Understanding Poverty in America

The Heritage Foundation released a paper, "Understanding Poverty in America" earlier this month that Paul Harvey featured in the noon edition of his broadcast today. This is a very important issue to understand in an Election year because Democrats often claim to be fighting for impoverished people. However, never do they define what they mean by the poor.

Here are a few facts from the Heritage Foundation's research to keep in mind when you hear people talk about government needing to help the poor:
1. The typical "poor" person owns a car, has air conditioning, has at least one color TV, a VCR or DVD, has cable or Satellite TV reception, and has a microwave.
2. Most poor children are "supernourished and grow up to be, on average one inch taller and 10 pounds heavier than the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy."
3. The report cites that in the typical poor family only 800 hours of work a year supports the family (that is 16 hours a week). If only one adult would work 40 hours a week (that is 2,000 hours a year), then 75% of the poor children would not be labeled as poor.

While these three points can be found in the first couple of pages of the article, I would recommend reading the entire report. Near the end of the report the writers discuss "root causes" of poverty which are "low levels of parental work and high levels of single parenthood." It makes one wonder how the government can fix either of these problems. Both of these sound like individual responsibility issues to me...but hey, what do I know? I'm just a citizen who worked hard and practiced abstinence until marriage and family planning thereafter. Obviously I was just lucky and neither of those required discipline or sacrifice.

Letter to Democratic National Committee

This unattributed piece is making the email rounds:

Dear DNC:

Thank you for giving the opportunity to speak my mind.

I lost my job this past year. When Clinton was president, I worked in a prosperous enterprise. But in the last year, we had to close our operations. We simply could not compete with foreign labor. This foreign labor worked for low pay under very bad conditions. They worked very long shifts, and many even died on the job. This competition could hardly be called "fair." I was forced out of the place where I had worked for 34 years. Not a single government program was there to help me. How can Bush call himself "compassionate?"

Far worse, I lost two of my sons in Bush's evil war in Iraq. They gave their lives for their country, and for what? So that Bush's oil buddies can get rich. My pain of losing my sons is indescribable. While it is trivial next to the loss of my sons, I regret to say that I also lost my home. I simply had nothing left. How can Bush call himself a Christian when he neglects people like me? I am a senior citizen with various medical problems. I'm not in a position where I can begin a new career. I was reduced to the point where I was basically homeless, all because of President Bush. Mr. Bush, I dare you to look me in the face and tell me you are a compassionate man! I dare you to look me in the face and tell me you are a Christian!

If I had any money left, I would donate it to the Democratic party. If Al Gore had been elected in 2000, I guarantee I would still have a job, a home, and most importantly, my dear sons!

Regards,
Saddam Hussein

Distance Education

Here is a little paper I put together for work that discusses the technologies that allow for distance education to occur. The chart on page 2 has been receiving rave reviews from the colleges, with many of them taking it to use in their own discussions. Hopefully, it can help you understand the different types and dimensions that need to be considered when making decisions about which technology you need to use to accomplish a task.

Distance Ed.pdf

Control+Alt+Delete

The guy who wrote the Control+Alt+Delete code is retiring from IBM tomorrow after 28 1/2 years. In the article he talks about his most famous contribution to the PC world and gets a little funny jab in at Microsoft.

The Week in Review

Let's see, it has been a week since I've written... and so much has happened:

Dean Goes Nuts
First, I'm not sure why the media made such a big deal about this. I've listened to the speech and I kind of see the scream as a war cry. Sure it was unusual...but has Dean done anything the usual way? He raised more money than any of his rivals by harnessing the power of the internet and taking in hundreds of thousands of donations of less than $250. He hasn't pulled his family into his election. Finally, he speaks his mind and doesn't speak "Washingtonese." If it weren't for the fact that he is a pinko-commie (that's a phrase you just don't hear much anymore...ahhh...the days when the Wall stood). Anyway, the Democratic Establishment sees him as a loose cannon and they are scared of him. He can not be controlled...therefore, he must be marginalized. So they get their media moguls to make a big deal out of nothing. The Republicans are always looking for a way to poke fun at democrats...so they make a big deal out of nothing.

