because that wouldn’t pad the pockets of the banks.
Politics is the art of the possible. Most Liberals wanted single payer but that was simply not possible. Even a milk toast solution as the ACA has the Republicans freaking out, and it was their idea.
I’m generally a supporter of the President, but I think he made a mistake by not putting single-payer healthcare on the table up front. We would have ended up with Republicans freaking out in any case.
I think his desire for compromise and mistaken belief that Republicans could be reasonable contributed to the fiasco of 2010 when too many Democrats stayed home, IMO because they were disappointed by repeated caving to Republicans.
But I could be wrong.
I think he did the right thing, from Krugman:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/11/18/the-structure-of-obamacare/?module=BlogPost-Title&version=Blog%20Main&contentCollection=Opinion&action=Click&pgtype=Blogs®ion=Body
Yeah it is like he just doesn’t want to be Democrat enough. I really hope the next president is a Democrat so it isn’t all ripped a part.
“I think his desire for compromise and mistaken belief that Republicans could be reasonable . . . .”
Perhaps he was so mistaken. In any event, no reasonable person can ever claim that Obama never gave these bloody “compassionate conservative” Republicans every reasonable opportunity to pass an immigration bill Beohner sat on for 500-plus days.
I firmly support Obama’s executive action. However, on the audio of Obama’s Las Vegas high school speech, some young man (interrupts?) yells at him to the effect that he ought to do more. Just what do immigration reformers think Obama ought to do? Give amnesty to EVERY illegal immigrant?
Personally, I think we need to seriously re-think the whole notion of border security and immigration control in the first place.
It’s by now more than painfully clear that we’re no more capable of closing off our borders than the East Germans were. And the Mexican Border Fence is causing all the same misery the Berlin Wall ever created — even with our own Border Patrol killing would-be Mexican immigrants with almost as much reckless abandon as the Stasi killed would-be Communist refugees.
I would argue that we should, as Saint Reagan challenged Gorbachev, tear down that wall.
I would keep the border checkpoints at the roads, and require passports of all coming in (with separate processing for those seeking asylum, of course). I would not require any visas; if you have a valid passport and you don’t throw any red flags when your electronic records are searched at the border, you can come in and stay as long as you like.
The principle distinctions I would make would be with respect to citizenship. If you want to come here for an indefinite stay, you’re welcome to do so…but you’ll have to go through the naturalization process before you can vote or run for office or otherwise engage in the civic process. If you commit sufficiently serious crimes while you’re here, we may well decide to kick you out and not let you back in after you’ve served your time in the criminal justice system.
But that’s about it. If you want to work, you have to show wither proof of citizenship or a passport with a US entry stamp. If you pay into Social Security, you should be able to receive benefits the same as anybody else. If you don’t pay your taxes, you should face the wrath of the IRS the same as anybody else — and quite possibly be deported after they’re through with you. It’s only when you want to have a voice in how we conduct our affairs that you’d have to become one of us.
Of course, this isn’t anything that Obama could even pretend to do on his own authority — and, also, of course, not anything that Congress would ever even pretend to attempt to accomplish.
But that doesn’t mean that it wouldn’t be the right thing to do.
b&
It would help if all politicians had some knowledge of their neighbours. I still hear some say, “we need to keep Canadians on their side of the border.” Why because you don’t want us shopping there during Black Friday? We mix our quarters in with your quarters? Of course the answer is they think Canada is a third world, socialist country that harbours terrorists. It’s why Martin Short’s Jiminiy Glick character is so funny to Canadians when he asks a Canadian actor (I forget who) if Canadians don’t just stand at the border and hope.
If the politicians are this ignorant about Canadians, they must be just as misguided about Mexicans and why they come to America.
“Of course the answer is they think Canada is a third world, socialist country that harbours terrorists.”
Seriously? I’d think it might be because they’re afraid Americans might begin to notice that it’s possible to be a thriving first world nation while having universal health care, etc.
You clearly live near a Canadian border and/or are educated :). Americans who do or are typically shake their heads st these politicians.
I like to think both. 🙂 I’ll bet some of those pols know better too, just playin’ to their base base.
Some of them do know better…but many of them are dumber than Dubya….
b&
There’s a perfectly good explanation for this confusion on the part of Americans. In the United States, all 3rd graders (students in grade three) learn that the top of the USA on the map is the 49th parallel. The other side was understood to be “not the USA”. Lesson done. Well… polar bears. Time for lunch.
youtube dot com/watch?v=qMkYlIA7mgw
“Dumber than W”.
It is hard to determine who is the dumbest member of Congress. Louie Gohmert had a pretty solid hold on the prize for the past few years, although the competition was stiff. But with this latest election I think even he will have to slide over to make room for Glenn Grothman. Louie is going to have to learn to share.
Would you care to state who is the rudest member of Congress? (Would Shimkus be on your short list?)
Rudest? Some tough competition there, too. But Joe Wilson certainly is a contender.
I don’t think he’s Bush III, but I do think you have a valid criticism, to a point. The only logical reason for the ASA to be structured the way it is rather than as a single payer system is to include the insurance industry. A single payer system would probably never have made it through congress, but if the WH had pushed harder for that, they would’ve been negotiating from a better position, instead if the compromised position from which they negotiated.
In my mind the distinguishing components of the Obama presidency are:
-Good on health care reform
-Decent on foreign policy
-About as good as could be expected on the economy, given that many other factors beyond presidential policies affect it
-Terrible on fourth amendment (police powers, search and seizure etc.) issues.
Good on LGBT
Agreed 100.00%.
I don’t think Obama’s announcement will really have an impact on what Congress does. This gives the GOP a public excuse to do the things the would have done anyway (such as threaten to shut down government and try and pass legislation repealing ACA), but that’s all.
This policy gives nothing to newly-arrived illegals or people considering illegal immigration in the near future, so it shouldn’t impact numbers. Moreover, as Obama said, pretty much every president in the past 30 years has done something similar. (As just one example, in 1986 Reagan signed a law legalizing all non-criminal illegal immigrants who had arrived before 1982…that sounds similar but more liberal than Obama’s reform, doesn’t it?) So the mere fact of Obama doing this shouldn’t encourage or increase immigration, either, because all our presidents keep doing it every few years.
But in any event, I don’t particularly see a million per year illegal immigration (much of that seasonal) to a country with a population of 320 million as a major problem.
Yes, this is exactly right (last paragraph). It’s not a problem.
Lots of luck getting a new roof installed on your house without these hard-working people! Lots of luck getting your crops harvested.
They aren’t coming to the US to leech off the government; they are coming here to work and send money back to their families.
For the Republicans, this is just another way to play to their base — who don’t want brown people around.
I recently heard an interview with David Durenberger, former Republican Senator from Minnesota — and one of those old-style, practical Republicans of bygone days. He told the interviewer that of course much of the GOP opposition to Obama is because he is black, duh!
