Are Illegals "Persons"?

Are Illegals "Persons"?

The U.S. Constitution should not be changed for frivolous reasons. However, it is my view that we should rethink and modify Amendment 14. It's purpose was, in 1868, to guarantee certain rights to FORMER SLAVES. The concept of illegal immigrant did not even exist at the time. There were no restrictions on immigration until many years later. Things have changed. I suggest that we replace the word "persons" with "citizens." We have changed our constitution 27 times. It takes several years, but it's doable.

I am not suggesting that we treat illegals as slaves. I would grant them CERTAIN due process rights, but I would also alter the provision of "jus soli" or citizenship by birth. There would be NO entitlements for illegals. Illegals (whose children are automatic citizens under the current constitution, if born here) are costing taxpayers $90 BILLION a year. In five years that's half a TRILLION. We need to fix a problem that the founding fathers must be excused for not anticipating.

ACLU; What's the "A" Stand For?

I THOUGHT the "A" in ACLU stood for "American." I guess I was wrong. Is it just me, or does it seem that the ACLU works overtime to sabotage Americans and American values? Illegal aliens are NOT Americans. Why does the ACLU concern itself with them? Islamic terrorists captured on the battlefield, are NOT Americans. Same question. I am not suggesting some sort of white supremacist jihad. It just seems to me that the ACLU might devote more of its time, money, and assets to defending the rights and interests of AMERICANS, or maybe change its name. One question I love to ask of my students; "Are you an American first, or a citizen of the world first.?" You would be amazed at the response.

Please! Don't Vote

You've heard or read the statistics. In the U.S., the HIGHEST voter turnout is in presidential elections, at about 52%. Yes, in France it's in the upper 80's, in Australia, about 90% (but in Kiwi Land, you get fined for NOT voting), and in Great Britain, mid 70's. In our last local election for city council, turnout was about 18% of those who COULD vote. Know what? That's wonderful in my view. I was one of the 18%.

The last thing we need is an increase in the turnout of ignorant people. Please stay home. You are less dangerous watching American Idol. The quality of a democracy has NOTHING to do with percent turnout. We don't need bodies, we need informed voters. If you can't name either of your U.S. senators, PLEASE stay home. It's not complicated.

Anerican Assoc. of Greedy Old People

Don't get me wrong. I HOPE to be an old person some day, but I HOPE I won't be a greedy old person. I saw this commercial today. This obviously well-to do senior citizen was lamenting the possibility that her assets, including a million dollar home, might go to long term care rather than to her kids. She appeared to be WAY past 70, which is the point at which SSI is OTHER people's money, not yours. A lawyer broke in and assured viewers that there was a way to "hide" assets so that the taxpayers would pick up the bill for this wealthy old woman's' health care and she could leave her expensive home to her kids. Is it me, or is there something wrong with this "picture."? It's not complicated, at least to me.

Hiring Ugly People

It's not complicated. It really isn't. Ugly people, just like morbidly obese people, scare away customers and hurt the "bottom line." Would you want to be forced to hire a morbidly obese receptionist for your "Curves" studio? How about being forced to hire Madelyn Albright as a receptionist for your cosmetic surgery practice? (They'd be thinking; "Why couldn't he fix THAT?") "Google" a photo of her if you're clueless.

Many years ago when I moved to my present community, I randomly chose a bank. This was before ATM's, so one usually needed to go inside. What a TREAT! It turned out that ALL the tellers were drop-dead gorgeous women. (No accident, I'm sure). The bank went through several mergers over the years and service suffered, but I stayed. WHY? Finally, it got so bad that I switched, but I still miss those women. The branch manager knew what he was doing when he hired people. Beautiful women were/are GOOD FOR BUSINESS.

Not that I would do so, but shouldn't employers be allowed, without fear of civil suits, to honestly say "Sorry, but you are just too ugly/fat to work here. My business would suffer." Personally I would find a more kind and superficial reason to not hire that person, like Abercrombie and Fitch which allegedly hires only "beautiful people" from the right colleges. But wouldn't it be nice to not have to play that game?