Now, Dean did get angry and go a little crazy during the speech. He was a little like a kid throwing a temper tantrum. Dean has always gotten everything he has wanted. It has been very easy for him. I think this is the first time he has ever been denied anything. Because of that, he feels he is entitled to what he wants. When that entitlement is pulled from his grasp, he falters into a frenzy.

Bush the big Spender
The State of the Union speech was marvelous, except for the new entitlements and the big spending. The whole line about keeping the increase to only 4% this year. Puh-lease. I want a president who says we will reduce the budget by 4% this year. We will find ways to be more efficient and get rid of pork and wasteful spending. For a man who is running on a platform of limited of government, he sure is adding a lot to it. He has yet to name one federal program he has cut. I can not believe that there is not one...just one, itsy-bitsy , tiny-winy piece of the federal government that could be sliced from the budget or the administration. But, hey, what do I know...I just have to manage my family's budget. I know nothing about living inside your means...

Great Website for Election Season
Want the unspun truth?

Jury does the Right Thing
have your heard about the two sisters, Louise Sawyer and Grace Fuller, who decided that they were going to make some big bucks from a harmless nursery rhyme on an airline? They boarded a Southwest Airlines flight in Las Vegas to return home. While the airplane was at the gate a flight attendant got on the intercom and said "Eenie, meenie, minie moe; pick a seat, we gotta go." They're black and they claim that the little poem was aimed at them. Many, Many years ago, the poem ended in "pick a *offense term to black people* by the toe." I didn't know this...I always thought it was about a ferocious feline. Obviously, though, the airline stewardess knew the racial overtones and was directing that racism towards them. They were so upset by the slight that they suffered physical and emotional distress. Racism rearing its ugly head yet again.

Well, the case went to trial in Kansas City on Tuesday. By Wednesday night the jury had told the sisters that they didn't have a case. Sorry, girls. No money. You're just going to have to live with the physical and emotional distress. If there was true justice out there you would be picking up all of Southwest's legal costs as well.

Bid Award
The committee I've been working on decided to whom the bid should be awarded. Its a secret until this coming Friday, though...

Internet Redesign
I'm also working on redesigning the Alabama College System website. I've split it into three separate sections: a Public side, an extranet for College Personnel, and an Intranet for Department personnel. We are cleaning up the graphics, moving to a standardized format, and database driving as much of the content as possible. The project will be ready to reveal on or about March 1.

Area Wide Youth Devo
On Sunday our church hosted an area wide youth devo. We had about 300 teenagers from churches from Birmingham to Birmingham. After the devo, a punk rock band named Bixler played. You can see pictures of them performing at our church on their website. It was pretty cool. I was at church all day on Sunday because I helped them get set-up and cleaned up after they left. We never did anything like this when I participated in TABS in high school...I wonder why???

That's enough
Sorry for the really long post...I will try to be better this week and get here more often to update this. It was just such a busy week at home and work. I've got four big projects at work (bids, website, technology task force, and new web-based time and leave system). I worked on my project for my brother this past weekend, spent all day Sunday at church, and Erin and I filled out all of the adoption paperwork. We have our first in-home meeting next Tuesday (Feb. 3) at 6:00 PM. I've got three big projects I'm working with Joe on...but I can't talk about those...corporate secret.

Barbarians and Wimps: A Look at "Men" of my Generation

The History Channel (by far one of the best set of programming ever produced) is having "Barbarian Week." It has been an exciting series of looking into the past of Western Civilization and understanding the impact that the Vikings, the Goths, the Vandals, the Huns, and other violent groups of people have had on the formation of Western thought and philosophy. There is one trait that makes all of these groups barbarians: the lack of respect for other people's and group's right to life, liberty, and property.

This has prompted me to think about my generation. My generation (Generation X) seems to have lost the respect for others that my father's, grandfather's and great-grandfather's generation had. I am seeing a trend in which the men of my generation fall into one or two broad categories; they are either barbarians or they are wimps. A generation of teaching the equality of the sexes has withered away the meaning of manhood.

