I wish CNN had a head so I could vomit on it

This letter is from a couple weeks ago.

I know that some of you think that I exaggerate. Occasionally, this is true. However, not right now.

I recently opened the BBC homepage, to check the headlines. I then checked CNN out of curiosity. The former top headline: “Gunmen seize 50 Iraq security men.” Along the side are the continuing reports, which rather than abating have escalated over the past several months, with lines like, “Chaos threatens troop withdrawal,” “Long path to Iraq’s sectarian split,” and “Edging to abyss.”

Sure, these sound rather bleak. But then again, things ARE bleak. The world’s superpower has invaded a country under false and/or mistaken pretenses, but repaired the situation with the justification that life would be better without Saddam Hussein. Well, majorities of Iraqis tend to agree: polls show that most think life will be better. Eventually. Unfortunately for right now, since the invasion things have gotten progressively worse. Indeed, according to all available sources I can find, Iraq’s basic utilities (sanitation, electricity, etc.) as well as basic public programs (education, police, fire, etc.) are not only in shambles but far worse than when we showed up. Make sure you note that last part: for all of his evil, apparently Hussein was much more capable of providing his people with schools, electricity, water, and basic security than we have been. Again, make sure you note that last one: for all of his evil, ironically people were astronomically more safe on a day to day basis when Hussein was running Iraq (as long as they didn’t piss him off or find themselves the target of one of his insane buddies’/sons’ caprice).

This is not a “blame America” email. Rather, it is just yet another reminder of what is going on in the foreign land that we invaded and still occupy. That place where we thought everything would be rosy within months, because our intelligence regarding pro-American sentiment and reconstruction efforts and standing infrastructure was about as reliable as our WMD intelligence. But everyone knows this, right? Everyone thinks about this daily, right? After all, the foreign medias with which I am acquainted cover the news from Iraq daily. They let their people know how many people were kidnapped and executed for the day. Our media does the same, no?

CNN’s “breaking news exclusive,” their top headline on their homepage, reads as follows: “New Orleans hospital operator has checkered past.”:

I wish that CNN could instantly be personified so that I could vomit on CNN’s head. Unfortunately, my only option is to vomit all over my keyboard or TV.

-W

People really can buy their own island - including Australia!

Some interesting pieces of completely useless information:

Bill Gates’ estimated overall worth exceeds the GDP of the following nations:

(The number before the country name is its rank amongst all 180 members of the International Monetary Fund. The number following the name is its GDP, in millions. Data from 2005)

