The Internet Must Die, Indeed?!

To the illustrious Mr. Pot:

Will wonders never cease!  Previously, Mr. Pot unashamedly admitted to participating in (actually OWNING!) a wholly capitalistic enterprise (Math, Money, and Politics 12/9/13). Now, in his most recent submission (The Internet Must Die), I detect a strong defense of the concept of Free Enterprise and an eschewing of all things regulatory. If this keeps up, Mr. Pot may be nominated as an honorary member of the Ronald Reagan Fan Club.

In the true fashion of a Virginia gentleman, I will politely ignore the obvious hypocrisy inherent in Mr. Pot's current rant. Actually, no I won't ! When his vested interests are concerned, BIG GOVERNEMNT is the enemy. In kindness, I will assume Mr. Pot's objections are totally altruistic and come from a sincere desire to defend free speech rather than to merely respond to a perceived threat to his bank account. Don't get me wrong. I think there is something commendable in looking out for one's self interests, especially when those interests are representative of the American dream we all pursue. I assume Mr. Pot feels he can get along very well, thank you, without Big Government intrusion into the opportunities his business present. He would much prefer to rise or sink solely on his own acumen rather than a federal bureaucrat's deference.

But then again, knowing Mr. Pot's undying admiration for the federal bureaucracy and its predilection  for the imposition of unintended consequences, maybe I have jumped to a too hastily devised conclusion. Yes, I must backtrack. Despite a somewhat and momentary outward appearance of laissez-faire, Mr. Pot has merely reverted to the most basic of liberal tendencies. Liberalism 101 states without equivocation that federal regulation is good. Of course, buried within that simple postulation is the implied exception of Liberals themselves from having to abide by such imposed regulations. I like to refer to the shining example Congressional liberals set when passing the momentous Civil Rights Act of 1964. They all realized that most of their congressional staffs were not remotely racially integrated  so the Honorables simply exempted themselves from having to abide by many of the pesky requirements of the act. Classic liberalism at it finest!

Without delving into the intricacies of ISPs and Common Carriage (BORING !!!!!), I think I have reduced “The Internet Must Die !” to its least common denominator. It's merely a typical liberal harangue albeit preceded by a somewhat disguised and misleading premise which appears to espouse a free market environment. Between the lines however Mr. Pot frustratingly expresses what liberals in the 1964 Congress expressed: “Do as I say do, don't do as I”. I must paraphrase to be fair to Mr. Pot: “Screw up everyone else's businesses with federal regulation, just don't screw up mine”.

Respectfully submitted,

Mr. Kettle

The Internet Must Die!

Dear Mr. Kettle

While investing in a rather unproductive week of waiting on websites to load and not being entirely certain that they would, I had occasion to reflect upon a quiet problem plaguing our nation, threatening to tear apart the very fabric of reality to leave the American people raw and exposed. The Internet has led to the proliferation of pornography, piracy and propaganda of unprecedented levels. What's more, it's taken control of these vices out of the hands a few who might control and profit from them, placing that control into the hands of virtually everyone. Even more insidious is the fact that the Internet has leveled the playing field in the war of free speech, such that any fool might open his mouth to prove it to the world. Think of the havoc that the unwashed electorate has had on the democratic process, as they're cacophony of voices threatened to drown out well-crafted political messages meant to drive home those points necessary to push the electoral process forward.

Nearly twenty years ago I began referring to the Internet as the Wild, Wild West, rather than the World Wide Web, as an untamed wilderness where only brave, stout hearts should venture. Over the years, my opinion has not wavered even as the veil of civilization has shrouded the rougher plains of its landscape and reduced the perception of threats to seeming vestiges. Still, where there is no rule of law there can be no civilization.