“Lots of luck getting a new roof installed on your house without these hard-working people! Lots of luck getting your crops harvested.”
I wonder how many growers (and their children) labor in the fields when labor is in short supply?
Were labor market conditions not changed by bringing in immigrants, how much would growers pay for(Amuricun-born) labor, and how much would we be willing to pay for produce? What labor business can’t off-shore, it brings in at low-wage cost. (That’s a mindset to be greatly admired and, on its behalf, ought prompt one to enter the military to go in harm’s way to possibly (probably?) be killed or maimed for life, eh?)
Notwithstanding that, EVERYBODY ought to be willing to do at least a little manual labor, if only for character-development purposes, and if only in their youth. But more and more native-born Amuricuns (not to be confused with Native Americans) can’t be bothered. We’ve become more and more a bloody spoiled society. Growers (and I gather roofers) claim (with some reasonable justification) that native-born Amuricuns don’t have the work ethic to bear up under these rather onerous, low-paying jobs (of course never addressing the issue of their trying to pay peons as little as possible).
“that sounds similar but more liberal than Obama’s reform, doesn’t it?”
It does and I think it makes a compelling case for the extent to which the political spectrum has been skewed to the right for the last 30 years or so.
Oh yes, I loved the shut-down talk. That worked so well for them the last few times they tried it!
🙂 But the elections are two years away – everybody will have forgotten about it by then, which is probably what they’re counting on – at least that’s what I’m afraid of.
If there is a shutdown in October like there was last time, it will be October 2015. The presidential primaries will start as early as January 2016, so you betcha people will be campaigning in October 2015.
This is not to say it can’t happen. The GOP folk in Congress may not see eye to eye with one or more of the GOP presidential candidates. Each has their own agenda. So the fact that a shut down may make primary campaigning harder for some presidential candidates may not be the deciding factor for many of the GOP house members.
The current continuing resolution expires on December 12th of this year, if I am not mistaken. That’s the immediate shutdown they’re talking about, I think, and that I was referring to.
I agree that not all GOP folks will see eye to eye with each other so that might not mean much for one in October 2015, although I do think they wouldn’t want to risk it (and give ammo to the other party) so close before elections.
Yes there is the budget and then maybe a debt ceiling debate to get through early in 2015. No doubt the GOP will push for concessions on both. But Obama already called their bluff on the last debt ceiling negotiation, not budging on ACA one bit, and they blinked. I’m guessing the same thing will happen this time: he won’t give any major concessions, and in the end the mainstream GOP members will convince the tea partiers that not-passing a CR or debt ceiling increase will be infinitely worse for them than passing one (without the concessions they asked for).
The GOP will never oppose debt ceiling hikes because they’re puppets for the banks. If they don’t sell Yellen (Obama’s gal) more treasuries then they can’t continue to shaft the taxpayer.
The republican party is out of control. I don’t think they have a mechanism to stop a shutdown. If (when?) it happens, I think the democrats win. America won’t stand for being kept out of their national parks. Retaliation in 2016 should mean a democratic president and could move the Senate back to democratic control.
It worked well enough for the Republicans to take over the House in 2010 and the Senate in 2012, not to mention all the local and state offices they control.
“he’s been a good President, has got the economy moving, gotten health care enacted, and is pulling the U.S. out of our futile entanglements in the Middle East.”
…and how long will it take the Republicans to overturn every single thing you mentioned.
They have already said Obama’s immigration policy is unconstitutional. How quickly will they move impeach him?
I also voted for Obama twice. He has been a good President, but he is a lousy politician.
he is a lousy politician.
Yes, I often think that someone should have sat Obama down before taking office and made him read Caro’s biographical series on Lyndon Johnson so that he might learn a few things about how to deal with intransigent opposition. Even better, he should have studied FDR.
As evidenced, for example, by politicians being cornered and subjected to what one senator called “The Johnson Treatment”? There is at least one famous photograph of this overbearing, Philistine behavior by Johnson.
It doesn’t seem to have cost them much, does it? Seen as just another part of the overall obstruction strategy, the shutdowns have come virtually without penalty.
Thanks for the reasonable summary of the immigration issue. I just don’t see banging our collective heads against the wall for a policy that will not work and is too expensive. I’ve never heard anyone state how 11 million folks can be deported. Let’s document them, have them paid above the table and pay their taxes …
30% or more have come to the US with visas and did not leave when their papers expired. The border fence is a smoke screen and an excuse to do nothing.
The US literally can’t deport 11 million people because Congress only provides funds to deport a few hundred thousand every year, and has had the tendency to cut even this budget in recent years.
“…if he has one overweening failure, it’s his confidence that he could work with the Republicans in Congress…” While I agree, there is merit in patience, even when frustrating others. I believe he has had a good grasp of how the President is to function. It will be interesting to see how the Republicans deal with his actions these last two years.
Harry Truman said, “The President has two jobs: conduct foreign policy and be the chief lobbyist for the people of the United States.” (recalled) I believe the President is doing his best on both counts.
Obama will go down in history as a great president (getting us out of Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Great Recession, getting millions on health insurance for the first time, making the first step towards a sane health care system, resisting (most of) the nonsense of the GOP).
W. Bush will go down as a terrible president. A notoriously bad one. (Two bad and extremely expensive wars, wiping his ass on the Constitution, running the economy into the ditch, the total fail NCLB attempt to destroy public school and teacher unions, tax cuts for the wealthy, screw job for the rest)
*like*
It will take a while for this version of history to be accepted, but I think you are basically correct. Obama is currently quite unpopular according to the standard media. Commentary is telling us about all his shortcomings. But, just wait a decade for his impact to be appreciated. I’m sure Obama himself believes this.
jblilie, you’re just tip-toeing around the edges.
“getting millions on health insurance for the first time”
Remember, Bush socialized medicine too with Medicare/Medicaid Act of 2003.
But every time they do that — Democrat, Republican, Bush, Obama — they’re all painting targets on your money for the banks. That’s the central principle that guides all of these scummy politicians. Take your money and give it to their masters.
Why do so many liberals assume that Obama’s motivation is justice, while ignoring Dodd-Frank, TALF, QE, etc.???
“Take your money and give it to their masters.”
There’s a lot of truth in this statement. It started with Reagan. Look at who got the money since 1981, look at the trends. (Everyone should go to the BLS website and search for historical tables, income by quintile, then plot the data.) “Trickle Down” should be called “flow upward”.
I am somewhat dissatisfied with the ACA because it didn’t go far enough.
Health care does not fit the insurance model. Health care should be universal.
Europe spends far less than we do, has better outcomes than we do, and everyone is covered.
Health care costs was (and probably still is) the number one cause of personal bankruptcy in the US. We used to pay for the indigent to be treated at ERs (the only places that couldn’t turn them away) at hugely inflated costs (and worse outcomes, since they waited far too long to go to the ER, typically). I really can’t see why anyone (other than insurance company executives) feels any nostalgia for that system.
Right.