74 Uzbekistan 50,395 75 Lithuania 48,493 76 Kenya 48,334 77 Kuwait 46,733 78 Democratic Republic of the Congo 46,491 79 Costa Rica 45,137 80 Serbia and Montenegro 44,665 81 Slovenia 43,690 82 Angola 43,362 83 Uganda 43,260 84 Cameroon 43,196 85 Oman 40,923 86 Turkmenistan 40,685 87 Nepal 39,136 88 Azerbaijan 38,708 89 Cambodia 34,670 90 Uruguay 34,305 91 Afghanistan 31,868 92 Luxembourg 31,759 93 El Salvador 31,078 94 Zimbabwe 30,581 95 Latvia 29,214 96 Paraguay 28,342 97 Jordan 27,960 98 Côte d'Ivoire 27,478 99 Tanzania 27,123 100 Mozambique 27,013 101 Bolivia 25,684 102 Qatar 25,010 103 Lebanon 24,420 104 Bosnia and Herzegovina 23,654 105 Panama 23,495 106 Estonia 22,118 107 Honduras 21,740 108 Nicaragua 20,996 109 Senegal 20,504 110 Yemen 19,480 111 Guinea 18,879 112 Equatorial Guinea 18,785 113 Trinidad and Tobago 18,352 114 Botswana 18,068 115 Cyprus 17,490 116 Albania 16,944 117 Burkina Faso 16,845 118 Madagascar 16,228 119 Mauritius 15,978 120 Bahrain 15,838 121 Republic of Macedonia 15,780 122 Georgia 15,498 123 Namibia 15,144 124 Haiti 14,917 125 Mali 14,400 126 Papua New Guinea 14,363 127 Armenia 14,167 128 Chad 13,723 129 Laos 12,547 130 Rwanda 12,171 131 Jamaica 11,657 132 Niger 10,951 133 Zambia 10,792 134 Kyrgyzstan 10,764 135 Iceland 10,531 136 Gabon 9,621 137 Togo 9,369 138 Brunei 9,009 139 Tajikistan 8,802 140 Benin 8,747 141 Moldova 8,563 142 Malta 7,799 143 Malawi 7,667 144 Mauritania 7,159 145 The Bahamas 6,524 146 Swaziland 5,716 147 Mongolia 5,561 148 Burundi 5,538 149 Fiji 5,447 150 Lesotho 4,996 151 Sierra Leone 4,921 152 Barbados 4,857 153 Central African Republic 4,629 154 Republic of the Congo 4,585 155 Netherlands Antilles 4,220 156 Eritrea 3,977 157 Guyana 3,489 158 Cape Verde 3,055 159 The Gambia 3,022 160 Bhutan 3,007 161 Suriname 2,898 162 Maldives 2,569 163 Belize 2,098 164 Djibouti 1,641 165 Guinea-Bissau 1,167 166 Samoa 1,164 167 Comoros 1,133 168 Saint Lucia 1,062 169 Seychelles 979 170 Antigua and Barbuda 938 171 Solomon Islands 911 172 Grenada 861 173 Tonga 810 174 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 799 175 Vanuatu 726 176 Saint Kitts and Nevis 609 177 Dominica 468 178 São Tomé and Príncipe 253 179 Kiribati 221

The combined wealth of the top 10 most wealthy men in the world would be enough to buy Austria (34^th in GDP at 275,020)

However, for some perspective, the combined wealth of the top 10 Jobobs today is actually vastly LESS than the combined wealth (adjusted) of Rockerfeller and Carnegie. Apparently the rich keep getting richer, but not as rich as before…

-W.

For those of you who wonder about the likelihood of a woman president in the coming years (and I’m NOT talking about Hillary; I’m talking about the country’s ability to conceive of one, period), the following article may be of some interest. The article is something of a book review that focuses on the current First Lady, Laura Bush. The BBC reports that Mrs. Bush has and has maintained the highest approval ratings of any First Lady since pollsters started asking the question. (They hover around 85%.) They talk about the fact that she has been kept generally in the background, though she has had a significant influence in the background. For example, according to Mrs. Rice, it was Mrs. Bush’s idea “to really fully and completely expose what the Taleban regime was doing to women.”

The BBC also looks at previous First Ladies, and their reception by the public. They mention that Nancy Reagan “was often criticized for being domineering.” And no one needs to hear about the vitriolic attitude of the American public to other strong partners like Hillary or Kerry’s wife Heinz. Indeed, apparently Barbara Bush “famously warned her daughter-in-law not to criticize George W Bush’s speeches after she once upset the future president so much he accidentally crashed his car.”

One other note of interest: apparently “the most-reported sections of the book” have to do with Mrs. Bush’s being “quietly dismayed” by “the state of the residence” (i.e., the White House) when they took office. “The Bushes were appalled by the shabby condition of the West Wing… Not only were the carpets and furnishings fraying and in disrepair in the West Wing and public areas, the Oval Office was done in loud colours – red, blue and gold.” It goes on and on.