Thankfully, men like Michael Powell, former Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, have been brave enough to step forth and attempt to disembowel the threat of Common Carriage and Internet Freedom which might otherwise threaten the delicate structure that is our Republic. When Mr. Powell quietly redefined Internet Service Providers (ISPs) from Telecommunications Service Providers to Information Service Providers, in 2002, he lifted the yoke of Common Carriage from the backs of companies such as Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner, Cox, and Charter so that they might be better able to tailor our access to the Internet content in a way that they deem most beneficial for their customers. Regrettably, Mr. Powell moved on to greener pastures. Still, in the twelve years following his heroic act, parties on both sides of this bitter war on Freedom of Speech continue rallying. The fate of Internet Freedom lingers with its last ragged breaths as we dream quietly yet fitfully, in our collective sleep, for a quick, silent death.

Not surprisingly, in January of this year, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down attempts to impose Net Neutrality onto the Internet by the Federal Communications Commission, led by newly appointed chairman Tom Wheeler. Soon our streaming video and VoIP services will see a bump in rates as those who own the information highway can finally impose upon those innovative big content providers the fees necessary to arrest innovation and competitions from upstarts who might otherwise bring something revolutionary to the Internet. Mr. Wheeler has vowed to continue "preserving the Internet as an open platform for innovation and expression while providing certainty and predictability in the marketplace is an important responsibility of this agency,..." Mike O’Rielly, the most recently appointed Republican commissioner for the FCC has expressed his concerned that the commission might consider reinstituting pre-2001 regulations ensuring net neutrality. Let us pray that Mr. Wheeler does not do something so foolish as to invoke Title II Authority and reinstate ISPs as telecommunication services, thereby ensuring a level playing field for all participants, regardless of the amount of cash they bring to the table.

Sincerely,

Mr. Pot

"Commitment to the rule of law provides a basic assurance that people can know what to expect whether what they do is popular or unpopular at the time." Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor

"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." - President George Washington

F.C.C. Seeks a New Path on ‘Net Neutrality’ Rules

While Gravely Ill, The Rumors May Be Exaggerated

Dear Mr. Kettle:

In reading that heart-wrenching obituary on the Republic, I was bit overwhelmed with the litany of symptoms which reportedly plagued our great Nation in its declining years - oh, to have died so young and so full of promise. I must confess to having read it several times, seeking to extrapolate the ten plagues from your list and coming away from the experience exhausted and a bit of nauseated. When reading such an extensive list of symptoms, I'm reminded that the disease from which we suffer is not new. We have been at deaths with this particularly malady before. There just isn't anyone left alive to tell the tale. Still, while it took the promise from a generation, we did survive and became stronger either despite it or because of it.

Popular media called the events which began in the fourth quarter of 2007 The Great Recession, starting a war of perception and propaganda, as each side of the front tried to win the hearts and minds of the America people. Depending on which media outlet one was listening to at any point in time, the depredations of the 1930's would be visited upon Generation X or they would not. The fact is that we have been here before. However, instead of the gold standard we now have a fiat currency; instead soup kitchens (or at least not as many of them) we now have food banks and food stamps; instead 25% unemployment we now have 20% underemployment atop the official 7% unemployment. There was - is - deflation. Ask any homeowner who's weathered these past seven years, successfully or not. The only silver lining in the whole debacle has been the stock market. Interestingly enough, the same was true in the years following 1929.

I was intrigued with your declining to compare Obama to Roosevelt. After all, that is where most go when discussing the disease riddled state of affairs that sound like the death rattles of the nation. Perhaps you were so overwhelmed with grief while drafting the obituary that you merely lost track of that perceived pejorative. Ironically, however, a more apropos comparison would be that of Obama to Hoover. After all, both men inherited their respective debacles from their predecessors, who interestingly enough shared the religion of Trickle-Down Economics. Of course, differences abound between Obama and Hoover. Most notable among them was the nature of those who oppose(d) them. In Hoover's case, he sought the assistance of private industry in remedying the free-fall of the economy, knowing full well that only in this sector of society did the resources exist to affect change in any real, measurable way. Regrettably, history proved once again that private interests are inept at large-scale social reform and welfare. In Obama's case, interference and opposition to attempts at remedying the financial free-fall came not from private industry but rather the United States House of Representatives...wait, never mind.