Obamacare doesn’t make sense if you really cared about the poor or the uninsured.
It DOES make sense if you cared about transferring wealth FROM the poor TO the insurance companies (financial institutions).
Obama is no saint.
There was talk about “single payer” and more extensive coverage, but I don’t think it would have been feasible to get that past the congress. ACA is a start. It can be built upon, and I think that’s the hope of many, including Obama.
Exactly. Here’s how Scott Lemieux at the Lawyers, Guns, & Money Blog responds to the notion that the president didn’t go far enough with the ACA: “It’s just that some people refuse to compare the ACA to the status quo ante rather than a superior alternative that had no chance of passing, and saying that Obama just signed the ‘Heritage Plan’ sounds a lot better than being open that your offer to the uninsured and working poor until Congress can pass the Magic Ponies and Unicorns Act of 4545 is the same as the Republican one: ‘nothing.'”
Yes, Obama is well liked throughout the world as well. He tests as more popular in Canada than in the US! It’s a shame he didn’t close gitmo though.
Sorry Diana, but global popularity isn’t a feather in the cap.
I’ll bet George Washington wasn’t testing well in British Parliament in 1776, or even among Loyalists in this country. And good for him!
“British Parliament in 1776” can hardly be equated to “global”.
Washington and the rest of the American leadership was rather popular in many parts of Europe in the late 18th Century. Including in parts of the British Parliament (not the majority, of course).
Ok, that’s true.
I just hate it when people compare how we do things in the US vs the rest of the world. Why not also take into account what we produce vs the rest of the world and ask if you like the trade-off?
The rest of the world didn’t invent the telephone, the television, the airplane, the computer, the internet, etc. They didn’t come to England’s rescue in WW2 and they’re not where Ebola patients want to be right now.
I thought liberals were all about tolerance. I’m just saying don’t get your panties in a bunch just because the US is different than other countries.
Hmmm didn’t think mentioning that Obama is popular and actually more popular outside the US is criticizing the US as somehow bad. As for WWII don’t even go there. America is always late to wars!
No, it didn’t come off as a criticism, just not the strongest defense of Obama.
I guess, nominalfinance, I don’t comprehend your point. It seems to be that you just don’t like the fact that President Obama is reasonably popular around much of the world.
Feeling jingoistic today?
Well, I just don’t like the fact that our president’s popularity in another country is used by some as a measuring stick. The president works for the people in THIS country. He’s paid with OUR tax dollars. So I think OUR opinion of him is what’s important.
Haha, Wikipedia says “jingoism” connotes excess bias in favor of one’s country. I certainly favor THIS country, but so does everyone in the world when it comes to investing — so I don’t feel excessively biased.
Just look at the bond market.
Strange as it may seem, the US is one country among a great many that share a little rock spinning around in space. You may not care what the neighbors think, but I sure do.
We have to live with all the rest of the folk on our rock. Our economies are intertwined. We share the same air and oceans. What they think of us is a critical factor that affects our lives here in our own comfy homes.
Well put and believe me, Canadians are close to Americans. We are your closest ally and many of us have American friends and family. We don’t like it when bad things happen to you guys not only because we like yous but because it also affects us.
I’m sorry, I just can’t let that pass. The Telephone was invented by Scot Alexander Graham Bell, who did much of the preliminary work in Scotland, England and Canada. The television was invented by Scot John Logie Baird, and although his mechanical system was not ultimately adopted, he also did significant pioneering work in colour TV.
I’ll grant you the aeroplane, and leave it to others to discuss the computer and the internet. You have a wonderful country with a great record of innovation, but that doesn’t mean you can claim every invention just because it makes you feel good.
I’m not “claiming every innovation.” And like Newton, if we’ve seen further it’s because we stood on the shoulders of giants, etc… no question.
But I do think that for a relatively young country the US kicks relatively much a$$ BECAUSE we’re different than the rest of the world in ways they might not approve of.
Yes, America was very, very popular with France and they were inspired by 1776 so much that they had their very own 1789!
I think it’s essential for foreign relations. The US under Bush didn’t do so well in the eyes of the world and that isn’t good for anybody.
Ok, I agree that foreign policy and foreign relations are important, but I think domestic policy and domestic relations are a priority for any US President.
Bush was a scumbag mostly because of how he fouled up THIS country.
W couldn’t very well walk and chew gum, but he was very good at screwing up both international and domestic affairs.
Huh?
We’re nowhere near getting out of Afghanistan; as has been the case since his first campaign, the promise is to begin troop reductions sometime within the next year or so. All that time, he’s never actually, you know? Gotten us out of Afghanistan? Or actually made significant reductions in troop levels there?
And now we’re back in Iraq, with an intense air assault and rumblings about ground “advisors.” Remember that “advisor” has been the Newspeak word for, “non-commissioned officer” since at least Korea.
b&
That’s what I wanted to say, too–how are we out of those countries?
Brilliant post, Dr Coyne.
“ … … it will be nearly impossible to stem the tide of immigrants, or so I think. Walls don’t stop them, police don’t stop them; nothing, it seems, will stop them.” My ancestors thought thus: “Life is simply better here—“ — and, consequently, came here to Iowa from England, Wales, Germany and Holland.
And truly.truly.truly, I knew — I literally knew The Future: the girls and women ( as the voters we 53% of the Planet’s population are — and were within the last election ) of the United States ( and, of course, ANYwhere else, for that matter ) canNOT “be led by” / canNOT be governed by yet one more president of The “Free” World whose brain stashes in to itself what Mitt Romney’s brain stuffs in to his: patriarchy with that patriarchy of his based upon religion.
Blue
I wish our democracies would allow two votes, so that you could cast a main vote at a smaller party, and if they get too few votes, they count the other vote instead.
This type of voting system could end the stupid two-party goverments, which imo, is bad for democracy and politics in general.
But our system of government is technically a federalist REPUBLIC and not a democracy for a VERY important reason:
Rule-by-majority (or by consensus) doesn’t protect and individual’s right not to be a slave. So it’s important that the ultimate arbiter be the rule of law, which protects minority interests against the majority.
The majority can (and has in the past) passed laws to discomfit the minority.
This has generally (sometimes after a very long time, eventually) been corrected by court action.
Laws do not protect the minority from the majority. The Constitution does.
A republic can be a democracy – hence the term “democratic republic.” I think what you’re trying to say is that we live a “constitutional democracy,” so the constitution protects minorities from majority-rule. Being a republic has little or nothing to do with it.
yes, that is what i’m trying to say. Republic essentially means government of the people BY the people, i.e. no class systems where one class rules a separate class. I think that DOES have something to do with it. But essentially I think we’re saying the same thing.
The phrase “rule of law” is not totally non-fatuous. (Apparently Spellcheck does not consider “unfatuous” a word.) Money talks, eh? Movers and Shakers – the Masters of the Universe – spend that money and get the law they want.