Special Breaks for Special Students

OK. First things first. Do physical and mental disabilities deserve special consideration? Yes. As a kid (heartless) I made and laughed at jokes about "cripples." Stupid, but I was a kid. (is that redundant?) I am old enough to pre-date "barrier-free" construction. When I first began teaching in the mid-seventies, wheelchair-ridden students could not TAKE many courses because they could not negotiate the steps. That was horrible, and that problem was fixed. It wasn't complicated. But how far will we take this?

Back in the sixties, I had a college English professor (PhD.) who had been blind from birth. I KNOW what the handicapped (challenged?) are capable of. I do not sell them short. Every semester I get several "special needs" students. The disabilities vary, but the requests for considerations don't. Unlimited time on tests, to be taken at the students convenience. (granted) Endless one-on-one meetings with these students to review their notes. (granted) Requests to actually go through the ENTIRE TEXT and underline the important points. (denied) Requests for copies of my notes.(denied; I don't USE notes, and if I did, I would not share them).

I wonder how long it will be before I am required to have Braille versions of all handouts for the visually impaired, or required to learn sign language for the hearing-impaired. Don't laugh. I laughed about email classes once. I wonder just how these students will fare in the "real world" if and when they graduate. I wish them well. I really do. But I wonder. They will not ALL be "Steven Hawkings." Might we actually be doing these students a disservice? What do you think?

Super Patriots

Am I a "super" patriot? I honestly don't know, but given how people view the term today, I might be. Yes, I did serve in the military but only for six years, and only three of those were active. I was part of the last generation who concerned themselves with the draft. I got my draft physical notice (I passed) in 1966. I joined the Navy instead. In fact, I got my order to report to Fort Dix, while I was at Great Lakes Naval Training Center. (I still ended up in Vietnam)

Growing up in the fifties and early sixties, I always assumed that I would one day, be in the military. My dad was a WWII veteran. I never even QUESTIONED that I would serve. It would have been nice, however, if I had gotten to choose the timeframe rather than in the middle of college. To me, it was part of my obligation as an American. How quaint a thought today; that freedom has a price and service to your country is a reasonable payback. I had gone to a private Quaker school for K-12. Contrary to popular myth, some Quakers serve in the military. Pacifism is not universal among Quakers. I am not a Quaker. But even at that Quaker school, I learned American values and pride in my country.

Is it "wrong" to believe and say that the USA is the best nation on earth and to believe and say that other nations should TRY to emulate many of the things about us? Is it wrong to want what is best for the USA FIRST, and worry about other nations second? When the USA thrives, the rest of the world has a chance. Is it wrong to believe that if the USA folds, the rest of the world will be worse off?

It's not complicated to ME, but then what do I know? Are you an American first, or a "citizen of the world"?

Am I a "Gun Nut"?

When I was about 13, I came into possession of my grand dads' Winchester 1890 22 short, rifle (hexagonal barrel). I don't recall exactly how. I learned much later that 22 short rifles were the "BB Guns" of eighty years ago. Every little boy got one sooner or later. And this was in NEW JERSEY! I got pretty good at shooting rats in the swamps and creeks nearby. YES! I occasionally shot a bird, and I am not proud of that, but I was a stupid kid. I have taught all my kids to shoot. I own two handguns, two rifles, and two shotguns. Am I a "gun nut"? I don't think so. I don't kill living creatures for pleasure. I did serve in Vietnam. Enough said.

