In Defense of Arizona

Give me your tired, your poor,Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

These are the immortal words carved on a tablet on the inside of the Statue of Liberty's pedestal. They symbolize America's long-standing acceptance of migrants from the world over. Hundreds of millions of Americans can trace their heritage to migrants to this country, be their ancestors Pilgrims arriving on the Mayflower, Italian peasants crossing through Ellis Island in search of a better life in America, Chinese migrants coming ashore in San Francisco to pan for gold or work on the railroads, or Cuban refugees landing in Key West after escaping Castro's oppressive regime. 


As a matter of fact, I am the descendant of migrants from Cuba, Estonia, Egypt, and Italy who arrived here in the first 60 years of the 20th Century. My mother and her parents came to the United States with a tourist visa in 1959, and never left. My mother was an illegal immigrant. My grandfather had been a member of Batista's government, and Castro's men had come several times to arrest him on false charges. My mother and her family went into hiding just before Castro formally took power, and were able to escape to the United States because their last name (Garcia) was ridiculously common. Shortly after arriving, she and her family petitioned for political asylum, and their green cards were granted in 1963.


My entire family arrived in this country legally, and each and every member of my family, including those who arrived under false pretenses, immediately registered with Immigration and began the process of naturalization. This kind of immigration is what Lady Liberty's poem refers to. 940,000 people, including 175,950 from Mexico, follow legal paths to immigration each year.


The kind of immigration that inspired the much-debated law in Arizona is not the kind of which I have spoken, but instead illegal immigration. Approximately 12 million people living in the United States today are undocumented immigrants, and 500,000 live in Arizona. Some of these immigrants are poor migrants trying to support their families back home, but others are criminals and Drug Lords fleeing the jurisdiction of the Mexican Police, and still others are drug "coyotes", responsible for bringing illegal narcotics into this country and fueling both a war in Mexico and a major health problem in our streets. Regardless of their purpose for being in this country, they all have one thing in common: the Government has no idea who they are or where they are. Not only does this make it difficult to prosecute tax and criminal law violations by immigrant laborers, it also prevents the Government from properly allocating services like schools and hospitals to them. This crisis demands action, and Arizona's law is action.


Federal law requires that illegal aliens be removed from the country, but a host of other problems has prevented the US from properly enforcing that position. Arizona's law takes up the slack, allowing police officers to ask people who have already been stopped for a perceived violation of the law for proof of residence, like a Driver's License, and gives them the ability to turn illegal aliens over to the INS. Any citizen or legal migrant should be carrying a Driver's License or Green Card around already, so the new law poses no threat to legal residents of this country. Critics, like US Attorney General Eric Holder (who has confessed to not reading the law), have claimed that enabling police to ask for ID has turned Arizona into something akin to Nazi Germany. Organizations, Sports teams, and even entire cities have boycotted Arizona as a result of this ignorant interpretation of the law. 


Upholding Federal law has sparked a crisis, but in the words of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel "You don't ever want a crisis to go to waste." This country needs immigration reform. The best ideas for immigration reform I have ever heard have been those of President George W. Bush and Senator John McCain. Both men were criticized by the right for their views on immigration, but I believe that they have the best option. Border security along the border with Mexico must be increased, but that alone will do little to stop the flow of immigration. What America needs is a "Guest-Worker" program, which allows Mexican immigrants to come to the United States on a work visa, live and work in the United States for a period of around 18 months, sending money home as per usual, then forces them to return home once their work visa has expired. If the migrant so chooses, they can reapply for a Guest-Worker visa, or begin proceedings to become permanent residents of the United States once they have returned to Mexico. This program would grant legal status to Mexican immigrant laborers, eliminating economics as an incentive for illegal immigration. This would reduce the number of people entering this country illegally, which would allow law officers to focus their attention on those entering the United States with less than noble purposes. 


In order for this to work, existing illegal immigrants would have to be found. Those eligible for the Guest-Worker program would be allowed to stay, this time with conditions and a timetable for their return home. Those ineligible, or those with citizen children, would be given an opportunity to apply for legal residence. Those granted resident status would be allowed to stay, and those who fail to earn resident status will be deported. 