Also, what do you think of the “electoral college”? How is it right that a presidential candidate can win a majority of electoral votes with a minority of the popular vote? Ought the electoral college provision of the U.S. Constitution be repealed? After all, the average U.S. voter is at least a little more literate and knowledgeable, and surely less provincial, than in days of unthinking, reflexive, patriotic “American Exceptionalism” yore. (Or not?)
Well, I think people forget that they reside in States which have governments all their own. The US President is president of the union of states, not a particular mass of people.
So I think the electoral college plays an important role in protecting the representation of low-population states in the federal government.
If a big mass of people in one state wants to craft laws a certain way, well, that they can do — in their own state.
Is your argument that we should do away with states all together?
“Is your argument that we should do away with states all together?”
No. After all, as Kirk said to Spock in sick bay, for McCoy’s benefit, “C’mon Spock, let’s go mind the store.” 😉 Which is to say, there is some reasonable and appropriate division of duties. The states should take care of drivers licenses; the cities building permits; the federal gov’t should take care of foreign policy/wars, regardless of whether Exceptional Amuricuns – refulgent as they are in their “American Exceptionalism” – are intellectually curious about and want to trouble themselves to understand events outside national boundaries having nothing to do with their direct personal economic interest. (Re: Clinton’s, “It’s the economy, stupid” [and by implication noting outside the typical American’s direct economic interest].)
I’m not hearing you justify the Electoral College. Why not also have state Governor (and also U.S. Senator and Representative) elections similarly determined on a per-county (or even intra-county per-“civil district”) winner-take-all basis?
Also, why not go back to state legislatures electing U.S. senators?
“Why not also have state Governor (and also U.S. Senator and Representative) elections similarly determined on a per-county (or even intra-county per-”civil district”) winner-take-all basis?”
Well, that’s up to each state how they want to elect their governors.
We’re a country of self-rule. “why not go back to state legislatures electing U.S. senators?” Well, why ISN’T that the system anymore?
I’m not opposed to making changes to the system.
And I don’t hear you explaining why my original defense of the electoral college isn’t sound.
“And I don’t hear you explaining why my original defense of the electoral college isn’t sound.”
I’m satisfied, at least for the moment, with Diane G.’s reply:
“It only comes into play with the presidential election, anyway, which is a nationwide vote that should reflect the opinion of the population as a whole, not worry about some little state’s clout.”
‘We’re a country of self-rule. “why not go back to state legislatures electing U.S. senators?” Well, why ISN’T that the system anymore?’
Pray tell, how so? Until 1930 U.S. constitutional amendment, state legislatures elected state U.S. senators. Are you saying that is “de facto” what continues to be done, regardless of “de jure” constitutional “rule of law”?
I’m not surprised if it as you say it is. So much for “rule of law.”
No, I’m just saying that the selection of US senators is the way it is because people want it that way. if they want to change it back to how it was originally then the people can do that if they wish. You asked, “why not go back…etc”. My response was kind of a rhetorical question. Why did the people change the rule to its current form in the first place?
If you don’t think rule of law is great then move to China, honestly.
” . . . is the way it is because people want it that way . . . If you don’t think rule of law is great then move to China, honestly.”
In addition to what “the people” want, please feel free to no less hold forth on what the Movers and Shakers (the Masters of the Universe, the monied interests, the people who “own” this country and who offshore U.S. manufacturing jobs to China, and who view fellow flesh-and-blood human beings as mere “resources” and “capital”) want, as evidenced by the huge sums they spend on lobbying and election campaigning to gain the (rule of) law they want.
What I mean when I advocate doing away with the electoral college is that whoever wins the overall popular vote should win the election. Simple as that.
It only comes into play with the presidential election, anyway, which is a nationwide vote that should reflect the opinion of the population as a whole, not worry about some little state’s clout.
Diane, I guess you’re Canadian, so I don’t blame you, but you sound like you don’t understand our federalist system.
The federal government is a federation of states. That’s why, unlike you suggest, the states have clout.
Do you care about numerical minorities having representation in government? What about states in a union having representation in selecting the chief executive of the federation?
Do you favor having just one government-of-the-world?
Diane G = American
Diana MacPherson = American
Both live in cold parts.
Oops I meant I (Diana MacPherson) am Canadian. Evertime I make a joke tonight I screw it up. I guess I haven’t been sacrificing enough to the comedy gods.
Well, you’re equally as entertaining that way too.
😀
I think you’re thinking of Diana, not me. I was born in CA, and have lived in OR, MD, NY, TX, MA, & MI.
States are nowhere near as homogenous as they may have been in the early days of our nation. In most, the big urban centers lean blue, while the out-state areas are red, e.g. And not many people have the resources to vote with their feet, by which I mean each state will have a substantial population that differs from the majority view of that state. Those are the people our constitution went out of its way to protect. The electoral college disenfranchises them.
The Electoral College was originally a compromise that ensured that big states didn’t make small states irrelevant. And most of the reasons why such a compromise was necessary then still hold today, even if the implementation of the compromise is flawed.
Most of the flaws stem from the fact that states give all their votes to the winner of the popular vote in the state. A very simple fix would solve that problem without re-creating all the other problems the Electoral College was originally meant to address:
Apportion Electoral College votes not by state but by Congressional district, with the remaining two votes per state granted to the state’s overall popular vote winner.
However, Electoral College reform is most unlikely. It’s already damned expensive to run a presidential campaign, and the College saves significantly on expenses. There’s no need for either side to spend much money or pay much attention to either California or Texas. But either my proposal or a simple majority of the popular vote would mean candidates would suddenly have to compete in those areas, not something the leadership of either party wants anything to do with.
b&
Some states have already gone that route, I believe.
Yes, I think so. Don’t remember which, but I’m pretty sure they’re small ones, and only one or two.
b&
OK, OK, I’ll Google it.
Good old, progressive, Maine & Nebraska!
Yes, that’s right — thanks!
I could see more small states doing that. What I can’t see is either California nor Texas doing it. Not entirely out of the realm of possibility, of course…but I really don’t see it happening.
…I do see it happening before the abolition of the Electoral College altogether, though….
b&
Michigan’s legislature is considering it.
The motives, however, are not noble. Republican legislatures in states that typically vote Democratic in presidential years are motivated by a desire to dilute their own state’s influence and remove Democrat electors. It is yet another Republican attempt to game the system.
That’s why it’ll never happen in the big states. No way could the Republicans get something like that through the California legislature any more than the Democrats could the Texas legislature — at least, not without some sort of nationwide comprehensive agreement, and the Washington party leadership (and especially the campaign finance committees) would shoot that down in an instant.
b&
Some districts in California and Minnesota use ranked-choice voting for their local elections. It hasn’t caught on yet, but at least it’s being tried in some limited areas.
Yes, the trials here (MN, Twin Cities) have been, to my mind:
1. OK, I don’t mind it
2. Pretty clunky and slow (and costly)
3. Hard to implement well
4. Not particularly popular
Maybe a good first step away from the 2-party lock-down.
