F.O.B. Will Spoil the Campaign
Remember the F. O. B.? “Friends of Bill.” The members of the group didn’t matter as much as the message membership carried. If you were an FOB, you had the man’s ear; you were his ‘bud.’ The term was powerful, often to the point of intimidation.
Today, the F.O.B. label can have even more impact, although not for the same man and certainly not for the same reasons. Today’s FOB can derail an otherwise well-thought-out campaign for the highest office in the land and the most powerful elected position in the developed world.
Picture this:
“William Ayers; terrorist. Courthouse bomber. Defiantly anti-establishment and arguably defiantly anti-American:”. Friend of Barack.
“Tony Rezko, financial opportunist. Shady deal-maker. Financier to his supporters. Convicted felon:” Friend (and Neighbor (NOB?))of Barack.
“Father Michael Pfleger, renegade priest. Evangelist for separation and destruction:” Friend of Barack.
“Jeremiah Wright, preacher of hate and dissension. 'God Damn America.’ Shepherd to his flock:” Friend of Barack.
Consider a 15- or 30-second spot focused on each of the foregoing FOBs, individually, 4 spots, and closing with a notation that he is a “Friend of Barack.” Follow up with a fifth (or more, depending on how many FOBs you ultimately desire to use) tying them all together as the Friends Of Barack!.
The campaign reels. The candidate squeals.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Getting Your Feet "Wet" With Wine – Don’t Be Afraid
Are you tired of feeling empty-handed or empty-headed when the waiter brings you a wine list? Wouldn't it be nice to scan down the list and identify not just the wines that would let the waiter (and your dining companion) know that you can't be fooled-with, but which might result in a really enjoyable meal or evening?
Snobbishness aside, there's not much to learning enough to make intelligent choices and enjoy yourself at the same time. You will find that the surprises in a bottle of "grape juice" can often far exceed expectations, and can lead to revelations that can add dimensions of pleasure and satisfaction to an evening that would otherwise have been only O.K.
First, decide what you like. Fruit? Sweetness? Gobs of grape, currant and other flavors that develop in the glass before you eyes and nose? The scents and tastes of subtle characteristics can amaze you. A single varietal can yield chocolate, mint, cedar, flint, melon, and limitless variations depending on the vineyard, the winemaker and the conditions under which the grapes matured. Did you know that there are wines that begin as one thing and evolve in minutes into something else entirely? The same grapes that yield dark purple fruit, on the palate can taste like nuts or roses as well.
First thing first.
The easiest way to start is to think about color. Whites tend to be light and "short" on after-taste and flavor, although some of the fullest-bodied and most expensive wines in the world are made from white varietals. That doesn't mean they're bad; it's just that the experience with most whites tends to be more fleeting and instantaneous than reds, which can take time to develop.
Reds can be "full forward," with gobs of fruit that jump out at you from the glass, or more subdued, that sit and "evolve" as they sit in the glass, an open bottle, or decanter.
There are amazing examples of each, and oddballs that don't fit any ordinary description. That is the intriguing quality that brings wine drinkers back to try new revelations, or to find old friends, that makes wine among the oldest and most satisfying of all foods.
Now, for the nitty-gritty:
For whites, go with the basic chardonnay grape. Ask the server for his or her recommendations; that's what they're being paid to do, after all. More often than not, an experienced server has tasted the wines on the list and is not inclined to recommend anything other than his or her favorite. Don't be afraid to set a price limit! Most restaurants will mark a wine up about 100% above the retail price, but keep in mind that this reflects the cost of storing and serving the wine at your convenience.
With a chardonnay, there are two basic types: the citrus-y, lighter drink that slips off the tongue and can leave a taste of melon, pineapple, or flint; and, the heavier, butter-filled glass that lingers long after you've swallowed. Both are best chilled and are typically at their best "young," that is, within just a few years of the vintage.
Reds, on the other hand, are generally considered "heavier," more complex, and full-bodied; although there are plenty of fantastic reds, such as Pinot Noir, that are not heavy on the palate at all, but bring nuanced flavors instead of an explosion of fruit and oak. Reds typically have aged for a few years so it is not unusual to have a vintage wine released 2, 3, or even 4 years after the date it was picked. Sometimes, "bottle age" is necessary for a red wine to develop to its fullest potential. Again, in a restaurant don't be afraid to ask for a recommendation.