Back up to speed

Have you all missed me? Contrary to rumors that I am making up now in order to create hype, I have not passed on, and am finally back to give you all a fresh dose of Leaning Right and Left!

The biggest story of the past few months has no doubt been Health Care Reform. For the most part, the reforms enacted seem positive, like provisions banning insurance refusal for "pre-existing conditions". What worries me is the Individual Mandate, set to take effect in 2014, that requires nearly ALL Americans to purchase a Federally-approved health insurance plan or pay a substantial penalty. Nowhere in the Constitution is Congress given the right to impose such a requirement on the people, and it would seem that the 9th and 10th amendments expressly disallow such a huge federal intrusion into what should be the domain of the people and the states. As one GOP congressman said during floor debate, "The [Federal] government can't make us buy insurance, a car, or even a box of doughnuts!" Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum and 13 other state Attorneys General have, in fact, filed a lawsuit on these very grounds, and I hope the courts use this opportunity to fix what would have been an otherwise positive bill.

In other news, BP's Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded, sank, and is now leaking thousands of gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico each day. I have been an ardent supporter of offshore oil drilling in the past, and my support hinged on the fact that (excluding the 1979 Ixtoc I incident caused by the notoriously mismanaged Mexican PEMEX) there had been no major oil spills linked directly to drilling. The environmental catastrophe that seems to be upon us in the Gulf has thrown a wrench into the works of that line of reasoning. As a result, I believe that my support for conservationism comes first, and unless the current disaster is determined to be the cause of sabotage or a mistake that can be easily avoided in the future, I have no choice but to back off of my support. I sincerely hope that efforts to minimize the spill's impact come to fruition in the next few days.

Scandal and the Filibuster

Anyone flipping through the news recently has heard something about the resignation of Representative Eric Massa (D-NY) in response to an emerging sex scandal, and the cloud growing over Representative Charles Rangel (D-NY), who stepped down as Chairman of the House Ways and Means committee after it was revealed that he had improperly accepted corporate-sponsored trips to the Caribbean and failed to disclose hundreds of thousands of dollars in assets. Speaker Pelosi promised to eliminate the "Culture of Corruption" supposedly fostered by the Republicans and demonstrated by Former Representative Mark Foley's "wide stance" scandal, when the Democrats took control in 2006. Now, 4 years and almost two election cycles later, that "Culture" has failed to vanish. Was Pelosi insincere in her campaign promise, or has she failed? 

The point is practically moot by now, as the scandals have only added to a growing anti-incumbent tide, which is threatening to wash away not only many Democrats in swing districts, but many Republicans as well. A general perception that the 111th Congress has failed to make good on the 2008 promise of "Change", public misgivings about the debacle that Health Care reform has become, and the influence of the Radical "Tea Party", will likely all contribute to making 2010 a very turbulent election year.

About two weeks ago, an interesting story appeared, and I regret not having addressed it before today. Senator Jim Bunning (R-KY) single-handedly delayed passage of an emergency jobs bill which would have, among other things, funded the Federal Health Care benefits that have kept both unemployed workers and the medical industry alive during these pressing times. The one-man filibuster meant that the spending measure, which required unanimous consent to pass, was delayed several days as Bunning tried to get an amendment passed that would pay for the bill without borrowing funds. He certainly had a good point, and that point was that the Senate should hold true to the "Pay-as-You-Go" legislation it has passed and stop piling up our country's debt. But keeping millions of Americans in financial limbo against the opposition of all 99 other Senators was not the appropriate way to go about making that point. Bunning's request to remove a tax loophole from the paper industry to earn the required $10 billion was finally accepted in order to break the stalemate, but he really should have either gotten it into the bill in the first place or waited to get it passed separately. I read somewhere that a bill that included a provision closing the loophole was actually on the docket for this week, but Bunning had to have his way. Many of Jim's Republican colleague's have criticized his misadventure as ill-conceived, and I don't blame them. There is a fine line between blocking wasteful "Keynesian" spending and impeding the government's duty to serve the people, but Senator Bunning must have missed that. Actions like his have led to the unfair branding of the GOP as the "Party of No", and I hope we can avoid situations like this in the future.

