Write Lightning is a blog from writer Deb Thompson.
Everyone is welcome here.
(Some links or topics may not be completely kid-appropriate.)
Everyone is welcome here.
(Some links or topics may not be completely kid-appropriate.)
Tue, Aug 23 2005
Pushing The Boundaries
I was pointed to a blog with another whole take on the difficulties with Illegal immigrants from Mexico. (A tip of the Stetson goes to VDARE for the link.) Mark has lived and worked in Mexico, unlike most of us who type comments on the situation. He describes, in brief form, the type of government Mexico has had up to this point. His description is not without sarcasm, but he's blunt about the country's present and deadly serious about its future when he talks about the crowds of people trying to leave Mexico and come to the United States. He does suggest that we think about accepting the fleeing people as refugees and begin to blend them more thoughtfully into our society with education, jobs, and housing strategies that prevent huge concentrations of slum-like conditions.
The section he writes about pushing southward caught my attention because I was involved in a discussion a few days ago, in which this same idea began to unfold. We all wondered where actual control of our border should stop. We spoke of taking a strip on the U.S. side (by eminent domain, where necessary) all along our border states, to be used by our government to begin better control, with the express cooperation of Mexican officials (a wild idea in itself at this point). The problem was that we knew, once underway, the control would have to keep moving further into Mexico in order to have any results. It seemed pompous and invasive, and also sad and daunting in the face of the huge amount of work it would require. After reading this man's blog entry, it sounds as though it might be all of the above, and more. Furthermore, it does nothing to take care of the problem of the drug cartels. There would be no peaceful end to this type of action. As long as there are profits to be made from drugs, people would continue to try to move them and sell them, no matter how far we pushed their trade into Central America and even into South America. And if we choose to take over territory after territory how does that make us any better than any other forced, invasive form of government on the planet? I also wonder about the writer's answer for the refugees who come here and decide not to follow the rules. If they are permanently ejected from the U.S. where will we send them once we've pushed so far southward that there is no land left in which to eject them? Who will take them then? Will they walk a plank off Tierra del Fuego?
I have no real answers. But I do know that trouble is coming, one way or another. And at some level or another it's going to involve bloodshed and violence, either on this side of the border or the other side, no matter where that border is placed. We can delay it, but I'm not sure we can stop it when greed and power fill so many selfish hearts.
posted at: 09:48 | category: /Politics | link to this entry
I was pointed to a blog with another whole take on the difficulties with Illegal immigrants from Mexico. (A tip of the Stetson goes to VDARE for the link.) Mark has lived and worked in Mexico, unlike most of us who type comments on the situation. He describes, in brief form, the type of government Mexico has had up to this point. His description is not without sarcasm, but he's blunt about the country's present and deadly serious about its future when he talks about the crowds of people trying to leave Mexico and come to the United States. He does suggest that we think about accepting the fleeing people as refugees and begin to blend them more thoughtfully into our society with education, jobs, and housing strategies that prevent huge concentrations of slum-like conditions.
The section he writes about pushing southward caught my attention because I was involved in a discussion a few days ago, in which this same idea began to unfold. We all wondered where actual control of our border should stop. We spoke of taking a strip on the U.S. side (by eminent domain, where necessary) all along our border states, to be used by our government to begin better control, with the express cooperation of Mexican officials (a wild idea in itself at this point). The problem was that we knew, once underway, the control would have to keep moving further into Mexico in order to have any results. It seemed pompous and invasive, and also sad and daunting in the face of the huge amount of work it would require. After reading this man's blog entry, it sounds as though it might be all of the above, and more. Furthermore, it does nothing to take care of the problem of the drug cartels. There would be no peaceful end to this type of action. As long as there are profits to be made from drugs, people would continue to try to move them and sell them, no matter how far we pushed their trade into Central America and even into South America. And if we choose to take over territory after territory how does that make us any better than any other forced, invasive form of government on the planet? I also wonder about the writer's answer for the refugees who come here and decide not to follow the rules. If they are permanently ejected from the U.S. where will we send them once we've pushed so far southward that there is no land left in which to eject them? Who will take them then? Will they walk a plank off Tierra del Fuego?
I have no real answers. But I do know that trouble is coming, one way or another. And at some level or another it's going to involve bloodshed and violence, either on this side of the border or the other side, no matter where that border is placed. We can delay it, but I'm not sure we can stop it when greed and power fill so many selfish hearts.
posted at: 09:48 | category: /Politics | link to this entry
Extremism Is Extremism
Everybody's quoting him and talking about him. Even the soccer world's Goal.com had a comment about Pat Robertson's suggestions to do away with Venezuelan's current president, Hugo Chavez. Science Daily chimed in with its story on the matter. It quoted Robertson, as did many other news sources, as saying that Mr. Chavez was trying to make Venezuela "a launching pad for Communist infiltration and Muslim extremism all over the continent."
As I recall, one of the earmarks of Communism is the desire to silence, and even eliminate, those who do not agree with your particular form of idealogy. Mr. Robertson's remarks, if quoted correctly, sound a lot like that to me.
Regarding the "Muslim extremism", Mr. Robertson has made an excellent choice of words, if you really think about it for a moment. If you've ever tried to teach a child the meaning of "the pot calling the kettle black" you will not find a better analogy than his statement. Mr. Robertson represents, at least to me, the epitome of Christian extremism with his comments, and I would like to say with complete confidence, in public, that Mr. Robertson does not speak for Christians everywhere. Personally, I can find no place in Scripture where we're admonished to "pluck that fellow's eyes out way before he gets any ideas about plucking anybody else's eye out".
I'd also venture to say that politics in Venezuela is a lot more complicated than Mr. Robertson realizes. If he thinks he can take some early strike against a leader there and solve real problems, he is showing himself to be not only arrogant, but ignorant. Fortunately, at least one of those attributes is correctable, if a person is willing to be enlightened.
posted at: 08:07 | category: /Politics | link to this entry
Everybody's quoting him and talking about him. Even the soccer world's Goal.com had a comment about Pat Robertson's suggestions to do away with Venezuelan's current president, Hugo Chavez. Science Daily chimed in with its story on the matter. It quoted Robertson, as did many other news sources, as saying that Mr. Chavez was trying to make Venezuela "a launching pad for Communist infiltration and Muslim extremism all over the continent."
As I recall, one of the earmarks of Communism is the desire to silence, and even eliminate, those who do not agree with your particular form of idealogy. Mr. Robertson's remarks, if quoted correctly, sound a lot like that to me.
Regarding the "Muslim extremism", Mr. Robertson has made an excellent choice of words, if you really think about it for a moment. If you've ever tried to teach a child the meaning of "the pot calling the kettle black" you will not find a better analogy than his statement. Mr. Robertson represents, at least to me, the epitome of Christian extremism with his comments, and I would like to say with complete confidence, in public, that Mr. Robertson does not speak for Christians everywhere. Personally, I can find no place in Scripture where we're admonished to "pluck that fellow's eyes out way before he gets any ideas about plucking anybody else's eye out".
I'd also venture to say that politics in Venezuela is a lot more complicated than Mr. Robertson realizes. If he thinks he can take some early strike against a leader there and solve real problems, he is showing himself to be not only arrogant, but ignorant. Fortunately, at least one of those attributes is correctable, if a person is willing to be enlightened.
posted at: 08:07 | category: /Politics | link to this entry