But what if you want make the decision?
Here's a shorthand guide:
According to such authorities as Robert Parker and The Wine Spectator, most California reds were best in 2001, 2002, 2005, and 2003 and should still be on the market, although supplies are dwindling and you may have to hunt a little. I've tasted several and I agree; leaning to the 2002s, myself (mostly because of availability). Wine hunting is great fun and can be a learning experience in itself. Most liquor stores and wine shops have at least one "expert" who can guide you. These same authorities give high marks to the 2003, 2006 and 2005 French Rhones and Bordeaux. Unfortunately, the 2005s are so spectacular that they will cost you much more than the entirely adequate 2003 and 2006, if you can find them. Most top quality '05s were bought as "futures" before they were even released to the market.
Wine futures can be outstanding bargains if you are willing to buy without tasting and then wait 2 years for delivery. I've done it myself quite successfully. Wine I bought as a $26.00 "future" now sells for over $300.00 a bottle, if you can find it.
The whites of California have never been better than the 2005 and 2004 Chardonnay, but they may be difficult to find at this late date.
Recent releases from Washington and Oregon, typically reds, have been excellent.
South American and Australian growers are producing extraordinary wines at very reasonable prices. They are exceptional wine values. A 2005 or 2006 Australian Shiraz (made from the syrah grape) will likely please most red wine fans. Again, this may be a fleeting opportunity as these wines catch on in the marketplace. (One of the most expensive wines in the world is an Australian "Penfolds" shiraz)
If you see an Argentinean or Chilean 2004, 2005 or 2006 malbec, you will likely be pleasantly surprised. Some famous French and American vintners are now producing there, although native growers have done extremely well lately as well. If you see one on the wine list at dinner, go for it. You will not only enjoy the experience, you will be recognized as an innovator and insider.
French whites on your list will include Macon-Villages and Chambertin, although new varietals are being tried by many top producers. These are essentially chardonnay, but with character added by the growing region and climate, a combination known as "terroir. These growers vary from region to region, often only a few meters away from each other, but with subtle or sometimes striking differences, again depending on terroir and the grower.
Always be on the lookout for “Vin-de-Pays,” which is a term used for French “country wines” that are always inexpensive, usually ready to drink now, go with almost anything or by themselves as an ‘aperetif,’ and frequently well worth the money.
Once again, do not be afraid to ask a shop-keeper or your waiter: "What $20.00 white is best with bisque?" As with auto service, you will likely benefit from advice from someone who's been there and done that; seen, tasted and sold the wines you have to choose from. Remember, they want you come back and buy more!
After dinner, try a glass of "port" wine. Originally from Portugal, the name has now become generic for many "fortified" red wines. These are wines that have a higher sugar and alcohol level and can develop for decades in the bottle. One of my favorites is an Australian port, made by Yalumba, and called "Galway Pipe." You will be amazed that a grape can be made to taste like that!
To gain confidence, you may want to consider the vintage rating systems developed by such authorities as "The Wine Advocate" (http://www.winespectator.com/) or Robert Parker (http://www.erobertparker.com)/." Write down their top-rated vintages, compare them, and go hunting. Enjoy!
Snobbishness aside, there's not much to learning enough to make intelligent choices and enjoy yourself at the same time. You will find that the surprises in a bottle of "grape juice" can often far exceed expectations, and can lead to revelations that can add dimensions of pleasure and satisfaction to an evening that would otherwise have been only O.K.
First, decide what you like. Fruit? Sweetness? Gobs of grape, currant and other flavors that develop in the glass before you eyes and nose? The scents and tastes of subtle characteristics can amaze you. A single varietal can yield chocolate, mint, cedar, flint, melon, and limitless variations depending on the vineyard, the winemaker and the conditions under which the grapes matured. Did you know that there are wines that begin as one thing and evolve in minutes into something else entirely? The same grapes that yield dark purple fruit, on the palate can taste like nuts or roses as well.
First thing first.
The easiest way to start is to think about color. Whites tend to be light and "short" on after-taste and flavor, although some of the fullest-bodied and most expensive wines in the world are made from white varietals. That doesn't mean they're bad; it's just that the experience with most whites tends to be more fleeting and instantaneous than reds, which can take time to develop.