In other news, I will be serving as a messenger in the Florida House of Representatives over this Spring Break. It will be a great honor to serve the elected representatives of my state.

Bipartisanship and Killer Whales

It has come to my attention that many pundits on the right are calling Scott Brown a "traitor", or insisting that his willingness to cooperate with the Democrats makes him a "one-term" Senator. These remarks stem in part from Brown's vote against the GOP filibuster of a jobs bill, an action I do not believe deserves such criticism. While any sort of spending bill beyond a certain point seems to violate the "Small-Government" stance of many in the Republican party, at this point, with the recession over but employment stagnating, I think a small bill like this one is an appropriate measure.

Moving beyond the jobs vote, deriding Brown for being a moderate is uncalled for. The decidedly liberal state of Massachusetts elected Brown as a referendum against the most liberal parts of the Administration's agenda, and as the 41st vote against the current healthcare bill, Brown restored some semblance of balance to the senate. While Brown is a Republican, he is not a mouthpiece for the reactionary goals of the Tea Party movement, which may bother some, but a Republican of any leaning coming out of Massachusetts is good enough for me. In my opinion, Brown is doing the right thing. By breaking irrelevent filibusters, Brown is helping the Republican party shed its image as the "Party of No", and giving the moderate forces within the party a chance to shape policy. However, when push comes to shove, I am certain that Brown will vote with the party to block the key goals of the Liberal agenda, namely socialized healthcare.

Now, a topic I felt I must address is the recent death of Dawn Brancheau at the fins of Tilikum the orca. Animal rights activists and others have seized this opportunity to attack not only the use of animals in shows, but also the entire zoo/aquarium system. While I agree the system is due for some degree of self-imposed reform, I don't think that anyone will benefit from its complete dismantlement. First and foremost, Earth's biodiversity has been spared the worst in large part due to the presence of rare animals in zoos. In fact, two species of lion and one species of wild horse, among other species I am not aware of, exist only in zoo populations, and efforts to return them to their habitat would be (obviously) impossible had we not collected them for our enjoyment. Secondly, giving people the opportunity to see Earth's creatures firsthand helps people to imagine them as actual, living beings, rather than just distant pictures on a Discovery special, and does a lot more for conservation awareness than critics will ever admit. Conditions at zoos are tremendously better than the "tiny cages" that PETA crazies conjure up to win sympathy, but I admit that there is plenty of room for improvement. Animals need appropriately sized, natural environments in which to live, and it is the least we can do to give that to them in exchange for the priceless enjoyment they give us. I believe that larger parks, like Busch Gardens and Seaworld are doing an excellent job at providing this comfort to their animals, but smaller local zoos need support from their larger counterparts to ensure that we can maintain the highest standards for the animals we keep, enjoy, and protect.

SCOTUS, POTUS, SOTU, NASA

My attempt at parallel structure in the title kind of fell apart after I realized the State of the Union Address didn't have a second S in the standard acronym. No matter.

At the beginning of last week, the Supreme Court decided 5-4 in Citizens United v. FEC to declare certain limits on the ability of corporations and unions to contribute to political campaigns unconstitutional. Though this change is controversial, and not without problems, I believe it has its merits. First of all, Unions have been working the system since time immemorial. By manipulating union due payments from members, unions have been able to far exceed spending limits on political campaigns. Corporations, on the other hand, previously had no access to such extralegal methods. Now, the methods employed by the unions have been legalized, while corporations have gained access to the same. In addition, the court ruling seems to increase transparency in campaign spending. Corporations and Unions must now run independent ad campaigns and disclose in those ads who is sponsoring the campaign. This allows the American voter to see which organizations support which candidates. Other potential positives, like the ability for lesser known and third party candidates with unique solutions to seek out corporate and union sponsorships, may also come from this ruling. The negatives involved here are obvious. Many people believe that rising campaign costs are limiting people without immense personal funds from competing in elections; depending on how things go, this ruling could either contribute to that trend or even the playing field by giving less wealthy candidates the ability to partner with groups that support their ideals. While the issue of campaign costs is a very legitimate concern, the most prominently voiced issue is that of "foreigners dominating American politics", as Obama, in a dangerous rebuke of the Supreme Court, claimed during the SOTU. This issue is barely relevant, and is likely an attempt at rabble-rousing, as the only foreigners who could possibly benefit are those holding American companies, and even then the Supreme Court continues to uphold the ban on campaign spending by foreigners.