Australia uses a preferential voting system. We got the idea of a secret ballot from the Australians, maybe we will eventually pick up this idea also.
George
Paul Krugman had a wonderful article in defense of Obama in Rolling Stone. Mostly he is talking to Democrats attacking from the left. This is prior to his recent action on immigration.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/in-defense-of-obama-20141008
I’ve read that a major objection to the terms “illegal alien,” “illegal immigrant,” or more briefly “illegal” is referring to people as illegal, with implications beyond their immigration status.
Furthering a perception that they are against the law, as people. That the law has no protections for them, that they have zero rights.
“Undocumented” says that yes, they lack proper papers, but encourages the recognition that they’re still people, that immigration status does not wholly define them.
I think we’re in a trap here. Human rights mean less unless all people have them: is there really any difference between a society with second-class citizens and one with second-class non-citizens? Either one treats a large class of people inhumanely, and I find it no easier to blame immigrants for their situation than anyone else.
This is, of course, a myth. Citizens with incomes of most of the immigrants at issue make too little to pay income taxes – so not paying income taxes is a nonissue. They will get nothing from Social Security for years they may have worked undocumented. They pay all the state and local consumption taxes that citizens pay and when they pay rent, they are really paying the underlying property taxes on that pay for most schools.
Well said. Anyone who has spent time in El Paso or Tucson knows the truth of this.
Couple of points
1. They are already paying taxes (e.g., from income tax withholding, sales tax, etc.). Legalization of their status can mean they may get some of it back by being able to file income tax returns. Though it also means they will have to declare under the table income (and probably a bit more carefully than US citizens given the penalty for them being caught not doing so is likely deportation).
2. ‘illegal alien’ is disliked because it is the act not the person who is illegal. A five month old child brought into this country without documents has not committed a crime.
3. They probably should be eligible for Obamacare simply as a public health measure.
Point 2 is well taken. I rarely differ with the Professor on anything, but in this case … “undocumented” is not an Orwellian twist, it’s a real but nuanced distinction.
Should be a ; after “twist” – apologies to the grammatically picky.
This was a good podcast about the “Illegal vs. Undocumented” thing.
A third problem will be getting the new law funded. It will take resources to screen and track the millions of workers, and I believe the republicans have no intention of letting this law be implemented. Just b/c it exists does not mean it will be applied.
well it is not a law you know. Laws have to be passed by congress. As for paying for it, someone on NPR commented Thursday that the INS is self supporting with the fees that they charge. Therefor they won’t need any additional funding.
George
I am very much in favor of immigration. I think what many immigrants give up and go through to get to this country shows more initiative and determination to succeed than we see out of many of our native brethren. I think what Obama did was a very modest action. I think, however, that he handled it terribly over the last few months. He could have been a lot clearer about what he was intending to do, brought a lot more people with him, and avoided the controversy. It is one of Obama’s faults, though, that he doesn’t seem to feel he needs to explain or justify himself.
I am very glad you have commented on this important issue. Because of the politics of it you will get lots of comments for sure.
I am not a democrat or republican but it has been many years since agreeing with any thing going on with republicans.
Your take on the immigration business is exactly right and it is unlikely that the president could wait any long on this thing.
Where the republicans are on this issue is a good reason why they should get killed in the next election and they continue to uphold their great principle – That government cannot do anything for the people. Just elect us and we will prove it to you.
Why don’t Republicans like brown people? It’s kind of weird.
I think the base of the party is driven by fear. They fear the unknown and so become highly vulnerable to fear-mongering politicians. It also makes them more religious.
Alright, thanks
There has always been a portion of Americans opposed to further immigration of other groups (i.e., in favor of the “pull the ladder up after you” idea), going back to the early 1800s. Heck, there were riots over catholic immigrants in the 1830s; today’s GOP is honestly a lot more milquetoast about it than the (ironically termed) nativist political movements of the early 19th century.
Saying “the GOP doesn’t like brown people” sounds a bit like they invented the problem, which is an incorrect implication. Its more accurate to ask: why does the GOP cater to the voters who don’t like brown people? And when you phrase it that way, the answer becomes obvious.
Thanks for the excellent reply
Republicans also correctly know that their current flavor of Republican is not palatable to “brown people”. They are xenophobic nowadays and minorities know it. So they won’t vote for Repubs. An over-arching fear is that all the millions of undocumented people here will eventually get the right to vote and then bye-bye Republican pie.
Thanks. It will be interesting to see how it all turns out.
Rachel Maddow discussions an aspect of this on her show:
“GOP influencers push for another government shutdown…” She shows the sordid connection between the republican party and a white supremacist.
msnbc dot com/rachel-maddow-show
Right. In the 1840’s the Irish arrived pushed by the potato famine. Many of us would rather have them starve. In the 1940’s the Jews were trying to escape Europe. Many here were unwilling to take them in. And so it goes.
I’m currently working on a documentary dealing with Irish and Italian immigration. Lots of it is pretty nasty. One famous nativist was Samuel F. B. Morse. He published an anti-Irish and anti-catholic newspaper right here in down town Poughkeepsie, NY.
Guess what, Obama’s predecessor did something similar.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2014/11/21/when-george-w-bush-acted-unilaterally-on-immigration/
Finally, it is something, though not totally fair.
Very nice! But perhaps technically inaccuarate. For example, if you enjoy anal penetration unmediated by lubrication, the Republican party is happy to do that for you.
Yes, I’ll try to avoid bending over if any are around.
I too hate the PC replacement of “illegal immigrant”…BUT it assumes that every person who has a lapsed status, or is missing a document, or their employer did not properly renew their visa has broken the law. This is not always true.
HOWEVER the term “undocumented immigrant” is not a good term either as many of these immigrants are documented, there might just be a problem with that document.
An example: children who were born here, making them citizens, but have yet to be documented. What are they. “undocumented citizens”?
There is a staggering spectrum of complicated individual cases, and to decide that all these people are victims of circumstance or criminal is wrong. Each case needs to be evaluated on it’s own merit. Unfortunately it would be impossible to process millions of people in a short amount of time.
I think the issue with the use of the phrase ‘illegal alien’ is more that it implies that the illegality of their act (movement into the country) is transposed onto the people themselves by the use of the phrase.
To follow the current terminology would mean referring to anyone that has committed a crime as being ‘an illegal x (e.g. arsonist)’.
Of course, you could argue that since the transgression is an ongoing one that the term is perfectly valid, but since the term is also used to stigmatise a lot of people it is seen as more correct to use undocumented instead and I would probably agree with that.
Just my two cents.
Wise words indeed.
With the caveat that in addition to the Republican policy of “Obstruct Obama” there is “Allow dissemination of Lies about Obama being allegedly socialist and/or Muslim or born in Kenya”.
Obama is patently a political centrist by any reasonable definition, and it is only because the Republicans have gone utterly off the rails of common sense that this is unseen.
