El Tema de la Imigracion

On May 1st, the nation saw a series of walkouts and demonstrations in support of the country's 12 million illegal aliens.

Although I didn't attend the rally myself, I did atend a screening of 'A Day Without a Mexican' which examines what might happen to California if all the Mexicans disappeared. It's actually not as interesting in execution as it in concept. Still, it got the point across - without Mexican immigrants (and Latin American immigrants generally), this country would basically collapse. Not enough fruit-pickers, maids, nannies, yard workers, contruction workers, waiters, janitors, etc. In their native countries they might be nuclear physicists, but here they're just cheap labor.

When I was a little kid my parents hired a Guetemalan immigrant to look after me and my brothers. Was she legal? I doubt it. But anyone who wanted to kick her out of this country and send her back had to be totally ignorant of the situation.

You see, a string of US-supported military dictatorships in virtually every Latin American made those countries oh-so-fleeable. And the nearest place that wasn't under the force of American power was America. So that's where they went.

Of course, we were always perfectly happy letting Cubans flee to our country. Cuba is communist and everyone who flees from them deserves asylum. Not so from Nicaragua, Haiti, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, or any of the other places which were just as bad.

Now, most Latin American countries are more or less democratic, though grinding poverty is still the norm thanks to forty years of the 'Washington Consensus'. So the immigrants keep coming.

What to do with them?

Well, you can't deport 12 million people - and anyway, more immigrants would just come to fill in all jobs left empty by their departure. Besides, America depends on immigration to keep it's population from falling.

A 'guest worker' program is a sure fire way to make them feel alienated and sullen. You're here to work, dammit, and work is what you'll do!

Beef up security at the border? After 9/11, everything is about 'security', though of course there are no records of any international terrorists sneaking through American via Mexico. The hijackers come from elsewhere, and drug dealers just fly first class.

Build a fence? That'll work, so long as Mexico doesn't sell shovels and we put five million border guards on patrol.

I say, give them citizenship and stop pretending like our national character is at risk or something.

There's some kind of controversy swirling around the recording of 'Nuestro Himno', a Spanish-language version of 'The Star-Spangled Banner'. I couldn't care less. It's still going to be warlike and unsingable.

The Kathmandu Blues

Nepal king releases political prisoners

Two leading dissidents were freed from a Nepalese prison as King Gyanendra readies for negotiations with opponents.

But protests continue elsewhere in the country Wednesday as police brutally break up peaceful rallies against the monarchy.

Gyanendra took control of the democratically elected government last year, accusing it of not doing enough to quell the Maoist insurgency.

The Times of London reports at least two people were shot dead in Chandragadi and dozens were wounded by police.

Madhav Kumar Nepal of the Communist Party of Nepal and Ram Chandra Poudel of the Nepali Congress were released after three months in prison.

An envoy from India arrived in Nepal to meet with opposition forces before meting with Gyanendra in an attempt to break the stand off.

Nepal's government Wednesday imposed a daylong curfew in a western city and gave security forces shoot-at-sight orders for any violation.

The state-run radio announced that the curfew would be imposed in Pokhara, about 125 miles west of Kathmandu, on the 14th day of nationwide protests against the king.

Violators of the curfew would be shot, the Press Trust of India reports.

Sigh. For the past 10 years or so Nepal has been suffering a civil war between the monarchy based in Kathmandu and the Maoist rebellion taking place practically everywhere else. After the old king and most of his immediate family was murdered by the Crown Prince, ol' Gyanendra took over. He's proven himself both ruthless at quelling democracy and utterly incapable to stopping the rebels, who now control at least half the country.

What His Highness fails to understand, it seems, is that people will only fight for your government if they feel they have a stake in it. The old 'divine right' bit doesn't play as well as it used to, especially when the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) has shown a willingness to participate in parliamentary elections in the past, while continuing to so in the parts of Nepal under their control.

Now, is the CPN(M) going to keep up this veneer of civility if they actually gain power? I'm skeptical of their support for democracy, especially in light of their campaign of kidnapping and extortion, as well as some of their statements in which they propose banning 'immoral' Indian films from being shown in Nepal. But, most Nepalese don't go to the movies anyway, and at the moment the rebels they seem to be making their case better.