Overall, Obama's SOTU address seemed like an apology for the Health Care fiasco. Following Scott Brown's election, Obama has tried to distance himself from the more radical aspects (public option) of reform, and focused instead on the economy and the vital aspects (stopping "pre-existing conditions" from being a coverage issue) of his prize project. In addition, Obama went out of his way to support measures, like nuclear energy, that he had previously opposed, likely in an attempt to win support from the increasingly disenchanted Independents who helped him win in 2008. Though I support Obama's shift in focus, I believe it is a sign that he is wavering in his ideals in order to appeal to the American people and save his chances at re-election, a move that is sure to bother many on the Left who see such actions as treasonous.

My final topic for tonight is the changes to NASA's budget in Obama's 2011 budget. I support the idea of a goal-shift at NASA from a moon-oriented plan, to a broader deep-space effort as envisioned by the "Flexible Path" option proposed by the Augustine Commission and endorsed by the President. However, the plan Obama has laid out gives no clear outline for the development of manned vehicles, and it effectively ends the Constellation Program, abandoning the Ares I and V rockets and the Orion capsule that were in development (with billions of dollars spent already), and leaves the jobs of thousands of people working on the project in my home state of Florida in jeopardy, a situation that Obama assured them (in a visit to Canaveral during his campaign) would not occur (Space-related industries make up a huge part of Florida's economy). I have no issue relegating low-Earth orbit launches to commercial ventures, as I'm sure it will lower costs for NASA in the long run, but leaving plans for future exploration in limbo is just wrong. Back in the early 70's, budget issues led to the cancellation of the Apollo program and Von Braun's ambitious plans for further exploration. Now, 40 years later, we're still stuck piddling around in orbit, and we cannot let US government actions prevent mankind's spread to the stars again.
The recent focus shift was needed, but so is money. Obama's budget gives NASA several billion more dollars, but relegates a larger portion of NASA's overall spending to Earth Observation. This is a worthy cause, as NASA satellites have helped improve life on Earth in ways as varied as combating forest fires and monitoring Antarctic melt. But with something as vital to the future of mankind as NASA, there should be no trade-offs. The money allocated to Earth Observation should stay, but Congress, especially Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL), a former astronaut whom I deeply admire as a public servant, must lead the charge by amending the budget to increase funding for Exploration. If budget issues remain, Obama's proposed spending freezes in other areas could be expanded, or *gulp*, a small tax of some kind could be created to bolster NASA's budget.

Haiti, Quebec, and Massachusetts

My family and I just got back from a trip to Quebec over the long weekend. The province is a beautiful place, and Quebec City, right on the frozen Saint Lawrence River, had a bizarre feel, almost as if it were a city at man's northernmost frontier, though I'm sure the fact I'm not used to so much snow played a role in that idea. We toured the city, tasted delicious Quebecois food, and enjoyed the Winter activities, like ice skating in Place D'Youville and tobogganing outside our hotel, the Chateau Frontenac. The highlight of our trip, however, was a night in Hotel de Glace, the Ice Hotel. The idea of an 80-person hotel made entirely of ice was bizarre, the structure itself was beautiful, and the sleeping conditions, 27 degrees Fahrenheit on a bed made of ice, wood and foam, were an experience in themselves.
The only negative aspect of the trip was the Canadian security. Apparently, to align with the US's security needs, Canada has enforced a "no-carry-on" policy. Interestingly, women's purses, but not men's satchels of similar sizes, are allowed through, which I think smells of sexism. I'm fine with pat-downs (which we had), Millimeter-Wave full-body scans, and even complete bag searches if it means the liklihood of a Terrorist attack is lessened, but let me bring my bag on the plane! Or, at the very least, the airline or the hotel should have informed us of the Canadian policy, so we would know to pack our bags appropriately.

