surgical strike: to provide for the common defense
I have been opining for some time that Homeland Defense is pretty much a joke in light of the lackadaisical attitude this administration takes toward border security. Not to mention container shipments at ports of entry. It is truly ridiculous that the US military cordons off entire nations while our home borders are said to be just too long to be protected.
Not that I am trivializing the magnitude of the task. I’m sure it is extraordinarily difficult and would require substantial resources to have something that approaches a secure border.
But in the context of the threats that have emerged in the last several years, I have trouble imagining what security issue could be more pressing. And while a few years back I had some sympathy with the notion that our borders were too long to be adequately protected, the progress of technology is making that argument increasingly hollow.
Undoubtedly I have little in common with the self-proclaimed Minutemen who have undertaken the task of defending our borders. If the accusations of vigilantism, bigotry or old-fashioned fascism turn out to be true, then I have even less in common with them than I already imagine. But still, I have to stand amazed that they are already having an impact.
According to the Associated Press, the Administration has finally today come out with plans to strengthen border protection. I can only expect that this will be one of a number of announcements that will be forthcoming in an effort to mitigate the damage to reputation being done by the Minutemen’s presence. I can only hope that unlike in other areas of political activity that perhaps this time there will be some substantive action. Action a bit quicker than the year 2008 would be nice too.
In the mean time, while I await the Government’s taking up of its constitutionally mandated task to provide for our defense, I will remain skeptical of claims of both virtue and depravity on the part of the Minutemen until the actual facts are in.
If the best does turn out to be true of them, however improbable that may be, then they deserve medals. But it would appear that even if the worst is true of them, they have performed for us a service for which we can all be thankful.
10 Comments:
Yoshi,
That is exactly the point: we should let them in. By allowing it to occur illegally, they are creating an underclass that isn’t subject to minimum wage laws. Note how many of the rich and powerful have gotten slapped on the wrist for employing illegals. They know what they are doing.
In my mind, that is a rather poor exchange for a porous border that allows all kinds of unsuitable people and materials in. Note also that if the power elite REALLY gave a hoot about the War on Drugs, they would make this a priority. Clearly, like the WOT, the WOD is just so much milksop for the willingly led.
I think making the borders secure is just good common sense. I am very pro-immigration, but it shouldn’t just be open borders.
TexaCon,
You are so right…agreeing can be so … so … disagreeable. :-D
Just to clarify, I am totally in favor of letting people in…perhaps the level of illegal immigration added to that of legal immigration adds up to a number that is good policy. Perhaps the better number is in fact higher-I don’t know.
But what I feel strongly about is that if we can’t afford to just totally open the borders, and I just can’t see that as realistic, then we should admit people to the country as a matter of policy and not settle for just looking the other way. Letting these people in illegally creates other problems that should simply be avoided.
But again, it is blindingly obvious that the power-elite want to create an underclass that they can exploit because they aren’t legal and under the protection of our labor laws. Sadly, they are so obsessed with lining their own pockets that they let matters of national security slide. Like everything else in America, if you want to understand things, just follow the money.
cogentnotion,
Hey there and welcome to the fray. BTW, awesome handle!
I agree with what you said about illegals. But my point is that even if they are a net positive benefit, we still should be admitting them to this country on a legal basis and not just turning our heads. It is hard to develop a coherent set of policies when you have no control of the situation. How do you plan when you have no idea what the numbers are? And couldn’t we provide a better (better would include cheaper) health-care solution than the Emergency Room?
CG,
It seems you are struggling against the logical conclusion of your own observations. First you say,
one party should no longer be allowed to own the agenda, regardless of which party was the majority.
And then you continue on to tell us all this stuff that excellent leaders would do. Honestly, if you look at it carefully it is obvious that the problem is that these people have a political agenda. By forcing ourselves onto a two-way axis you are guaranteeing that the majority part will own the agenda.
I genuinely appreciate your honesty and transparency in discussing your personal journey to a new set of socio-political values. But I still think you are blinded by the fact that one party appears to agree with you substantially. If Gore or Kerry had won the elections, we would just be enduring partisanship with a different focus. The litany of wrongs would be different, but in final analysis we would still have the same big problems we have today because these leeches are in it for themselves, not for the public good.
Only by creating viable alternative parties can we get out of this morass and get to a place where the winner does not take all. Only by creating more options will there be a necessity on the part of our leadership to seek compromise rather than exploit artificial divisions.
Yoshi,
Actually, I am concerned about terrorist and materials sneaking across the borders. I think it is a serious threat. I think the coasts are more vulnerable than land crossings, but that is just a technical detail.