Manhood is not simply a matter of being male and reaching a certain age. These are acts of nature; manhood is a sustained act of character. It is no easier to become a man than it is to become virtuous. In fact, the two are the same. The root of our old-fashioned word "virtue" is the Latin word virtus, a derivative of vir, or man. To be virtuous is to be "manly." As Aristotle understood it, virtue is a "golden mean" between the extremes of excess and deficiency. Too often among today's young males, the extremes seem to predominate. One extreme suffers from an excess of "manliness", or from misdirected and unrefined manly energies. The other suffers from a lack of manliness, a total want of manly spirit. Call them barbarians and wimps.

Today's barbarians are not hard to find. Like the barbarians of old, the new ones wander about in great packs. You can recognize them by their dress, their speech, their amusements, their manners, and their treatment of women. You will know them right away by their distinctive headgear. They wear baseball caps everywhere they go and in every situation: in class, at the table, indoors, outdoors, while taking a test, while watching a movie, while on a date. They wear these caps frontward, backward, and sideways. They will wear them in church and with suits, if ever a barbarian puts on a suit. Part security blanket, part good-luck charm, these distinctive head coverings unite each barbarian with the rest of the vast barbaric horde.

The ancient barbarians did little except fight and hunt. The modern barbarians do little besides play sports and pursue women. To be sure, they have other amusements. But these activities do not as a rule require sensibility or thought. Indeed, typical barbarian pastimes, like drinking mightily and watching WWF wrestling, seem expressly contrived to stupefy the senses and nullify the intellect.

Young males, of course, have always been rough around the edges. But in the past, their edges were smoothed, in part, by being introduced into female company. Boys learned to behave properly first from their mothers (Thank God for mine) and later around other women and girls. They held open doors, pulled out chairs, stood up when a woman entered a room, stood up in public places to offer their seats, took off their hats in the presence of women, and carefully guarded their language so as not to offend the fair sex. All that is gone. In no other aspect of their conduct is barbarism more apparent among a large number of young men these days than in their treatment of women.

At the other extreme from true manliness is the wimp. Wimps are in many ways the opposite of barbarians. We would be mistaken, however, to classify wimps as simply young men without muscle. Often enough they are the stereotypical 98-pound weaklings who get sand kicked in their faces at the beach. But slightness of build and want of talent in sports do not make one a wimp. The diminutive and sickly James Madison was a man, just as was the towering and vigorous George Washington.

If barbarians suffer from a misdirected manliness, wimps suffer from a want of manly spirit altogether. They lack the part of the soul that contains the assertive passions: pugnacity, enterprise, ambition, anger. These principles compel a man to defend himself, his honor, his lady, his country; as well as universal principles., such as, truth, beauty, goodness, justice. Without men of manly spirit to combat the cruel, the malevolent, and the unjust, goodness and honor hardly have a chance in our precarious world.

Wimps make worthless watchdogs. But their failure as watchdogs or guardians has nothing to do with size or physique. There is an old saying, "It is not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog" that matters. Many of today's young men seem to have no fight in them at all. Not for them to rescue "damsels in distress" from the barbarians. Furthermore, wimps vote. As Aristotle pointed out, to the cowardly, bravery will seem more like rashness and foolhardiness than what it really is. Hence political and social issues that require bravery for their solution elicit only hand-wringing and half-measures from the wimps. Wimps are always looking for the easy way out.

You can also spot a by his approach to dating and relationships. While the barbarian has simple appetites when it comes to women (his ideal is the Playboy playmate and his ultimate aim in any relationship is sex). The wimp, on the other hand, has more complex reasons for wanting women. Although sex is certainly one of his desires, more than sex he needs affirmation. He desperately needs a girlfriend to boost his self-confidence. Having someone else notice him will somehow show the world that he is not a total loser. The wimp also needs someone to hear his laments, to commiserate with him when he is feeling down, to discover his secret self. Since he has few qualities or achievements to recommend him, he seeks to appear "interesting" or mysterious. Initially, the wimp might seem amusing to an unsuspecting young lady and very different from the insensitive jocks and rowdies she has known. Ultimately, however, the wimp seeks to draw her into his web of melancholy and self-pity. The story always ends unhappily since romance cannot be based upon pity or the thin facade of personality. He might mope and whine his way into a woman's bed but will find excuses to avoid "commitment." The wimp will begin the relationship by saying, "You're the only one who understands me" and end it by saying, "You don't understand me at all." The truth is that there is not much to understand.