Of course, out of the 1930's came many of the social and regulatory reforms which you deride as the underlying causes for the nation's ill health and subsequent demise. The under-spoken, subtext of history from this period point to the early cold war years in which the nation sought to avert a second civil war and the uprising of communism within our borders as a result of the unabated social upheaval wrought by the side effects of unchecked capitalism. Ironically, we appear to still be fighting that war. However, the Soviet Union has died from its own combination of excesses and deprivations to be replaced by the People's Republic of China, while spying and the military arms race have been replaced with industrial espionage and currency manipulation.

America is in a sorry state of affairs. I will give you that, sir. We even appear to be repeating many of the same mistakes of the past, much like smacking our collective thumb repeatedly with a hammer in the hope of getting a better result each time. Still, my humble opinion is that we're still sound of heart and lung, with corded limbs ready to work. What we lack is direction and purpose, both individually and collectively. It's left us in a malaise which feeds a social circle of despair, spreading despondency to those who can see no hope and unease to those who can't comprehend what it's happening about them.

Still, I'm not yet ready to pull my black suit from the back of the closet - not even to see if it requires a bit of alteration to accommodate the inevitable evolution of age. Instead, I'm polishing my dance shoes and calling my girl for a night on the town. After all, one of the secrets to longevity is to keep moving.

Sincerely,

Mr. Pot

"Money was all appropriated for the top in hopes that it would trickle down to the needy." - Will Rogers

Democracy: Is It Too Early For An Obituary?

To the illustrious Mr. Pot:

Will 2014 be the year that our Republic begins its slow death? If so, shouldn’t we at least begin to compile a fitting obituary? For example:

**********************************************

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA – 2014

The democratic republic commonly known as the United States of America passed away quietly this year. The cause of death was an insidious affliction common to many failing nations. It's officially known as Liberalism. The technical medical term is pecuniam non habere or a “fanatic tendency to spend money that doesn't exist”. Most elected officials of the Democrat persuasion hailed the event as the beginning of a new era. “This is the dawning of a new America,” one pencil necked liberal opined, “Finally, we'll have everything we ever wanted for the poor, the middle class, the labor unions, and the children! Just think of it....unrestricted and government sponsored abortions, permanent unemployment compensation, a Marxist-Leninist textbook in every classroom, single payer healthcare. And we'll never have to worry about paying for one penny of it."  Republicans leaving the Senate chamber for the final time were heard muttering on their way to their country club happy hours something about not having enough votes to stop it.

This once proud country leaves behind many needy dependents and creditors including nearly every nation on the face of the earth.

In lieu of flowers or memorial donations, Democrat officials request all citizens simply sign over their paychecks to the new government. They claim it's a new tradition that everyone will have to get used to anyway.

*********************************************

As a serious republican form of government, our country is in waters heretofore uncharted. The waters are quite choppy and present a real danger to the ship of state that equals the fate of the Titanic, Lusitania, and the Andrea Doria all rolled into one. Since 2008, we have seen an unprecedented increase in the national debt. As it climbs to $17 trillion and beyond, the debt represents more than a 30% increase during the present administration alone. Any reputable economic scholar will readily concede that irresponsible spending of this magnitude spells doom. Yet this week, both houses of Congress joyfully extended the legal debt ceiling for a full year and now there is serious talk about completely abolishing such a pesky roadblock to unbridled political pork.