Just because some of the people who advocate secure borders do so out of racist motivations, it does not follow that is what we all are thinking.
Your Fort Worth/Dallas border things is interesting. I work in Fort Worth and live in Carrollton. It would be a bummer to have to cross Checkpoint Charlie to get to work. But now that I think about it, it might not be as bad as the traffic on I-35E.
CG,
OK. I’ll agree to let you be wrong on two-party thing.
I can’t fathom why it is so hard for people to see that having only two players in a game means that one side is going to win, the other will lose. Your advocacy of simple rule changes is naïve. Exactly what is the impetus to institute those changes? And if you made those changes, how could you make sure it would stay that way? I’ll answer so that I can be sure you get it right: zero impetus to change, and no way to prevent the winner from taking all.
You ask, ” I'm waiting for your solution to the two party system. (btw... have you ever spelled out what that would look like?)
No, never really saw spelling it out as necessary. I’m a bit confused why it seems complicated. Almost every other democratic government operates with more than one party. They have to wrangle for consensus to govern. I think that is exactly what you said you want.
To say it a different way, if today the GOP comes out and says, “We stand for Black”, the then Dems generally will respond with, “We stand for White”. If you doubt this, look at the budget “battles” over the years. They aren’t battles, just scripted attempts to take opposing positions. If there was a third party advocating Yellow, and better yet a fourth party advocating Green, we could for a change have an actual discussion that is not in political terms.
And that is the bottom line for me: more parties implicitly restrict the political posturing. Sure, it doesn’t eliminate it. And even in a multi-party environment you get some of the same behavior when one party sides with the other to create a ruling coalition. But it is greatly reduced and the elections tend to bring out issues more so than our dumbed down Madison Avenue produced election circus.
You said, ”A one party rule of the agenda has no upside that I can see.” With that I totally agree. But what you aren’t seeing is that what we have is phony. The system insures that at any moment, one party will dominate the agenda. The sure loser in this winner-take-all sport is the American people.
CG,
OK, so what you are saying basically is “give up, we are toast anyway”.
Now, from an Eschatological standpoint I would agree that this World system is indeed doomed. But we don’t know when. For me the question is how do we act in the mean time. How do we treat each other and wish to be treated. Answers to those questions compel an effort out of concern for our fellow man.
And I disagree whole-heartedly that a 3rd party could make a difference. You are correct that a key voice for social justice is missing in our society. How can you be so certain that the problem isn’t the false two-party political straightjacket we are in? There was a Day when the Republicans were agents for social justice. And a more recent day when Democrats were those agents.
I think more parties would give a stronger voice to the social justice constituency as well as the civil liberty constituency. I’m not sure how it would fall out, but I would imagine we would end up with a centrist party, a moderate left party (social-democrats), a moderate right party (moderate GOP types) and then some extremists in the wings. How this situation is less than obviously far superior to the ultra-stupidity with which we presently suffer is beyond me.
CG,
You said, “it's really nice for us naive types who can't see clearly to have a sanctuary here.” You are welcome. This is part of my deepest desires and subject of my most fervent prayers: to help poor souls such as yourself to find a clear path.
Rest assured, you have come to the right place. The first step to healing is to admit you have a problem.
You may have noticed that the Sub-title changed here at the Disenfranchised Curmudgeon: “Clear-headed thinking for a media drenched age”. I won’t rest until I get all of you straightened out.
:-D
CG,
Yes you did say that we should just give up. You said that adding more voices to the mix would not affect the outlook of people on social justice. You have said time after time that you thought we were pretty hopeless. I think my conclusion of your outlook is very consistent with what you have said.
While you did suggest some Senate rules changes, when I then pointed out that they could easily be changed by the majority anytime they choose to, you seemed to concede that point.
Now, if you think the Dems are bona-fide voice for social-justice, I just don’t think I may be able to help you after all. This goes back to what I’ve been saying for some time: you have been suckered by the lip service. This is no different than the hordes of GOP backers that have been sucker (as I was) by their rhetoric. Totally rolling over is not compromise.
And why would you start being gentle now? Did I make you mad? Nothing ticks me off more than somebody pulling punches.
Ah, I get it…
Randy,
I don’t think there is any reliable information available on what is happening out there in the desert. I’m reserving judgment for now though I can’t help but question the motives of people taking so much time out of their lives to go patrol the desert. But as I said in my original post, if they have good intentions and reasonable maturity for the task, more power to them.
Post a Comment
<< Home