Needless to say, these sketches are not exhaustive. Barbarians and wimps come in many forms in a society that celebrates Diversity as we do. But all of them remind us that Plato's quandary was a timeless one and is our quandary no less than his. Our civilization cannot be sustained by barbarians or wimps; it needs true men.

Good enough for the Goose...

Democrats are voicing outrage that Bush has made a recess appointment of Judge Charles Pickering to serve on the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Under the law, recess appointments serve one year, which means that Judge Pickering will be serving until the 109th Congress convenes in January 2005.

Daschle is quoted in the Washington Times as saying, "It is now clear that the White House will exploit any procedural tactic in order to pack the courts with right-wing ideologues." Of course Daschle fails to mention that the Democrats have used a procedural tactic, the filibuster, to keep Pickering off the circuit court even though, in the latest Senate vote, 54 senators voted in his favor.

Boring...

I have been working on the most boring job this week. We are in the process of getting a contract for computers and peripherals that all 27 colleges in the System can buy off of. I have been evaluating bid responses for 14 companies that want the contract. Man...do my eyes hurt. Nothing but miniscule reading...analyzing diverse responses...checking references...determining the impact of responses changing the language of the bid...I've lost more hair this week than the rest of my job combined.

Luckily, this will be over next week... If anyone ever asks you to do something like this...run...unless your an accountant. Accountants tend to like this kind of detail work...but they are strange anyway. Who would ever want to be an accountant...I don't know.

Anyway...I'm going to rest my eyes and take my beautiful bride out on a date...dinner (pizza from Mellow Mushroom) and a movie...

Get Government out of my hair

The Alabama State Board of Cosmetology has begun a state-wide advertising campaign drawing attention to the fact that in Alabama only licensed (i.e., government approved) cosmetologist are allowed to cut hair. (I will not question the use of tax dollars for ad campaigns when our state is in financial trouble and the governor's request for a $1.2 billion dollar tax hike needed to ensure critical services failed right now - I'm sure the expense was justified.) Due to the relatively low cost of shears and the high cost of hair salons, many children are still given burr cuts from their parents. This is obviously in direct violation of the law. While no parent has been prosecuted yet...I think it is only a matter of time before someone is.

This raises to my mind the question of economic freedom. Does the government have the right to tell me with whom I can trade services? What gives some nameless, faceless bureaucrat the authority to tell me who I can pay to cut my hair? I don't understand it. Are unlicensed hair stylist a menace to the very fabric of Alabama society?

Governmental licensing is anti-competitive and, in my opinion, an unconstitutional infringement on the right to earn a living. These practices raise the prices of receiving services for consumers and inflate the value of the people giving the service. I want to be clear and explain that I am not against private associations and organizations certifying that a person is trained to be able to do a certain task to a certain level. I find such certifications useful and try to use privately-certified professionals whenever possible.

It just makes me wonder when will government get out of my hair....literally.

More Immigration Editorials

As I continue to follow the "Immigration Debate," I'm trying to create a compendium of articles and thoughts from experts. Like I've said before, this is a tough issue. Both sides can make great, intelligent points.

First, Bill O'Reilly says that the Bush plan is only good if we stingently enforce our policies from here on out.

We'll follow that up by article from Lou Dobbs investigates the potential impact of the Bush plan on the economy.

Jeff Jacoby remembers when immigrants tried to assimilate themselves into American culture.

Immigration policy is folly, according to John Leo

The Editor in Chief of The Washington Times, Wesley Pruden, thinks that the Bush plan is inviting contempt.

Here is what Diana West thinks.

Bernadette Malone retells here grandparents' legal story and says that Bush's plan mocks their legal immigration.

An expected response from Pat Buchannan is very anti-immigration. After all, he did write the book. "The Death of the West," with a byline reading "How Dying Populations and Immigrant Invasions Imperil Our Country and Civilization."