To Your Health

BOSTON Apr 4, 2006 (AP)— Lawmakers overwhelmingly approved a bill Tuesday that would make Massachusetts the first state to require that all its citizens have some form of health insurance.

The plan approved just 24 hours after the final details were released would use a combination of financial incentives and penalties to dramatically expand access to health care over the next three years and extend coverage to the state's estimated 500,000 uninsured.

If all goes as planned, poor people will be offered free or heavily subsidized coverage; those who can afford insurance but refuse to get it will face increasing tax penalties until they obtain coverage; and those already insured will see a modest drop in their premiums.

The measure does not call for new taxes but would require businesses that do not offer insurance to pay a $295 annual fee per employee.

More

I'm all for extending health care to people who don't have it. But forcing people to buy health insurance? Does that make any sense?

I don't like it. It's predicated on the assumption that if only those stupid lower-class people were forced to prioritize and spend money on things that matter instead of frittering away their extra $200 a week on cans of beans or country music CDs or whatever it is poor people buy.

The fact is, lower-income people don't buy health insurance because they like the thrill of living without a net or because they foolishly think they won't get sick. Rather, they simply can't afford rent, food, transportation, AND health care. Rather, the needs of shelter, food, and getting to work are far more pressing than the possibility of injury. This added to the fact that most of the cheaper health-coverage plans only provide for 'catastrophic' health problems while people who work in manual or service jobs are more susceptible to chronic condictions which require constant treatments which add up; pill-by-pill costing $20 a day instead of a one-time $10,000 operation. Not to mention the fact that some of those most in need of free health care don't even have to money to get to the hospital or doctor's office in the first place.

Temporary half-measures are appealing, but ultimately they just confuse the hell out of people.

For the Absolute Last Time, Bush Lied

No, not necessarily about Iraq having WMDs (though I still think that what he did constitutes dishonesty at the very least) but about whether Iraq having WMDs had any bearing on whether or not we would invade:

Via the old NYT:

LONDON — In the weeks before the United States-led invasion of Iraq, as the United States and Britain pressed for a second United Nations resolution condemning Iraq, President Bush's public ultimatum to Saddam Hussein was blunt: Disarm or face war.

But behind closed doors, the president was certain that war was inevitable. During a private two-hour meeting in the Oval Office on Jan. 31, 2003, he made clear to Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain that he was determined to invade Iraq without the second resolution, or even if international arms inspectors failed to find unconventional weapons, said a confidential memo about the meeting written by Mr. Blair's top foreign policy adviser and reviewed by The New York Times.

"Our diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning," David Manning, Mr. Blair's chief foreign policy adviser at the time, wrote in the memo that summarized the discussion between Mr. Bush, Mr. Blair and six of their top aides.

"The start date for the military campaign was now penciled in for 10 March," Mr. Manning wrote, paraphrasing the president. "This was when the bombing would begin."

So! All that pre-war guff about war being our last resort and the necessity if attacking Iraq because it was a clear and present danger was solely a charade for the cameras, just like the hippy who always wears sandals into the coffee shop said. Great. Bush used to say that he prayed for peace; did he have his ifngers crossed or what?

Out of Those Terrible Threes

We've now reached our third full year in Iraq. Oh, and what a difference three years makes! That we only just launched the biggest air assault inside the countyr since the beggining of the war is being taken as a hopeful sign. I always assumed the better things are going the less the need for giant military operations, but I guess that just shows my ignorance.

I believe in the American tradiition the third-year anniversary gift is leather. I don't think leather would make a good present at the moment; leather is a poor choice of clothing in the desert sun, and it would probably be taken as a very tasteless reference to Abu Ghraib and and a certain leather leash.

Now, it would of course be better if there was no sectarian violence in Iraq But there are very powerful international interests at work here which have turned Iraq into a battleground for control of the oil and the people. What they all - Americans, Iranians, al-Qaeda, etc. - agree on is that they don't want Iraq to be independent. Shoot, with their relatively educated, secular populace and vast oil resevres, we could have a real force on our hands.

And, even if you think it was 'worth it', was this really the best possible way we could've spent hundreds of billions of dollars and sacrificed thousands upon thousands of Iraqi and American lives? Aren't there other people who could've been far more liberated with far lesser expenditures? Just wondering...