It has been observed that when Obama drags his feet, FOX “news” accuses him of being indecisive, but if he asserts himself than he’s a dictator, although President Bush’s allocation to himself of emergency powers in the wake of 9/aa was far more genuinely imperialistic.
9/11 not 9/aa
By economic measures, this is a decidedly conservative administration. Obama’s administration will be the first since the demobilization after World War 2 in which the number of people employed in the public sector will be less than when it began: http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2014/10/public-and-private-sector-payroll-jobs.html. Among conservatives who aren’t lunatics (who, naturally, have no influence today), this is recognized: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/obama-is-a-republican/
Agree. That is why it is absurd that conservatives view Obama the way they do. It’s irrational fear, which is why so many believe it is linked to racism (it’s a pretty obvious connection really). Obama surrounded himself with the same financial “types” that any Republican would have done, and many of the people in his foreign policy apparatus are from the neo-con bent. The new AG is just like Holder- meaning beholden to corporations over people- letting corporations do what they want without any reprisal.
As Jerry stated and many others here, he is far better than Romney would have been, but I fear as we keep moving from left to center to right, one day a Romneyesque President will be in the White House with a “D” next to his/her name.
Yes.
But, of course, there aren’t a lot of conservatives out there who aren’t lunatics. Or if they exist in any number, they are very good at making themselves invisible.
Technically speaking, they are “illegal immigrants.” However I think that because the xenophobic wing of the GOP insists on referring to them as “illegals” or “aliens”, these terms have come to have a dehumanizing effect with their intended targets. Right wingers can’t use traditional racial slurs so these terms serve as an effective proxy. Just another step in the continuing “evolution” of racial dog whistling.
In addition, “illegal” seems a bit harsh when you consider that being here without proper papers is considered a civil offense, not a criminal one. I am not a criminal just because I have been to traffic court.
They’re working on that.
>The only immigration “reform” most Republicans want is to keep all non-white people out of the country.
This was really unnecessary statement. Hardrly it’s about race. I think it’s more due to their bullshit beliefs that “big government” and “Obama marxist/socialist agenda” is going to destroy economy. If someone is black or whatever color convervative Republicans would have no problems with it. Ben Carson huge praise from right-wing media only proves it.
As for immigration reform good luck to him with Republican controlled congress.
Sorry, but Republicans have pursued a consistently anti-minority agenda all along, but of course (like Southern Democrats did in the 50s and 60s), they call it something else.
The reason they like Ben Carson is because he’s a conservative creationist, and they can tout him as “one of them.” They want the black vote, but they don’t want to help black people. Why else do you think black vote overwhelmingly for Democrats?
Seriously, you think that race plays no issue in the worldviews of Democrats vs. Republicans? If so, I think you’ve missed the boat entirely.
>Why else do you think black vote overwhelmingly for Democrats?
Tradition. Since sign of 1964 Civil Rights Act by Lyndon Johnson Democrats became party of black vote. But I don’t understand what problems do black people face today when someone like Obama managed to become president.
>Seriously, you think that race plays no issue in the worldviews of Democrats vs. Republicans
Actually I think race plays a huge role because Democrats often pull off race card. Whenever some instance of police brutality occurs and victim is black Democrats are the first to highlight race “problem”. I think it’s primarly a political move to gain more black votes.
Whenever I see ridiculous statements like these: “I don’t understand what problems do black people face today when someone like Obama managed to become president.” and “Democrats often pull off race card.” I think this constitutes an excellent response: http://www.examiner.com/article/tim-wise-imagine-if-the-tea-party-was-black
So your refutation of liberal pulling off race card is opinion article written by liberal activist that’s pulling off race card?
All he described were examples of right-wing lunacy adding “imagine if it was black”.
Someone criticized Obama and his policies using foul language? Must have been racist.
Alex Jones gun nuts went into street to start revolution to depose Obama? Must have been racists.
And so on.
I’m not denying that there’s fringe racist minority in Tea Party but to paint major party with broad brush is naive… at best. With same result I can “prove” you that Democrats is party of racists by showing racists who vote for them.
How about members of Nation of Islam, black supremacist organization? How about KKK members?
The racist fringe of the Republican party has had the welcome mat extended to them by the so-called mainstream. Rush Limbaugh is welcome at Republican National conventions – no matter how many racist utterings come from his mouth, he pays no price among even mainstream Republicans. And you think that black people should vote for a party that welcomes him?
Rush Limbaugh? I can undestand accusations of stupidity and demagogy but racism? No, just stop. And don’t bother bringing gossip “evidence “. I heared his show and know where he stands.
Anyway, KKK and Nation of Islam members vote for Democrats. So by your logic presense of such fringe groups make major party racist.
“Anyway, KKK and Nation of Islam members vote for Democrats. So by your logic presense of such fringe groups make major party racist.”
Really? What liberal ideas do the KKK endorse? Affirmative action? Welfare? Voting rights? Public housing? Lol!
@Brian: I didn’t say KKK members endorse liberal principles. I’m saying some of its members vote for Democrats.
For example Tom Metzger, Grand Wizard of KKK, endorsed Obama:
“The corporations are running things now, so it’s not going to make much difference who’s in there, but McCain would be much worse. He’s a warmonger. He’s a scary, scary person–more dangerous than Bush. Obama, according to his book, Dreams Of My Father, is a racist and I have no problem with black racists.”
If it makes no sense keep in mind that they hate jews more than blacks. In fact they want separation of races which jews(aka chosen people) “oppose” and have great admiration of Louis Farrakhan, Malcolm X and others nuts from Nation of Islam. Given staunch pro-Israel stance of GOP choice between the two parties is obvious.
Also see my second comment under 17 above.
Rachel Maddow talks about the entanglement of GOP with white supremacist.
UDI (Undocumented Immigrant) has been used in Arizona for years by reporters, federal land managers, aid organizations, and others who have to deal with immigrants regularly but are not able or authorized to check a person’s immigration status. It’s more accurate and less xenophobic than “illegal alien” and more formal than “Sonoran Hiking Club”.
The new proposal is a good start, but it won’t stop people from dying in the desert (dumped by smugglers or trying to avoid Border Patrol). It won’t stop the militarization and environmental degradation of the Borderlands.
Exactly! They’re likely the ones helping prepare our meals and cleaning up after us when we go out to eat. They likely helped picked the veggies we eat as well.
There’s simply an economic demand for these people. Anthony Bourdain has a good quote in Kitchen Confidential:
Great book by the way!