There is another troubling signal that forecasts the impending end our Republic. Students of political thought generally agree that the purpose of a Republic is to extend and guarantee rights, especially where the individual citizen is concerned. The past six years have witnessed a startling erosion of civil liberties in our country. While a few outspoken Congressmen have expressed outrage, all the others have simply ignored the excesses of the current Executive Branch except for a few instances of disingenuous public posturing. The IRS has been callously and illegally used to target right leaning political groups. High ranking Administration officials have appeared before Congressional committees and, rather than testify truthfully, hid behind the protective shield of the 5^th Amendment. The Oval Office's chief occupant has illegally and unilaterally modified laws passed by Congress, delayed implementation of them, granted exemptions to the laws for his political cronies, and has simply directed his Attorney General not to enforce sections with which he personally disagrees. Again, this dangerous and unprecedented disregard for the sacred concept of separation of powers and checks and balances portends dissolution of government structure that furthers shakes the foundation of our Republic. And again, deafening silence from Republican leadership.

An American Ambassador and three brave cohorts are brutally murdered during a well-organized (and well financed) attack on our consulate in Benghazi. Our President spins the episode with hastily constructed and literally laughable lies about the circumstances. To date, no plausible explanation has been given and no scoundrels have been apprehended.  Quite the opposite. CNN News was on the “crime” scene days before our own investigative forces arrived. As for the attack itself, “There was simply no time to send help” our president has reiterated numerous times. A simple question: Mr. President, since our intervention forces were only hours away from Benghazi, how could you have possibly known that there wouldn't be enough time for them to arrive. How could you have possibly known that the attack would not spread to other parts of the city and continue for days? And finally, where exactly was our Secretary of State during this sorry incident? Oh well, I guess the answer to that last one is “What possible difference does it make?”

The list continues and is certainly exacerbated by incompetence and what many would describe as corruption. To wit: a half a billion dollar web site that didn't work from day one; a “fast and furious” and half-witted attempt to provide weapons to major drug cartels; billions of dollars to buy helicopters to give to Afghanistan (purchased, by the way, from Russian manufacturers and not from our own US companies); increasing of Congressional salaries while at the same time cutting disabled veterans benefits; an unemployment rate that has exceeded 7% during the entire Obama Administration; an unprecedented expansion of public assistance programs including unemployment compensation and the SNAP program (food stamps). The public assistance programs we have in this country are certainly comparable to the circus demands of the Roman populace at the beginning of Rome's heralded downfall.

There is a startling conclusion to be derived from the current state of the American republic. I contend that a true republican form of democracy and unbridled liberalism cannot successfully co-exist and may in fact be the antithesis of each other. In “Democracy in America”, Alexis de Tocqueville puts it succinctly and eloquently: “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers it can bribe the public with the public's money.” Unfortunately, it's not just the public who is being bribed from the national coffers. Government largesse extends its tempting hand into every aspect of our society. Sadly, more and more segments are grasping this spectral hand and greedily shaking it as the ducats copiously fall to the floor. It's getting harder and harder to turn down the free lunch that liberalism seductively flaunts in our collective faces. As the public assistance rolls continue to double, as our nationals debt multiplies, and as our electorate becomes more apathetic, the liberal legions arrogantly proclaim victory. I guess those of us in the loyal opposition could regroup. We could try to demand new Republican leadership; we could fight the liberal, Marxist ideologies permeating our colleges and universities. We could try to match the exorbitant amounts of money donated by Hollywood types and mega labor unions to liberal causes. And we could hope for more media outlets like Fox News to report “fair and balanced” news. We could do lots of things.... but as our dear Republic lies wheezing on its death bed, the only cogent thought that seems to keep running through my mind is: what possible difference does it make?

Respectfully submitted,

Mr. Kettle

The Solution from Within

Dear Mr. Kettle,

Some time back, I read somewhere that President Eisenhower miraculously solved our immigration issues during the course of his administration and in very short order. For whatever reason, that revelation has stuck in my head. Somehow a sitting President of the United States of America resolved, through presidential decree, an issue deemed to be plaguing the American people. I took note of that declaration, dutifully scribbling it upon a virtual post-it, tucking it away in the corner of my mind. Having seen the level of dysfunction within the confines of our Capital grow over the past three decades, that bit of trivia found its way to the top of a sizeable of pile of minutiae, with alarming regularity. Today, when I hear a politician, regardless of affiliation, a not-so-small voice in my head convulsively screams, “Peter Principle!”