I know how to use and "respect" firearms, as do my children. I don't share the FEAR that many people have of firearms. I suspect it is a fear born of ignorance. The KEY POINT here, in my opinion, is that the police/authorities etc. cannot PREVENT crimes; they can solve them and sometimes catch the "bad guys." But the first line of defense has to be the individual. To me, it's not complicated. I used to walk several miles each week, sometimes in the evening. One evening, about dusk, I was accosted by a "gentleman" with a knife, who was looking for "change." I asked him whether he had change for my "forty-five" which I prominently displayed. He "left" in a hurry. I never reported the event to the authorities. I solved the problem without help from the authorities who were, of course minutes and miles away. Why would anyone call me a "gun nut"?

Third Grade Beer Break

About thirty years ago, my wife was teaching third grade in a north eastern government school system. One day a little girl opened her lunch box (no cafeterias in those days) in the classroom at lunch time, and pulled out a bologna sandwich and a BUDWEISER. It seems that her legally blind granny always packed her lunch. Granny had intended to put a Coke in the Barbie lunch box. My wife noticed the problem. She quietly took the little girl over to the art sink, poured the beer down the drain, and cautioned the girl about granny's vision problem. End of story.

How about today? Just this week in a government school in my area, a thirteen year old girl was sent to DRUG REHAB classes because she took two aspirin from a classmate. She failed to go to the school nurse for approval to take them. (in which case the OTHER girl would have gone to drug rehab.) Are this teacher and this principal morons? I don't think so. I think they were AFRAID to exercise common sense for fear of repercussions further up the administrative chain. They did not believe they could count on being backed up for using common sense. They were probably correct.

Government Schools and Money

It's not complicated. Expenditures on education do NOT correlate with excellence. The most heavily funded (with tax dollars) school system in the nation is the D.C. government school system. It is also the worst. I WISH that money could make a difference. It doesn't. The average government school expenditure per student is $8,922. The average private school expenditure per student is $4,689. The average Catholic school expenditure per student is $3,236. (less than one HALF of government schools)

Try to find a government school which out-performs ANY private school. It's not just k-12 either. In my community there is a government college which has a graduation rate of TWENTY-ONE percent after FIVE YEARS. Why it stays open is beyond me. People will claim that private schools get the "cream of the crop." Not true. Catholic schools take "at risk" kids and turn them into students, every day. We KNOW what the answer is; PARENTS who care and are involved. In my opinion, government schools have failed. We must keep a few open for those kids who's parents will NEVER care, but for the rest of us, let us CHOOSE. If the local government schools are spending almost $9000 per kid, let me keep $4500 and let me shop for a private school. (I'd rather get a voucher for the whole $9000 but I will DONATE half to the government schools.)

The FAIR TAX; Not Complicated ENOUGH!

It would do away with the IRS. It would do away with the 1040. It would do away with many CPA jobs. There would be NO underground economy. It would be fair and simple. So what's the problem? It would require that government in general and legislators in particular relinquish their powers of social engineering and reward distribution. What a concept? YOU would decide where and when or IF to spend all the money currently deducted in FIT taxes. All the currently hidden (embedded) FIT taxes on what you buy would go away and a 22% federal sales tax would replace them. The net tax effect would be ZERO. Net federal revenue would not change. The poor would be reimbursed for EVERY PENNY of the national sales tax which they paid. (a monthly rebate check) It's not complicated, really.

But it's tough to give up power. It's tough to admit that people know best how and where and when to spend their own money better than GOVERNMENT does. The founding fathers didn't think that way but the idea that "government knows best" is the biggest "imbedded" problem that our nation faces today. I don't know about you but I hate taking all those questionable deductions. It bothers me. When I drop off a bag of clothes at the Salvation Army and ask for a receipt, I feel cheap rather than generous. Want to learn more? Go to "fairtax.org".

Poverty is a Choice for Most

It's really not complicated. As noted economist Walter Williams puts it (forgive me Walter, I paraphrase);

1. You CHOOSE to learn in high school and graduate, or not. (If you are unable to do government high school work in 2007, you need to be in special ed.)