Believe it or not, I like Mrs. Bush. But I have to ask: What does this tell us about the nation’s opinions of the proper role of the First Lady, or of women in general? Given the significance in the public mind of the disarray of the White House, it would appear that the country is very interested in the First Lady’s role as a homemaker. Personally, I understand that the White House needs to look nice. However, my reading of the description is that the Clinton’s turned the place into an office building, concerning themselves less with keeping it stylish than with worrying about doing their jobs. (I say this because my place is always a shambles when I have a lot of work to do…) As for the First Lady’s approval ratings in general, it would seem that we are trapped in the 50’s: we want a quiet wife who remains in the background, who is not too assertive, who doesn’t speak her mind in public except to support her husband (cf. Hillary or Nancy), who is interesting in keeping the house tidy, who has a more traditionally-female career like school teacher or librarian (as opposed to successful business woman or lawyer), and who is pretty. If this all sounds too cynical, let me ask you: if we did have a woman president, do you think the country would expect or even want the First Gentleman to act in all the ways described above? Do you think her chances at the candidacy would increase or decrease if her husband was a happy homemaker? Would the press continue their tradition of asking the First Gentleman about what he is making for Thanksgiving dinner, or of comparing his recipe for chocolate chip cookies with his wife’s opponents’ spouses’ recipes?

It is a strange world when America simultaneously wants to claim democratic, progressive superiority, yet we aren’t sure if we are ready yet for a female president – even though countries from Great Britain to the Philippines to Liberia are or have been led by a woman.

-W.

Mistaken Identity at Gitmo

All,

Here’s a another delightful little ditty from the non-existent detention center called Gitmo. To give you the highlights: apparently the US military has admitted that it accidentally captured a number of Chinese Uighurs. At least two of them protested their confinement in federal courts, as the military admits that they were not enemy combatants of any sort. (By the way, for those of you out of the loop, they are just a couple among many, certainly dozens and possibly hundreds, who have been formally or informally declared wrongfully detained. However, the military commonly says that they cannot now release these folks, for they would start fighting American troops in whatever capacity they could find. That’s right: they weren’t terrorists before, but we have pissed them off so terribly throughout their indefinite incarceration that we are certain if emancipated they would do everything in their power to pay us back. The most ironic part of all this remains unanswered: find me an American who would blame them, or who would respond differently given similar circumstances. Therefore, apparently we intend to hold those folks until they die…)

Back to the Chinese folks. A federal judge ruled that their detention is unlawful, but that only the Supreme Court could order their release. The Supreme Court refused to hear the case on technical grounds, however: the poor saps have another meeting with the federal judge next month, so their consideration apparently came too early. Meanwhile, the US has refused considering returning them to China, for fear that they “would face persecution there.” (The Chinese apparently consider Uighurs political dissidents.) Yet we can’t find any other nation that wants to give them asylum, and we sure as hell aren’t willing to do it.

Thus the irony compounds exponentially: we pull these hapless bastards from Pakistan without cause, detain them without rights or recourse for 5 years, yet we’re now afraid to repatriate them for fear of the consequences. So what do we do? We keep them illegally, wrongfully in a jail located in political limbo. I would like to have been present at the meeting wherein we decided that this was our best option for ensuring that they not “face persecution.”

I think Gitmo has become quite outdated. I would like to start a petition requesting the DoD formally to rename the installation. “Rabbit-hole” or Looking Glass” would do just fine.

-W.

CORRECTION: Madness and Immigration

I need to amend the last email: According to CNN, the question regarding whether those polled were in favor of the House bill was asked AFTER they were told of its details. “When several of the House legislation’s proposals were spelled out for poll respondents, 47 percent said they favored the bill and 44 percent opposed it” (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/03/immigration.poll/index.html).

Thus, the last comments in the email were somewhat premature. Apparently these people were informed (though I would like to see exactly what “several” parts were described, and how far they were “spelled out”). However, this just makes the earlier point about inconsistency stronger, in my opinion. That is, even after hearing that their sympathy could get them charged with a felony, these people simultaneously said that they felt for illegals and that they want people who feel for illegals to be thrown in jail.

-W.

All,

CNN recently (March 31-April 2) conducted a poll of Americans to see how they felt about immigration reform. The result is yet another example attesting to the ill-informed average American voter, the blunt tool that is polling, and the inconsistencies that ensue.

The poll results are as follows:

How important will the issue of illegal immigration be when you vote in the congressional elections this fall?

Single most important: 14%

Very important: 43%

Somewhat important: 31%

Not important at all: 9%

Don’t know: 3%

Do you favor or oppose legislation to build fences along the U.S.-Mexican border and increase penalties for illegal immigration?