There’s a small chain of restaurants here in CO (and maybe in NM) called Illegal Pete’s – they’ve been around for decades. Earlier this month they opened a new restaurant in Fort Collins and were protested by a small group because of the “illegal” in Illegal Pete’s. Here’s a story about it:
http://www.coloradoan.com/story/money/2014/10/22/residents-ask-illegal-petes-change-name/17738197/
Ridiculous. To almost everyone’s relief, they refused to change the name. Personally, I’d never made any connection in my head between the illegal in the name and people’s immigration status. It seems a variation on the least charitable interpretation attack we see by the usual perpetually outraged suspects. Here’s Illegal Pete’s blog about it – they seem like nice people (their food is good too):
http://www.illegalpetes.com/blog/community/concerning-the-name-illegal-petes/
I wonder if this will cover the Vietnamese man I know at work, who has been here legally for eight years, employed the whole time, who has not been allowed to bring his family to the US.
I would suggest two things: The Republican base is of two minds. The majority are afraid of ‘Mexicans taking their jobs’, and the 1 percenters in the Republican camp are afraid it will be harder to get “Mexican’s to take their jobs” in their businesses.
Republican politicians talk about immigration like they want to do something about it, but they don’t. Just like healthcare, they want the status quo, a limited number of highly qualified people that can be forced onto very substandard contracts, and a large number of illegal immigrants who fill farmers and sweat shops who go home when they have enough money, or get tired of having their pay ripped off by sleazy employers.
If nothing else economics will eventually cause the US to start accepting more Latin American as citizens. It’s inevitable. Especially as the elderly racists die from old age, diabetes and foot in mouth disease.
The US population is aging. Very soon there will only be an average of two taxpayers paying to support one person on retirement, disability or welfare. That will be unsustainable, no question. Since the majority of the problem will be elderly corpulent citizens, they will likely have health issues as well and not be able to work even if they want to.
South of the USA there are millions of young men and women who would love to go to the USA and pay taxes, have an opportunity to buy a house and raise a clutch of Catholic children.
The US can also give immunity to the many already there and start immediate gains of tax money and legal entrepreneurs operating above board.
Republicans stated outright their plan to obstruct Obama in everything he does. And they have, even when what he does was their idea.
Republicans put forward an idea and they all celebrated, basking in the glow of their own magnificence. Then Obama agrees and suddenly half of the Republicans hate the idea, seeing the idea now as the ultimate depth of depravity and or ill advice.
“Since the majority of the problem will be elderly corpulent citizens…”
Bang on point there, at least in many parts of the country. I have lived in the NE for ten years, having grown up in the Midwest. Every time I visit my hometown, I am staggered at the amount of obese people I see, particularly older people. Virtually everyone over the age of 50 seems grossly overweight. Through casual conversation, you often hear of a litany of health ailments and “being on disability” for extended periods of time. There are overweight people in the NE, to be sure, but not on the same scale as what we see in Midwest and South.
Our bellies are becoming as bloated, and as unsustainable, as our military budget.
You haven’t seen anything until you’ve been to the beach in Galveston, TX where people from the most obese city in the US, Houston, can be found.
The statistic on working age disabled people is frightening,about 10% of the US workforce age population is disabled. In the poor red states it’s even worse, in West Virginia 17.6% of the work force age people are disabled. (2012)
http://www.disabilitystatistics.org/StatusReports/2012-PDF/2012-StatusReport_US.pdf
I don’t blame the disabled, I blame the lack of social programs that get them employable, the lack of education and health care to get employable, and the lack of basic nutrition education. Along with government subsidies for corn that lead to very low prices on empty calorie food, and poor nutritional education. (Including shopping, cooking, etc)
Poor red states citizens tend to wind up doing very hard jobs, they are the only jobs that pay enough to make a life out of. With that hard, often dirty work comes many dangers including becoming disabled. Of course poor or complete lack of healthcare doesn’t help in the least and that contributes as well.
Being disabled can lead to obesity and obesity can lead to being disabled. For me it was the former. I lived some 40 years of my life weighing between 140 and 155 pounds. Everyone always told me I was skinny. Then occasional health problems suddenly became chronic. Eventually it was diagnosed as Ankylosing Spondylitis, a type of arthritis where the bodies immune system attacks connective tissue, the point where tendons join bone. It effects the spinal column the most in most people with AS. It’s been described as living in hell by many.
It turns connective tissue into bone, often forcing the spinal column to fuse together into one long solid bone. Or it will effect the neck, or lower back.
But it can also effect every other connective tissue in the human body, including the heart and eyes.
Imagine someone jamming an ice pick into the bone in your spine and leaving it for two weeks. Imagine it wiggling when you move.
Even simple things can hurt like hell, like having a comforter on your toes. The pressure on joints can cause intense pain. We can wake up with all our joints frozen in agony, unable to move, It can take seconds or many long minutes to get moving.
I consider myself very fortunate that I had a good job with disability insurance. Otherwise I would be living in poverty. Of that I have no doubt at all.
Now I weight 220 to 230, at 5’8″ it’s not terrible, but it’s 70 lbs more than I should be.
Those who are morbidly obese put themselves in double jeopardy. It’s very hard for doctors to operate on grossly obese people. As far as I know, it’s done only when they absolutely have to, the complications rate is simply too high. Then there is diabetes and all the other health issues.
It’s hard to take weight off, but when you have serious health issues it becomes almost impossible. The only option is low calorie intake. If your disabled and can’t seriously exercise your bored a lot of the time and in pain. It can be easy to slip into eating to feel better, because eating does make you feel better, for a short time.
So I have sympathy for the obese, but it’s a serious societal problem, and for the obese it’s a serious personal problem.
America (and Canada) is facing serious issues including a lack of young people to support the aging population with a lot of obese people. As I said, the only way to fix that is bring in more people. Most of America is already too old to start popping out babies.
Although the Duggar family is working on solving the problem all by themselves.
Thanks for that post. I have great sympathy for you with that ailment – I can’t imagine dealing with that.
I’m so sorry, Michael–you have my sympathy as well!
Thanks for sharing your story, Michael. I do find that the medical profession is not very good at understanding the consequences of pain and what that means to the individual. Pain affects every part of our lives, every thought we think & every decision we make.
I’ve also know that the so-called “working poor” slip through the cracks. In my opinion, we need a better welfare system that gives people assistance to get back on their feet before they are so far impoverished that doing so is much more difficult. Typically, you cannot get assistance until you are completely destitute.
There is so much reform we need when it comes to affordable, healthy food. I know that when I didn’t have money, my definition of success was that I would be able to walk into a grocery store & buy anything I wanted, instead of gross chilli in a can. Everyone should be able to afford fresh fruit & vegetables. I see this as a right that governments ought to ensure its citizens!
The contradictions don’t even stop there. The ‘Mexicans are lazy bums’ meme coexists with both of these. During the summer here in Texas, there are a whole lot of Hispanic workers out in 98˚F heat in road crews and tarring roofs, and yet the ‘lazy Mexican’ insult survives.
A great deal of the immigrant problem could be solved in the way the Republicans say they want it to be solved if the Republican Congress would just pass a bill severely penalizing those who hire the undocumented. But of course they’ll never irritate their moneybags like that.
Keep the workers illegal so you can pay them much less and they won’t dare complain about it.
Ramen!