2. You CHOOSE to get a job, even at minimum wage, or not. (Hardly anyone remains at minimum wage for long, if they even started at that level. A couple both earning slightly above minimum wage would be making about $30,000 a year)

3. You CHOOSE to show up every day and give your employer a good days work for a days pay, or not.

4. You CHOOSE to go to college, or not. Do not tell me you can't afford college. EVERYONE can afford college. It might take longer while working, but community college is cheap and totally doable for ALL.

5. You CHOOSE to get married before getting pregnant, or not.

These are all choices which are totally under your control. Do you know anyone who has followed these easy steps and is POOR? Let me know.

Welfare for the Wealthy

More than 53% of the national budget (and therefore, our taxes) now goes to entitlements. The majority of that goes out in "welfare" checks to social security recipients. They HATE being told they are getting "welfare" but that is the fact. If someone retires at 65, he or she gets back ALL the money they put into FICA, in about five years. From then on, they get OTHER PEOPLES MONEY. They may need it. Many don't. My father-in-law retired at 65 as a millionaire. He died at 84. For his last thirteen years of life, he received about $312,000 of other people's money. He "bragged" that he never spent a penny of it. It went into investments. It's not complicated. It's time to MEANS TEST social security. We do it with almost every other entitlement. You get back all of YOUR money and after that, if you NEED other peoples money, you get it. If not, you don't.

Gender Pay Gap Myth

Let me tell you a story. My brother-in-law, prior to his marriage, told his fiancé to never ask him to choose between his family and his job. He would ALWAYS choose his job first. He was true to his word. They lived well. He worked most weekends. They saw little of each other, but she had plenty of charge cards to keep her happy. Now I personally think he was a turd, but from his boss's perspective, he was a valued employee. He rose rapidly in the corporation and retired wealthy at fifty-five, never having known the two kids his wife raised.

When you hear these bogus statistics comparing male and female salaries/income, remember; these stats do NOT compare "apples and apples." They lump in the female checkout clerk at Food Lion with the male Fortune 500 CEO. Pay Gap? Duh! The fact is that when you compare two people with the same experience, in the same job, with the same level of productivity, there is NO GENDER GAP in pay. An employer would be an idiot not to reward the most productive workers. That company would not remain competitive.

You have two workers. The woman uses every personal leave and sick day. (She has three young children) The man NEVER takes off for ANY family-related crisis or responsibility. Who gets the promotion? Duh! The man may be a "jerk" and a lousy dad, but he is worth MORE to the boss. It's not complicated.

Diversity is Divisive

At my institution, we have recently hired two new administrators. Both appear to be competent. Neither was in the top tier of applicants. Both are minorities. I suspect that both will do well. However, we did not get the BEST people for the jobs. I was on one of the search committees. We scoured about 100 applications and listed our four best, as requested. We were told that we should add a minority to at least interview, because it would "look better." We consented. We added the best-qualified minority, who was not nearly as qualified as the four initially chosen. Guess who got the job? (We were suckered)

On the more general topic of diversity, it seems to me that too much effort is put into celebrating DIFFERENCES. I do not suggest that all national cultures become homogeneous. However, the "melting pot" was a good idea and it worked. There is less "melting" going on and too much emphasis upon differences; in language, values, appearance etc. This nation is the best on earth. It was no accident. Our common values (and language) have served us well. I do not want to lose that. English may not be the "best" language but it is still the ONLY language of maximum opportunity. We do citizens a disservice when we allow them to marginally function in a language other than English. They are economically "doomed." It's not complicated.

Death of the Stand-Up Lecturer

I am old enough to remember the joke. "Where did you get your degree? From correspondence courses?" Now we call such courses "on-line".(they are really e-mail courses but "on-line" sounds more legitimate.) Most of them are correspondence courses without stamps. Sadly, many people take them seriously now. Real-time, virtual classroom, multi-webcam courses are in our future, but not yet. Ever take an email course? Odds are you got either an A or an F. The A was simply for logging on. An F was because you never "showed up."