Favor: 47%

Oppose: 44%

Don’t know: 9%

How much sympathy do you have for illegal immigrants and their families?

Very sympathetic: 24%

Somewhat sympathetic: 46%

Somewhat unsympathetic: 12%

Very unsympathetic: 14%

Don’t know: 4%

The poll has at least two glaring problems:

(1) I consider immigration reform an important issue. However, I consider it a way by which to assess my representatives. Given all my research, the public is grossly misinformed about the costs/benefits of the status quo as well as Congress’ intended “resolutions.” Thus, as I mentioned in my letters to my senators and congressman, I will be watching to see whether they act on the basis of principled, informed conclusions, or whether they will cede to this rabid and confused public in order to save their political careers. What’s more, will they spend the coming weeks or months trying to inform the public of the real situation and facts, or will they simply use the current climate to their own advantage. However, if I was a respondent in this poll, that would put me in the same camp with the vast number of those who I just called rabid and misinformed. In my opinion, without more sophisticated questions such a poll would be more likely to lead folks in Congress to act in their own self-interest, interpreting the strong majority concern as an impetus to craft strong (and, I believe, erroneous) legislation.

(2) I’m struck by the vast majority of those who say they are sympathetic (70%), given the support for the fence and penalties. Questions like these are particularly hard: my guess is that most people are not nearly so sanguine, but that their conscience demands that they respond thus when put on the spot. That, or these people do not have a clue what the legislation entails.

Occasionally TIME sits down a group of folks, polls them on an issue and proposed legislation, then informs them in detail of the legislation and the issue, then polls them again. The last time they did this, the issue in question was Social Security reform. The numbers were both unsurprising and yet terrifying: the large majority in favor of reform completely switched to opposition once they knew what was going on. The more cynical among you may think that TIME did their explaining in a biased manner. I wasn’t there, so I can’t say whether the information was presented in a snide manner or with sarcasm. What I do know is that they merely laid out the status quo and then the president’s proposal.

Too bad we can’t do that with everyone concerning everything. Sigh.

-W.

Response to Mr Peterson

All,

The following is my response to the office of Mr Peterson. Though you may find it quite tedious, it contains a great deal of information on the impact of immigrants on state and federal spending and economics. The studies cited herein date from 1976 to 2004, and I have included citations. Unfortunately, I highly doubt that anyone in the Congressman’s office is paid enough to read the rambling rants of his constituents. Nevertheless, one can dream…

-W.

Mr. Peterson,

Thank you for your swift reply. Either your staff has done an excellent job crafting their form-response letters, or I received (much to my surprise) one written specifically in response to my first letter. Either way, it was well-written: the author deserves a raise.

However, I have a few questions about the letter. According to your response, illegal immigration "damages the social fabric of our society by placing an undue burden on social programs such as welfare and Medicare, as well as the court system. Illegal immigrants should not be eligible to receive benefits from programs intended for citizens and immigrants legally living and working within our borders." Thus, you support increasing penalties, setting mandatory minimum sentences, etc. Most importantly, you support increasing the numebr of law inforcement personnel on the border, and the creation of the border fence.

First, I would like to see the sources you are using to estimate the above costs concerning social services. I have read extensively on this matter, and I have found the following conclusions: According to the National Research Council's 1997 study, "The New Americans," legal and illegal immigration adds anywhere from between $1-$10 billion per year to US GDP "and has little negative effect on job opportunities for most citizens." The report does conclude "that immigration generates federal benefits and state costs ," though this would imply that the debate in Congress should focus on federal/state relations and reimbursment rather than the detrimental economic effects of stronger enforcement (migration.ucdavis.edu/mn/more.php?id=1246_0_2_0). Indeed, though the Center for Immigration Studies claims that they used this report as the primary evidence for their conclusion that there is a net (though practically miniscule) burden on fiscal spending from illegals' use of social programs, they appear to have misrepresented the report quite a bit (www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html). The National Center for Policy Analysis claims that "the most recent and comprehensive" data on the subject comes from the 1976 Survey of Income and Education. Though two decades old, it provides a nice comparison. It concludes that in every way illegals provide a net gain for the federal budget: (1) "immigrants continued to recieve less in tax-funded retirement benefits than did American-born families." With regard to other social programs, the report claims that immigrants receive less cash in federal benefits throughout their entire lives per year than American-born families average (www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba400). Ironically, the report emphasizes that immigrant family households pay more in taxes per year than the average American-born family (1995 Cato Institute study: illegals pay 46% as much in taxes as American-born citizens, but only receive 38% as much from the government). In general, all the information I have found concludes that illegals are less of a burden on social services than American families (partially because they are not eligible for a good deal of time after they arrive), that the widespread belief that illegals do not pay taxes is patently and demonstrably false (a majority apparently pay payroll taxes, and these reports do not even take into account regular sales taxes--every time an immigrant buys something they help both the economy and local, state, and federal budgets).