Reds can be "full forward," with gobs of fruit that jump out at you from the glass, or more subdued, that sit and "evolve" as they sit in the glass, an open bottle, or decanter.
There are amazing examples of each, and oddballs that don't fit any ordinary description. That is the intriguing quality that brings wine drinkers back to try new revelations, or to find old friends, that makes wine among the oldest and most satisfying of all foods.
Now, for the nitty-gritty:
For whites, go with the basic chardonnay grape. Ask the server for his or her recommendations; that's what they're being paid to do, after all. More often than not, an experienced server has tasted the wines on the list and is not inclined to recommend anything other than his or her favorite. Don't be afraid to set a price limit! Most restaurants will mark a wine up about 100% above the retail price, but keep in mind that this reflects the cost of storing and serving the wine at your convenience.
With a chardonnay, there are two basic types: the citrus-y, lighter drink that slips off the tongue and can leave a taste of melon, pineapple, or flint; and, the heavier, butter-filled glass that lingers long after you've swallowed. Both are best chilled and are typically at their best "young," that is, within just a few years of the vintage.
Reds, on the other hand, are generally considered "heavier," more complex, and full-bodied; although there are plenty of fantastic reds, such as Pinot Noir, that are not heavy on the palate at all, but bring nuanced flavors instead of an explosion of fruit and oak. Reds typically have aged for a few years so it is not unusual to have a vintage wine released 2, 3, or even 4 years after the date it was picked. Sometimes, "bottle age" is necessary for a red wine to develop to its fullest potential. Again, in a restaurant don't be afraid to ask for a recommendation.
But what if you want make the decision?
Here's a shorthand guide:
According to such authorities as Robert Parker and The Wine Spectator, most California reds were best in 2001, 2002, 2005, and 2003 and should still be on the market, although supplies are dwindling and you may have to hunt a little. I've tasted several and I agree; leaning to the 2002s, myself (mostly because of availability). Wine hunting is great fun and can be a learning experience in itself. Most liquor stores and wine shops have at least one "expert" who can guide you. These same authorities give high marks to the 2003, 2006 and 2005 French Rhones and Bordeaux. Unfortunately, the 2005s are so spectacular that they will cost you much more than the entirely adequate 2003 and 2006, if you can find them. Most top quality '05s were bought as "futures" before they were even released to the market.
Wine futures can be outstanding bargains if you are willing to buy without tasting and then wait 2 years for delivery. I've done it myself quite successfully. Wine I bought as a $26.00 "future" now sells for over $300.00 a bottle, if you can find it.
The whites of California have never been better than the 2005 and 2004 Chardonnay, but they may be difficult to find at this late date.
Recent releases from Washington and Oregon, typically reds, have been excellent.
South American and Australian growers are producing extraordinary wines at very reasonable prices. They are exceptional wine values. A 2005 or 2006 Australian Shiraz (made from the syrah grape) will likely please most red wine fans. Again, this may be a fleeting opportunity as these wines catch on in the marketplace. (One of the most expensive wines in the world is an Australian "Penfolds" shiraz)
If you see an Argentinean or Chilean 2004, 2005 or 2006 malbec, you will likely be pleasantly surprised. Some famous French and American vintners are now producing there, although native growers have done extremely well lately as well. If you see one on the wine list at dinner, go for it. You will not only enjoy the experience, you will be recognized as an innovator and insider.
French whites on your list will include Macon-Villages and Chambertin, although new varietals are being tried by many top producers. These are essentially chardonnay, but with character added by the growing region and climate, a combination known as "terroir. These growers vary from region to region, often only a few meters away from each other, but with subtle or sometimes striking differences, again depending on terroir and the grower.
Always be on the lookout for “Vin-de-Pays,” which is a term used for French “country wines” that are always inexpensive, usually ready to drink now, go with almost anything or by themselves as an ‘aperetif,’ and frequently well worth the money.
Once again, do not be afraid to ask a shop-keeper or your waiter: "What $20.00 white is best with bisque?" As with auto service, you will likely benefit from advice from someone who's been there and done that; seen, tasted and sold the wines you have to choose from. Remember, they want you come back and buy more!