The biggest story in the news this past week has been the tragic earthquake in Haiti, the desperate search for survivors, and the deployment of 11,000 US troops to the country to ensure stability and efficient aid deployment. All of the aid funds being collected, from groups as diverse as the Red Cross, Wyclef Jean's Yele Haiti, private donors, and national governments is a testament to the generosity of the human race, and will surely help Haiti get back on their feet after this disaster, and will hopefully leave them with an improved infrastructure that will allow them to break away from their position as the poorest nation in the Western Hemisphere. Recently, a row over a French aid plane that was apparently turned away before later being allowed to land has led to French criticism of the US role in Haiti. France, as the former ruler of Haiti, likely feels some responsibility for Haiti's economic situation, but now is not the time to make amends for History for their posterity's sake. What matters most is the recovery of the few left alive under the rubble, the efficient distribution of aid, and protection for the millions of homeless Haitians from the bandits and looters that have taken control of much of the disaster zone in the absence of a real government. The United States, with the UN mission and Haitian government scattered, is in the best position to take command of the situation. With troops, a hospital ship, an aircraft carrier, and other resources already deployed, the United States, under President Obama, Secretary Clinton, and General Keen, has done an excellent job in caring for the living, and preserving order, and the US presence should remain for the foreseeable future.

Finally, the big story yesterday was the election of Republican Scott Brown to the seat vacated after the "lion of the Senate" Ted Kennedy's death, breaking the Democratic monopoly of MA senators that has lasted since the '70s. With 41 Republicans in the Senate, the Right will now be able to filibuster unpopular Democratic legislation, particularly the Health Care Reform effort, and force the majority party to moderate their reforms to accommodate the views of some of the 41% of Americans whose representatives have been largely ignored in the Health Care Debate. This slight rebalance of power in Congress is good for both sides, giving Republicans greater control, and allowing Democrats to craft a Reform bill that will be more accepted by the American people than the one being proposed. Many analysts predict that Brown (a moderate Republican) is an indication of an anti-Democrat trend that will be fleshed out fully in November. No one can know for sure, but I for one, am excited.
One final thing many analysts worried about was the issue of "Shenanigans" in Brown's seating. However, the Majority has accepted the will of the people of Massachusetts, and Brown seems likely to be seated without delay. Martha Coakley, Brown's opponent, was gracious in defeat and did not contest the election as some had feared. Obama and Harry Reid also showed grace in statements today urging legislators to halt Health Care debate until Brown is seated. The fear remains that the House will pass the deeply flawed Senate bill and send it to Obama to be enacted without changes, but the consensus is that such an event will not occur, and renegotiations will be held, with at least some Republicans on board.

I'm Dreaming of a White..... Tomorrow?

The past couple of weeks have been marked by record lows across the United States, Europe, and China. Much of the northern hemisphere is suffering from the coldest winter in decades. Stunning evidence can be seen here: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/view.php?id=42237. In Florida, temperatures have not risen above 60, even in Key West, which experienced its coldest day in over 150 years. Tampa, Florida may even receive its first flurries in decades tomorrow!

I guess all this hullabaloo is a good opportunity for me to express my views on Climate change. Is it real? Obviously. The Climate has varied tremendously over time, from the heat of the Cretaceous, to the Ice Age-Interglacial cycle we're in now. Even short periods have trends, like the Little Ice Age of the 17th-19th centuries.  The warming trend from 1850-1990ish is due to a variety of factors, including a return to equilibrium from the Little Ice Age and, to some degree, human carbon emissions. Records from ~1990-2009 seem to indicate a cooling trend, but scientists are unsure of how that fits into the big picture, as evidenced by some of the "Climate-gate" statements.

Now all that's left to determine is which is the fluke, the warming or the cooling. Once we figure that out, we as a species must learn to cope with the consequences. Limiting our role in Climate change is a good start, and non-fossil fuel energy sources, like nuclear fission, fusion, wind, solar, hydro-electric, and others must be funded, if not to save the environment, then at least to keep us going once the oil runs out. In case the warming theory wins out, research on flood control technologies must be accelerated as well.