Second, I am curious as to the irony of increasing ciminal and law enforcement activity as a response to the immigration problem. You state in your response that illegals cause a financial burden on our courts. Yet how will increased enforcement assuage these costs? However one crunches the numbers, those in favor estimate it at $2.2 billion and those opposed at $7 billion. All analyses (pro and con) of this fence agree that it will simply lead illegals to seek more dangerous means of crossing the border, which will result in higher emergency medical care costs for the federal government whether they succeed or are apprehended by border patrol. When one adds these concerns to proposed increases in the number and budget of border patrol agents, how could it ever prevail in a cost-benefit analysis of the status quo?

Finally, is there any reason to believe that these security measures would be effective? From what I can gather, since 1996 the U.S. Border Patrol budget has increased by 383 percent (http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/13770931.htm). The number of border patrol officers has shot up from 3400 in 1993 to 9000 in 2004 (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,114090,00.html). And yet these measures, costly as they must be, by all accounts have failed to slow illegal entry into this country. Even given long-term speculation as to the effectiveness of border security at reducing the number of immigrants, even given the most pessimistic economic study as to the impact of illegals on the state and federal level, how could the proposed costs of enforcement ever be seen as an answer to the status quo, let alone plans (like that supported by Mr. McCain) that involve fines and/or guest-worker programs?

In short, could anyone at your office tell me where you are getting your information? All the numbers that I can find paint the current Congress as at best misguided, or at worst trying to benefit from a widely misinformed public during an election year. Can your office provide me with some studies that offer data which supports Congress' intentions? Considering the relevance of this issue in my current and future classes, I would be overjoyed to present my students with a favorable pictue of Congress' decision-making capacity; at present, most of what I have derived paints the policy proposals under discussion as self-serving.

To whatever intern who made it to the end of this long and convoluted email, I thank you greatly for your time. Again, you deserve a raise.

William H. Harwood

Response from Mr Peterson

Dear Mr. Harwood:

Thank you for contacting me regarding your concerns about
immigration. I appreciate hearing from you and having the benefit of
your views.

Despite clear benefits of immigration to our nation and its
history, illegal immigration damages the social fabric of our society
by placing an undue burden on social programs such as welfare and
Medicare, as well as the court system. Illegal immigrants should not
be eligible to receive benefits from programs intended for citizens and
immigrants legally living and working within our borders. While this
has been a long-standing problem, the terrorist attacks of September
11, 2001 highlighted the need to take further steps to secure our
nation's boarders and end the flow of illegal immigrants into
America.

I believe the best way to solve our immigration problem is
through enforcement. This is the specific reason why I voted for H.R.
4437, the Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration
and Control Act of 2005. H.R. 4437 will increase penalties and set
mandatory minimum sentences for aliens who refuse to comply with
removal, while also increasing penalties for social security fraud, and
will ultimately strengthen law enforcement's abilities to successfully
protect our country's borders from illegal entry.

This legislation is a step in the right direction to creating
common sense solutions to very real problems. Please be assured that
I will keep your thoughts in mind as this issue and others pertaining to
illegal immigration develop during the remainder of the 109th
Congress.