Depending upon what direction the foul wind blows, our government is either performing with the ineptitude its Founders intended or it’s crippled by unfettered political finance and associated special interests. Whichever explanation you care to embrace, I find it implausible that we survived a civil war and two world wars to rise to global preeminence with leadership operating at its current level of impotence. Please don’t read more into my statement than is there, for I point accusingly at every sitting member of all branches of our government as co-conspirators in this farce. However, as I jump from my seat to boo and hiss and shake my fist at having been cheated of my money and time, it dawns on me that I’m not sitting in the auditorium with my equally disgruntled, fellow citizen-spectators. Rather, we’re all crowded in the wings, like the aristocracy of old, making ourselves as much a part of the show as the hapless thespian inhabiting the stage. Meanwhile, the rest of the world gawks and guffaws at us all with stunned disbelief from those dark seats.

It’s always been my contention that an illegal immigrant is merely an international tourist, until some U.S. citizen or resident gives him a job. Voicing that observation publically always gets me look as if I’d just cried out, “That baby’s ugly!” Sadly, it doesn’t matter which side of the political fence the listener might be standing when the proclamation is uttered. After all, we the citizenry are not the problem, rather the fault lies with our leadership, for their inability to lead, regardless of governmental branch or party affiliation. If they cannot lead then how can we follow?

Someone recently commented to me that undocumented workers are the bane brought upon us by corporate America. Regrettably, I felt compelled to correct him on this subject. While it’s true that corporate America has grown dependent upon a shadow workforce of people who work without the full rights and protections that the rest of us enjoy, so too has suburban America become addicted to the same vice. In my little corner of the country, I can drive to at least three locations within ten minutes of my home where anyone with the need for cheap day labor can acquire it. Need a ditch digger, bricklayer or carpenter? No problem. Need your lawn cut? No problem. Speak no English? No problem. After all, these guys aren’t being hired to quote Shakespeare’s Macbeth and they’re certainly not asked to sign a labor contract.

One of these sites which I’ve mentioned is a permanent facility constructed with local tax dollars. It was erected in an effort to make the location adjacent to the town square more palatable for both the workers and those local businessmen and women who come each day to hire them. That particular facility was built during the previous U.S. Presidential administration and continues to this day to create more than a little drama in the township where it can be found. Still, it was what the local business community wanted and what the local business community received. Another location is a simple, half-mile stretch of five-lane highway where men stand shoulder to shoulder, as early as four a.m., in hopes of picking up work. Regardless of the weather, one can always find two or three dozen of them waiting on one side of the road or the other until four, five or even six in the evening. These places are representative of a thousand others that can be found in and around the greater Houston area. These folks aren’t being hired by Megalomart/Acme, Inc. so much as by Joe the Plumber. You see, good ol’ Joe knows that it’s cheaper, easier and faster to get day laborer this way than to recruit, train and retain an assistant. No payroll taxes, no unemployment or workers’ compensation insurance. If the gentleman he recruits on Monday proves to be lacking, there’s no filing for unemployment insurance come Tuesday morning. It’s really all quite civilized.

Sir, you recently asserted that you could find no evidence to support the claim I made regarding the prolific use of undocumented workers in a subset of the agricultural industry. I have no doubt in the voracity of your claim, for you see, folks are pretty much the same in this regard. We don’t like to openly discuss those activities that in the light of day might appear unseemly. The sad reality isn’t that we have an illegal immigration issue or an uncontrollable undocumented worker problem. The real issues are two-fold. First, we possess a cultural duality regarding how we choose to treat these folks that reminds me of someone suffering from severe paranoid schizophrenia, in that we shout violently and vehemently at the situation even as we engage it in such a way as to ultimately exacerbate the problem. Our collective outrage is so disjointed and incoherent that we’re completely ineffectual at helping ourselves. As we try to attack the problem, we end up injuring ourselves and each other in a macabre fashion. Second, even those to whom we might turn for assistance – our leadership – appear equally afflicted. This, kind sir, is the true zombie apocalypse visited upon us, making for raucously disturbing theater for any poor soul bearing witness from the auditorium.