My biggest political story this week is the Majority in Congress's plan to shut the Republicans out of Health Care debates as the House and Senate bills are reconciled. Normally, a Conference Committee would be formed with bipartisan membership to "iron out" bill differences. The Democrats plan to skip this process, and  use informal "ping-pong" negotiations to pass identical bills in both houses, allowing them to get by with few or no Minority votes as they did the first time they got HC legislation passed. Skipping the Conference process in a bill as important as this is a dangerous idea. Democratic policymakers insist that reform must pass immediately, and I agree that the system needs reforming, but does urgency make up for alienating the representatives of 40% of the nation's people? Despite being branded as "the Party of NO", the Republicans actually agree on the majority of reform provisions, notable exceptions being any form of "public option" and abortion funding. It would do both parties well to bring leaders from both parties and both Houses to create a bill an overwhelming majority of our nation's 535 legislators can agree on, incorporating the best ideas from both sides, like an end to restrictions on "pre-existing conditions" to expand coverage, and employing medical malpractice Tort reform to decrease costs.

Wishing you a pleasant snow day, wherever you may be (except in the Southern Hemisphere, and probably the Northern tropics as well.)

What's This About 2010?

So it's a brand new year, a brand new decade. I think we can finally get into the habit of naming years the way they did in the 20th century, twenty-ten sounds pretty nice. Last decade will probably bug the heck out of linguists for a while, twenty-oh-two doesn't sound quite as nice as 1902 does.

2009 was pretty exciting, the Miracle on the Hudson,  a new President, the Swine Flu scare, continuing uncertainty over the economy, coups, wars... you name it, 2009  had it.

But we've got a lot to look forward to this year: a new claimant to the title "World's Tallest Building" (the Burj Dubai), victory and an end to the Iraq War, and of course, the 2010 Mid-Term elections. I'm excited because I will be voting for the first time, and the nation will get to decide how much of President Obama's "Change" agenda they want to keep, and how much they don't. I'll certainly be watching the run-up to those as we go along, and I hope you all do too.

I hope you've all had a Merry Christmas, a Happy Hannukah, and a Happy New Year.

Leaning Right and Left

I'm leaning right and left. What does that mean exactly? It means I try to see both sides of every political argument, and for every issue I side with conservatives, there's likely an issue on which liberals and I would agree. I am a card-carrying member of the Republican Party, but that oversimplifies the argument. If I had to label myself, I would certainly be a member of the GOP's "left-wing".

In terms of domestic policy, I am first and foremost a Free-Market capitalist. I believe that the exchange of goods and services at prices based on the supply and demand for those goods and services is the best economic system, in terms of efficiency, if not always in equity. To the end of equity, Government must ensure that consumers, businesses, and workers do not take advantage of each other by breaking up most monopolies and oligarchies, persecuting fraud, and regulating the safety of consumer products and work environments.

I also believe that Homo sapiens, as the dominant species on this planet, is its steward, and must strive to protect it and all of its life. The environmental impact of development must always be considered. We must always try to keep pristine environments pristine, and do everything within our power to maintain the biodiversity of the planet. Human expansion into outer space is a vital part of this task, as it will allow mankind  to survive no matter what happens, and it will lessen Earth's human population, and consequently mankind's impact on the Terran biosphere.

As the Founders of America said, Government exists to preserve the rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. These rights apply to all, regardless of ethnicity, race, religion, gender, age (for the record, I support limited rights for minors as well as age limits for political office), or sexual orientation. All people, unless they lose these rights as the result of a fair and open trial by their peers, have the right to live, vote, own property, marry, care for their own or adopted offspring, and own weapons.

I believe that the final right I mentioned, that to bear arms, applies not just to state militias, but also to the individual for two reasons. First, people must be able to defend their family and property from attack by criminals. Second, the people reserve the right to rebel against any Government that may arise which they believe threatens their inherent rights. That said, the Government reserves the right to stop any such armed rebellion, and the victor in such a conflict must respect the rights of the defeated party. (The American Revolution and the Civil War provide good examples of both possible endings for such a rebellion).