Sincerely,

JOHN E. PETERSON
Member of Congress

Response to Mr Specter

All,

Here is my response to Mr. Specter’s office. This is less content based, and more a question about the impact of letters sent to the Senator. I will be shocked if I receive a response.

-W.

To Whom It May Concern:

I have a quick question. I recently wrote a detailed email about my concerns regarding immigration reform. I received back a form letter, which I expected. I understand that this is necessary; I'm sure you receive much to many emails a day to read them (let alone respond). However, this caused me great concern. It is important that the senator know what issues are bothering his constituents enough to write. Yet with an issue as ambiguous as immigration, how is the senator to know HOW his constituents feel? That is, if 1000 people write in, 5 could be in favor of a fence and kicking out all immigrants, while 995 could be in favor of a guest-worker program. Does the senator receive any information as to WHAT his constituents are saying, rather than merely THAT they are talking about immigration?

This letter could be a performative fallacy: My question assumes that no one reads the content of the letter and that a form letter is received as a response. Nevertheless, I will hold out hope that someone in your office takes heart and fires off a simple YES (there is some means by which Specter gets accurate information as to the opinions pro and con of his people for specific bills) or NO (the system is broken; the Senator votes his mind or listens to focus groups and poll numbers). Either way, thanks in advance for reading this far. You are either a very bored intern, or your loyalty deserves a raise. Tell Specter I said so (if you ever get to see him).

Cheers,

William H. Harwood

Response from Mr Specter

Dear Mr. Harwood :

Thank you for contacting my office regarding immigration reform. I appreciate your concern regarding this important matter.

Reforming our current immigration laws has become increasingly necessary in light of the growing number of illegal immigrants entering the country. On a daily basis, there are a number of press reports highlighting the problem that our borders are largely unprotected. However, we also have a great need for labor in this country, both skilled and unskilled, which adds to the complexity of the situation. We also see a certain apathy and resentment toward immigrants; notwithstanding the fact that this country was built by immigrants and that we need immigrants in order to sustain our economic vitality. At present, there are several bills pending before the Senate Judiciary Committee aimed at correcting various aspects of the problem. As Chairman, I circulated a Chairman's Mark to address the complex issues that we will face as we begin to reform immigration laws. My proposal is a discussion draft intend! ed to move the debate forward with the anticipation that the Senate will address the issue early this year.

I sincerely appreciate your taking the time to bring your views on this important matter to my attention. As your United States Senator, it is essential that I be kept fully informed on the issues of concern to my constituents. Be assured that I will keep your thoughts in mind on this issue and related issues during the 109 ^th Congress. Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact my office or visit my website at www.specter.senate.gov .

Sincerely,

Arlen Specter

Letters to my Congress Peeps

All,

This post will be followed by a flurry of correspondence between myself and my local and state representatives. As you may have noticed from my somewhat uncharacteristically heated letter on immigration reform, this issue and the recent actions of Congress have ruffled my feathers. Thus, I decided to write my peeps in order tell them how I thought they might best do their jobs, considering I pay their salaries. Unfortunately, I did not have the foresight to save the letters sent originally by me to them; I only post their responses and my rebuttals because Henry is smarter than I am (he suggested it).

Read them if you would like. The responses from their offices appear to be form letters (unsurprisingly). However, I have put a great deal of time, effort, and research into my rebuttals. If you are interested in immigration reform, you may wish to peruse those emails.

Enjoy.

-W.

All,

This post will be followed by a flurry of correspondence between myself and my local and state representatives. As you may have noticed from my somewhat uncharacteristically heated letter on immigration reform, this issue and the recent actions of Congress have ruffled my feathers. Thus, I decided to write my peeps in order tell them how I thought they might best do their jobs, considering I pay their salaries. Unfortunately, I did not have the foresight to save the letters sent originally by me to them; I only post their responses and my rebuttals because Henry is smarter than I am (he suggested it).

Read them if you would like. The responses from their offices appear to be form letters (unsurprisingly). However, I have put a great deal of time, effort, and research into my rebuttals. If you are interested in immigration reform, you may wish to peruse those emails.

Enjoy.

-W.