Mark Steyn of the Chicago Sun-Times blames the Illegal Immigrant problem on a bureaucracy that fails in the legal immigrant arena.

Of course, some people editorialize with pictures instead of words:

Assay


Jake Fuller

Not a lot of difference

There is not a lot of difference between the Democrats and Republicans when it comes to economic policy...see:

Too Funny!!!

Ananova - Twins sent to school on alternate days

Immigration Revisited

Two days ago Bush announced his long-awaited plan for dealing with immigration. I must admit, I was a bit surprised by the plan. If you look down the page a bit, you will see my reaction to what was about to happen.

I still think that dealing with this issue is very tough. After all, how can anyone truly blame a person for breaking the laws of our country to get here when they are moving from a country where the per capita income is $3,600 to a country where the per capita income is $32,000. It would be morally and ethically wrong to deny a person a chance at overcoming such rampant poverty.

At the same time, can we trust people who would break the law in the area of immigration to follow the other laws of our land? Are we not taught that one who breaks one part of the law breaks the whole law? As a republic we are a nation built on the rule of the law; a nation where the law is supposed to be the guideline by which live. If we bend the law, then we crack the very foundation upon which our great nation has been built.

Illegal immigration is a complex issue that has evolved over decades. The realities of the situation defy rational solutions on drawing boards. In other words, when it comes to immigration, it's very easy to say how things ought to be (as I did earlier this week). But it's very difficult to deal with things as they are. The fact is there are an estimated 8-10 million illegal immigrants (individual people with an inheritant right to life, liberty and property) in this country. I agree they shouldn't be here and that they should have followed the law to get here. I also agree that the law was too strict and tight to cope with the reality of America's need for the workers and the reality of the situations that drive people here. However, it is painfully obvious that the nation does not have the resources or the economic fortitude to round up and deport all of these people as some have suggested. First of all, most of these folks are already working here. Suddenly yanking them from their jobs isn't a great economic policy (who would clean the hotels, hang drywall, and keep the golf courses landscaped). Even less realistic is the expectation that an already overextended government could do it -- even if it wanted to. And even less realistic than that is the notion that any politician would even try.

So, let's look at Bush's proposal and layout some pros and cons and see if we can't get our heads around this. Bush's proposal has several points of interest:

• The government would confer legal status (an initial three-year work permit) on millions of illegal immigrants living in this country who can show they are employed and who pay a $1,500 fine (I'm not sure this is the right amount...but I can't find the amount anywhere...it was something like this...maybe a little more).



• Legal "work" status would be able to given to those currently living in their home countries if they have received offers of employment here.



• The workers are then ensured worker benefits, legal protection, freedom to travel between Mexico and the U.S. without fear of deportation, and a stake in our fabulous Social Security program.



• They would not be granted amnesty or a fast track to citizenship

More information can be found by reading the White House Fact Sheet and Q & A
on Fair and Secure Immigration Reform.

Pros

• Confers legal status to people already here allowing government to perform background checks



• Ensures that employers are indeed following the minimum wage (which I disagree with) and health and safety laws (which I agree with in principle) when hiring workers of non-Native descent.



• Provides incentives for workers to return to their native nation

Cons

• Could be perceived as rewarding people who came here illegally with the promise of legal status



• People already here with a history of criminal behavior just will not sign-up for the legal status, but will continue to operate "under the radar."



• The proposal in no way increases the efforts to block our borders from illegals or provides a method to do deal with people who are here who do not wish to participate in the program.



• Acts as an incentive for even more people to get here illegally so that they can find jobs to be eligible for the benefit.

Thoughts
While this proposed legislation is far from perfect, I think that it is a move in the right direction. As I said earlier, we have a problem and we must deal with the problem. There is no perfect solution so sometimes you have to set a vision and just try to move in that direction. This is a move in the direction of open borders for people who wish to work which is a laudable goal. While I wish there were more effort put into securing our borders and I wish there were more clear language clarifying that immigrant workers will not be eligible for social programs, one must admire Bush for at least trying to get a handle on this very emotional topic.