I have been a stand-up, lecturing college professor for more than thirty-five years. I am a dinosaur. I have never even given a SCANTRON test. At my institution we actually offer a course in (I kid you not) public speaking "on-line." I have never "taught" an e-mail course. Only my seniority saves me. Brick and mortar campuses will die out. (converted to mini-storage facilities?)

I understand the economic (cheaper) and convenience factors. A few courses can and should be offered via email. However, in my experience, it is usually the worst "teachers" who embrace this trend. I wonder if they ever really wanted to "teach". A TSA baggage-checker (no high school diploma required) could do what they do, and maybe better. It's not complicated. What are we paying these people serious money to do? They are certainly not teaching. I get "high" when I walk into a classroom. These email "teachers" cringe at the thought. If you have ever taken an email class, did you get your money's worth? How much did you learn, and if you DID learn, was it because of your self-discipline or because of the "teacher"? Thinking back, will your favorite professor be the one you never met?

A Smaller Increase is Not a Cut

One of my pet peeves (and I have many) is the continual misuse of the word "cuts" when it comes to government budgets. If your boss "promised" you a raise of 4% and you ended up getting a 3.75% raise, was your pay "cut"? According to most media reporting, it was. Of course LOGICALLY, there was no "cut." In fact you got a RAISE.

In my local paper today, the headline read "Property tax cut would SLICE school budget." There are two problems here. The first is that property taxes were not "cut" if you factor in appreciation. In fact, most home owners will still see their property tax bill INCREASE next year, but not as fast as it would have without a reduction in the RATE. The bigger problem (for me) is that the word "slice" implies a CUT in a budget (schools in this case.) In fact, our school budget will still INCREASE by 5% as opposed to the PROPOSED 6%. The so-called "cut" in the proposed budget will be about 11 million dollars, so the school budget will INCREASE by "only" 35 million as opposed to 45 Million. (in real dollars, from $671 million to $706 million.) So again, say you were promised a $10 raise and you only got $9.99. Was that a pay cut?

I understand the motive here. If you believe that the bigger the government the better, and that government is the salvation rather than the problem, then any decrease in its rate of growth and scope, is a bad thing. I pray for a day when some government budget will ACTUALLY be cut. By that I mean that some agency would have LESS of my money to spend next year than it did this year.

Don't hold your breath. It's not complicated.

Not Complicated

Can we PLEASE stop all this stupid debate about "deporting" illegals? We don't have to. Yes, it is utterly ridiculous to consider the logistics of deporting as many as THIRTY MILLION illegals who don't WANT to leave. Yes, walls are stupid too. What we need to do is take away the reasons that they come. Duh! Free medical, free education, jobs and housing. Legislators could do this in ONE DAY. Informed Americans know that illegals cost much more than they contribute. The Republicans don't want the problem solved because the business community enjoys cheap labor. The Democrats don't want the problem solved because they dream of millions of "amnesty votes", eventually.

It is nearly impossible to comprehend that hundreds of communities across the nation (Hazelton, PA. was among the first) which have sought to solve the problem, are being SUED by numerous organizations for doing the job the national government has refused to do. Knowingly hire illegals? Fine or jail. Knowingly rent to illegals? Fine or jail. Entitlements; NONE! Let Frank Purdue spend a few weeks in jail. The word will get out. It's not complicated.

OF COURSE Americans won't take the jobs that illegals take. Try paying what the job is WORTH! Yes many prices would go up, but the OVERALL cost of supporting 30 million illegals on entitlements would more than off-set such increases. The cost of your new roof would go up. The cost of your lawn services would go up, your motel bill would go up. The cost of your chicken breasts would go up. But your FICA would NOT.

This is NOT about racism and ethniphobia. It is about economics, culture, and values. These illegals are, for the most part, hard working, good people. If I lived in one of their third-would countries, I TOO would try to sneak in. This invasion is slowly destroying a great nation, and the solution is NOT complicated. It just takes "guts."

-nc