I’m kinda surprised not even the Democrats pick up more on this, but illegal immigrants are in much the same position as the indentured servants of Colonial times.
Of course, it sucks royally for the people in those positions…but it drags down everybody else as well. Why pay a fair wage to a citizen when you can get some wetback to do it for pennies on the dollar? And not just pay, but workplace safety, sick leave, benefits, and all the rest.
The other elephant in the room…is human trafficking. Many prostitutes are kept enslaved in no small part due to their johns threatening to hand them over to ICE for deportation (and imagined worse things ICE will do before deportation). With a sane immigration policy, those women would have many more options for escape.
But, of course, as always: Cui bono?
The way Walmart treats its employees is barely different from the way illegal immigrants get exploited. A very significant portion of Walmart’s payroll is supplied by government subsidies, in the form of food stamps and Medicaid and AFDC and the like. The construction and restaurant and agriculture industries would scream bloody murder if they lost access to the near-slave migrant labor they exploit, just the same way that Walmart screams bloody murder every time Congress threatens to shift their payroll costs back to the company (i.e., “raise the minimum wage”).
b&
Ben Goren for congress!
Oh, fuck no! The Tempe Transportation Commission is already as much politics as I can stomach….
b&
Hear, hear!
If the GOP wants the government to deport more people, all it has to do vote to spend enough money to accomplish the job. About $15 billion, give or take a bit, ought to make a dent.
I’m no fan of Obama, but he did not miserable on this one.
I’m kinda surprised that I haven’t heard anybody comment at all on his second of three points. First, of course, was to increase border “security” and get tough on criminal immigrants; and third was to hold off a few years on breaking up families.
But the second was a promise to expand the H-1B visa program, something that’s gotta have the corporate executives in Silicon Valley creaming their pants because it means they get to fire more Americans and bring in more Indian slave workers.
And, okay, maybe I’m laying the rhetoric on a bit thick with that “slave worker” line, but not much. H-1B visa holders are often paid a fraction of the going rate and forced to work under unconscionable conditions over threat of deportation — and many of them are “happy” to do so because they’re still making much more than they could back in India.
b&
H-1B visa holders earn more than comparable native-born workers.
http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2013/05/10-h1b-visas-stem-rothwell-ruiz
-I support increasing skilled immigration and cutting unskilled immigration. I would much prefer that all my neighbors be the typical products of the former than all my neighbors be the typical products of the latter.
I’ve never been particularly impressed with Brookings, and that headline flies in the face of everything I know about the IT industry.
I don’t have the time right now to do my own research with a more reputable source. Sorry, but you’ll have to do that legwork if you want me to believe you.
b&
“These immigrants, though often characterized as parasites on the U.S. economy, do many of the necessary but onerous jobs that Americans don’t want. Many busboys and dishwashers in Chicago, for example, are undocumented Hispanics. This gives them a chance to work their way out of poverty and to fulfill something I still believe in: the “American dream.”
Actually, working under the table for sub minimum wages, they are TAKING jobs from the poorest American citizens (often black and hispanic), perpetuating poverty here.
In any case, I am waiting to see the response from the people who screamed bloody hell when Bush unilaterally danced around the constitution… somehow I suspect the left will remain silent.
@jay: Surely you don’t mean “perpetuating poverty here” – the people you’re referring to are “here”, aren’t they?
Instead, you mean “perpetuating poverty among those people here who happen to have US citizenship”. If this is the only part of poverty you care about, you can solve the entire poverty problem in a stroke of the pen by only granting citizenship to the super-rich.
Re “illegal immigrant”:
When aiming to adjust someone’s legal status it makes no sense to use terminology that treats said status as settled. The use of “illegal” here does not refer to whether they _entered_ the country legally, but to their _current_ status – which is exactly the issue in question.
-I honestly don’t think the slowest recovery ever is “the economy moving”:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=RQI
-This is the only phrase in this sentence I think is even remotely accurate.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/08/world/middleeast/us-to-send-1500-more-troops-to-iraq.html
-No Republican, to my knowledge, has ever stated this. The people I hear of who have do not identify as Republican, but as generally anti-establishment.
The relevant Executive Order, I think, is one of the most dangerous extensions of the Imperial Presidency to the domestic sphere. Even Obama himself disagreed with this in 2011 and 2013. I can only imagine how administrations not to the liking of most Democrats will use this precedent.
I wonder if we’ll be hearing from George W. Bush and Dick Cheney and their assigns on how Obama is exemplifying “the unitary executive.”
I suspect, based on recent articles, that the net effect of this approaches nil. Window dressing. Most of this is alresdy in place.
The President’s proposal seems to be a practical and reasonable response to the problem. However, I can’t help but feel sympathetic for the millions of “legal” immigrants to this country. Legal immigrants might be the most entitled to feel passionate over this announcement.
In most cases these people undertook a very long, difficult, nerve-wracking and expensive journey through the bureaucratic mire of legal immigration to become citizens of this country. Nobody said life was fair, but with so many “illegals” being allowed to to stay, maybe some of our more recent legal immigrant/resident aliens/citizens should be entitled to a bit of a refund?
The legal immigrants keep their place in line ahead of the illegal immigrants, and the illegal immigrants have to pay fines and catch up on back taxes and all the rest.
All the President has said is that he’s using prosecutorial discretion to shift the limited law enforcement resources away from people who pose a minimal risk of violence and mayhem and towards targeting criminals and those in organized crime (gangs).
Just as you can come clean to the IRS if you’ve screwed up your taxes in the past and generally avoid the worst penalties if you approach them rather than wait for them to audit you, the same now applies to migrants. You’re much better off doing it the right way from the start. But, if you fucked up, it’s no longer the end of the world; take responsibility and your lumps, come clean and get right with the law, and you can move on with your life without having to fear the worst.
b&
Jerry, Never stop telling it like it is. You rock!
Sub
I hope that Obama’s President-mobile has good bulletproof glass. He’s likely to need it. And underside armour too.
Probably better to travel separately from the kids too. “Collateral murder”, as the saying goes.
“The only immigration “reform” most Republicans want is to keep all non-white people out of the country.”
I would tend to disagree, here: they don’t really want to keep them out as who, then, would do the “scut-work”? They just want to make damn sure that these people never get the right to VOTE!
We already have immigration. And it is open to all (most?). My problem is with ILLEGAL immigration. It only is mostly “Brown” people (as you put it) because of the geography of having a common border. I am equally opposed to illegal immigrants from any country regardless of their skin color. If somebody is here illegally from jolly ole England, they are just as illegal as somebody from Mexico or Honduras or Vietnam or China or anywhere else. The problem is that they broke to law to come here and they should not be given amnesty or a “path to citizenship.” They should be sent home and told to get in line like everybody who is complying with the law. I agree that there should be immigration reform by changing the laws to make it easier to come here legally and more equitable to all. However, those that are already here should still be sent home and be made to follow the laws as written.