While some people think that Bush is pandering to the Hispanic vote, I think that Bush knows that this is going to cost him more of his conservative base then he will pick up in Hispanic voters. Bush, therefore, (in his typical fashion) is doing what he thinks is right despite what others say or think. That is a character trait I value. It has been my observation that Bush is a man who does not rush into anything, but takes into account all of the so-called "unintended consequences" of policy change. So far, he has been right in most of his decisions. This makes me a little more trusting of him...even if I don't quite understand what it is he is doing or why.

This is an issue that I will be following very closely. Just in case you are wondering, I truly am reserving judgment about this issue still. I see so many sides and am having a difficult time latching on to a position....so you will probable see more of my inane ramblings on this subject as I internalize and debate it my head trying to find a position.

Links to Other Articles on this Issue
Opinion Journal believe that the proposal will help the economy and security.

David Limbaugh, the brother of Rush, thinks the Bush plan is a bad idea.

Kathleen Parker claims the Bush plan is an "empty piñata."

The American Conservative Union fears that this nothing more than an amnesty program that has been labeled as a guest worker program.

A legal immigrant of Chile expresses his opinion on the current proposal.

Linda Chavez writes a pragmatic opinion supporting the proposal.

Joe Mariani provides and astute piece on the on the political game Bush may be playing with this proposal.

The Small Business Survival Committee releases a statement saying that the Bush plan is good for small businesses.

This guy questions, "What's Rove's Idea?"

Most Americans Oppose the Planaccording to the Washington Times.

Coffee Consumption

I am on a personal mission to show that Coffee Consumption is not harmful to you. As a programmer I drink about a pot of coffee a day. My wife, my family, and my doctor all say that it is bad for me and that I should reduce my consumption. I think they are all full of themselves. Coffee is 100% natural. You run hot water (good for you) over a roasted and crushed coffee bean. No chemicals are added...only pure water should a better beverage...but who can stand the lack of taste of water...yuck.

Anyway...whenever I see articles like this one pointing to the benefits of drinking coffee...I have to share the wealth. Drinking more than 6 8oz cups of coffee a day appears to reduce the risk of diabetes. Wooo-hooo....

Stay tuned for further updates to science showing that coffee is not bad for you.

Objectivity is not synonymous with Neutrality

Thomas Sowell discourses on the Media trying not to be biased.

Quote from the Article:
"Objectivity refers to an honest seeking of the truth, whatever that truth may turn out to be and regardless of what its implications might be. Neutrality refers to a preconceived "balance," which subordinates the truth to this preconception. "

Amnesty for Crooks

Tomorrow President Bush is going to propose what amounts to yet another amnesty for criminals in this country. The criminals are illegal aliens. They broke our laws to get here, and they break our laws working and staying here. Bush is also going to allow illegals who provided false Social Security numbers to employers to collect any benefits they may have coming.

Immigration is such a tough issue, especially post-9/11. I am very much a pro-Immigration person because I believe that the freedom of self-determination is a vital part of the make up of America. When people move from their culture, family, and nation to a place that allows them to succeed or fail based on their own work ethic and skills then all of society is better off because only those who are truly up for the risk will attempt to immigrate. It is my belief that there should be no immigration quotas or restrictions based on numbers. Instead, restrictions should be placed on behavior. Therefore, any person who wishes to immigrate here should be allowed to provided that:
1. They have passed a rigorous background check (this would be a fee for service paid by the potential immigrant or the employer who is bringing them in for work) that ensures that they are not enemies of America.
2. They understand and agree to follow our laws (if our laws are broken, the immigrant is immediately deported).
3. They understand that they will not receive any benefit from any social program offered by the government. In other words, they must be able to fend for themselves.

Immigrants would not be considered citizens and would not have the rights afforded citizens. They would have the ability to apply for citizenship and follow that procedure. It is my belief that this kind of system would seriously curtail the number of illegal immigrants.

To continue to cut into that number an aggressive border patrol would be set up to ensure that people are following the proper procedures. Anytime an immigrant is found by any level of our police force, they would be immediately deported and their country of origin would be charged for the expense.

Been Sick

I got the flu and have been holed up...Man, it tore me apart. I'm still really worn out from the experience.