Of course, this all brings me back to the original assertion regarding how those who came before us supposedly resolved the same issue. By 1954, intended or not, the United States was starting to reap the benefits of its post-war efforts to stabilize affairs, both internally and abroad. Thanks to an after-thought clause in the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944 (better known as the GI Bill) our country gave birth to an unprecedented number of scientist, engineers and artists, making contributions at levels unheard of since the Age of Enlightenment or the Renaissance or, perhaps, the Persian Empire. Thanks to the vision of U.S. Secretary of State George Marshall, the United States not only emerged from World War II victorious, we also create new markets in which to peddle our surge in industry and ingenuity - markets that would endure for half a century. For the first time in nearly a generation, we were shining as a nation and doing so more brightly than in any time in our country’s history. We knew prosperity in a way previously unknown and in this knowing found a means to elevate the status of labor to where a shadow workforce was not a requisite – or at least not as large of one. Is it possible – just possible – that President Eisenhower’s push to purge our borders of unwanted visitors coincided with a communal desire and will to get our collective house in order?

Do we need immigration? Absolutely. Do we need to stop treating immigration like a disease to be eradicated? Absolutely. Perhaps if we look upon our immigration issues as symptoms of larger systemic issues within our borders, we might better understand the love-hate relationship which we openly hold for the undocumented worker. Only then can we hope to understand and, hopefully, resolve the matter that’s more and less mad science. Until that day comes, I feel there are no answers and the solutions we implement will be as fleeting as those we impose in 1954.

Sincerely,

Mr. Pot

“The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to an uniformity of interest. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government.”

– James Madison, From The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection. First published in the Daily Advertiser. Thursday, November 22, 1787. Part of the Federalist Papers, Federalist No. 10.

The Great Immigration Debate, Part II... A Classic Dilemma

To the illustrious Mr. Pot:

My Yahoo dictionary describes the word dilemma thus: n. noun    1. A situation that requires a choice between options that are or seem equally unfavorable or mutually exclusive. 2. A problem that seems to defy a satisfactory solution. 3. An argument that presents two alternatives, each of which has the same consequence.

That enigmatic definition seems to sum up the immigration debate, albeit in a somewhat scholarly and philosophic manner. The irony we derive from the on-line lexicographers is that their definition could easily apply to practically any undertaking by the two major parties in the United States Congress. Laws are written, not to be in the best interest of our country, but merely as a compromise representing the least of a number of evils. And due to a dearth of bona fide statesmen, the bottom line for most legislation is how it will play with a politician's constituency.

The immigration dilemma is no different. It has two major components to be considered. The first and foremost part is the political implications of any meaningful immigration law passed with the teeth to enforce it. (An old trick in the political game is to pass laws that either have no sanctions or are simply not funded. It gets everyone off the hook and the Honorables can return to “fly-over” country as noble warriors). The second part of effective immigration reform is really the most important, and that is the economic impact.

Political implications are famously transparent in the immigration debate. Our left leaning brethren see visions of electoral victories dancing in their heads. They fancy a permanent majority in both houses of Congress, continuous residency in the White House, and a Supreme Court that will be simply an extension of left wing ideology with the black robes to enforce it nationally.  Chuck Shumer, the gregarious and garrulous Democrat senator from New Yawk, regularly demands that any credible immigration reform must include a path to the ballot box....excuse me....a path to citizenship and voting privileges for the millions of undocumented Democrats now in our country. That pretty much sums up the left side of the debate. On the pin striped and wing tipped side, Republicans have serious concerns about the economic impact of opening up the national treasury (if there really is one) to tens of millions of uneducated and underemployed men, women, and children. While Democrats seem to literally salivate at the prospect of  more spending for bi-lingual education, unemployment benefits, public health care, food purchase assistance, burgeoning union membership, and the outrageous earned income tax credit, most Republicans realize that somewhere down the line the tab will have to be paid for those trinkets. A straw man argument persists about how citizenship for the illegals leads to higher food prices, but most realistic thinkers realize the market could adjust to that factor. The real impact for the consumer will be the now and future increase in federal, state, and local spending to accommodate our newest citizens and the resulting tax increases necessary to finance it. There is genuine concern that the public assistance demands in our country cannot tolerate an additional 20 million or so new comers and the subsequent generations to follow.

An esoteric yet fleeting notion exists abroad about America being the land of opportunity....the great Melting Pot. Past generations of those landing on our shores legally came here truly to assimilate...to learn English....to become productive members of this great land. While there are many who still share that ideal, they are the ones that are at the back of the line of the immigration rolls, waiting patiently (and legally) for their chance to be a productive part of the many opportunities our country has to offer. These are the immigrants that most Americans welcome with open arms. They respect our laws, have an overwhelming desire to become productive members of our society, and most importantly, want to play by the rules. After years of waiting, they proudly gather in courtrooms, libraries, or other public meeting areas and take their oaths of citizenship. With their hands placed respectfully over their hearts, they pledge allegiance to our flag.

While I share Mr. Pot's frustration about a realistic solution to the many illegal aliens in our country, I firmly believe that very little if anything will change dramatically. Politicians WILL slowly allow a more liberal policy about immigration. We WILL NOT erect a Great Wall our borders with which to hold back the hordes. Public entitlements in border states and elsewhere WILL balloon to unmanageable proportions. We WILL NOT embrace mass deportations. Conservatives will be thrown a few bones to politically purchase their vote. Perhaps voting privileges for our newest citizens will be delayed. Perhaps participation in the Social Security and Medicare schemes may be temporarily prohibited. In any event, the liberal crowd will have their way, eventually. They are a patient lot, and will continue to rely on their Republican counterparts to remain a spineless lot.  Together, they are insuring America will change. Fortunately for those of us who knew of America's greatness at one time, we won't be around to notice.

Respectfully ( and regretfully ) submitted,

Mr. Kettle

The Great Immigration Debate

Dear Mr. Kettle,

An illegal alien is merely an international tourist on holiday, until some American gives him a job.

That's my standard reply when I see someone vocalizing their disgust over our country's current immigration issues. Most of the comments are visceral, shoot from the hip exclamations, vented in frustration and anger over a situation that no one seems able to understand, much less control. Not even our leadership has an answer on which they can agree to act.

Is there a fix for immigration reform or is all the talk in Washington posturing and theater. If undocumented workers were "legalized", then they could, in theory, demand better pay and work conditions. On the other hand, maintaining a second-class work force, living in the shadows of our society, with no rights or privileges, makes for a powerful labor tool for getting work done that most Americans would look upon and say, "No way! Not under those conditions. Not for those wages."

Would fixing the illegal immigration issue address the crisis in our welfare system? Would fixing the undocumented worker issue resolve our unemployment conundrum? Would fixing these things introduce other socio-economic issues as we seek to backfill those positions left vacant from the mass exodus of 12 million illegal immigrants? At last estimate, illegal immigrants represent 4% of our population. What's the impact of demanding their immediate departure? Would it be like the removal of a cancer, where the patient suffers the ravages of surgery, radiation and chemotherapy, but ultimately survives and thrives to live the balance of a full and productive life? Would it be like the amputation of a limb, leaving us deformed, disable, and depressed as we struggle to compensate for a our life-long disability?

No, I have no answers here. However, as I watch our leadership gather in their Colosseum to give thumbs-ups or thumbs-down to the question of should they go or should they stay, I have lots of questions...and the list grows longer.

What do you think?

Sincerely,

Mr. Pot

J. Scott Applewhite / AP