After dinner, try a glass of "port" wine. Originally from Portugal, the name has now become generic for many "fortified" red wines. These are wines that have a higher sugar and alcohol level and can develop for decades in the bottle. One of my favorites is an Australian port, made by Yalumba, and called "Galway Pipe." You will be amazed that a grape can be made to taste like that!
To gain confidence, you may want to consider the vintage rating systems developed by such authorities as "The Wine Advocate" (http://www.winespectator.com/) or Robert Parker (http://www.erobertparker.com)/." Write down their top-rated vintages, compare them, and go hunting. Enjoy!
How I Got Started with Wine
Before I knew better, a French label and a price over $10 were my only clues to finding an enjoyable wine. Color, age and origination meant little in the selection process, if you would call my simple method even that. Something told me white “went with” white food like fish and chicken; reds were for red meat. Wine with bubbles or “off-color” were for picnics and celebrations. God, was I missing out.
Over a few years of exploration and experimentation and education, together with a lot of question asking, wine clubs and tastings, I discovered how simple little grapes can develop, be nurtured, coaxed, and even forced against their will, to provide rewards of taste, smell, even feel (and something called “terroir”), beyond imagination.
“How can a grape do this?” I often asked myself. I’ve yet to find anything else that varies from spare to lush, bare-bones naked to voluptuousness, flowered to steely, sweetly fruited or spicy, almost hot, and variously year to year and place to place as man and nature effect and affect the raw material provided by simple vines.
The vines themselves, young, mature, or ancient, even cloned, initiate the adventure and harbor the potential, unleashed with time, care and devotion to reward patience, provide instant gratification, or turn a profit. A combination of science, art and inspiration that knows no equal in civilization, maybe even the hallmark of civilization, lies in the bottle of wine.
My initiation was at the hands of Bill Gamble and Joe Saglimbeni. Joe delivered out of the trunk of his car. Bill had a connection to Joe and led me to my first purchase of more than a single bottle of wine. Joe had cases of 1985 Simi Cabernet from California’s Napa Valley (then, I didn’t even know California had a “Napa Valley”) that he offered for $9 a bottle. On a summer afternoon, after hours in Bill’s office, my eyes were opened as if in revelation.
We drank from coffee mugs, and the scent, color and taste remain embedded in my memory. Following Bill and Joe’s instructions, I sniffed first, then sipped, rolling the drink over my tongue “This is wine? I asked myself. Wow! I bought a case, and was hooked. Little did I know, and I would’ve told you you were crazy if you’d predicted it, that in a year I would be paying more than that for a single bottle, 6 or 12 at a time. Gladly. And laughing at my good fortune at the bargain. Maybe it was me who was crazy.
Bill and I followed our ’85 Simi with a headlong foray into 1986 and ’87 California cabernets and zinfandels. “Vintage” took on a new meaning. Within 2 years Joe had started what was to become the largest wine shop in town, and my collection held over 25 cases, with “verticals” of my favorites and bottles worth over $200 apiece. California cabs, “chards” and zins, French Bordeaux and Rhones, Australian Shiraz and various South American and East European selections were among my friends.
Tastings, subscriptions and “wine guides” helped us to focus on what and where to look for the wines that were best for us. Mike Kelly, “Master of Wine” became our friend and guru. “For us” being the operative words, as we shared our discoveries and explorations. Wine scavenging became a habit as we traveled. “The rule of three” guided our forays shops and stores: Any overlooked bottles were purchased in threes for us to share, the finder getting any singles or odd lots. Wine was an adventure and a mission.
Wine in all its glory and variety became a large part of my life. Soon I was buying “futures” with confidence and smug satisfaction that I was ahead of the pack and “in on” secrets others coveted. My collection expanded to include ports and other “fortified” wines, and effervescent as well as still wines.
Today, I am still intrigued and beguiled by the fruit of simple grapes, but less frequently astounded. Start simply, with an open mind, indulge your curiosity, and follow your taste and instincts as you explore wine. You may be satisfied, surprised, or gratified, sometimes disappointed; but you will never be bored.
© 2000 John R. Wondra
Over a few years of exploration and experimentation and education, together with a lot of question asking, wine clubs and tastings, I discovered how simple little grapes can develop, be nurtured, coaxed, and even forced against their will, to provide rewards of taste, smell, even feel (and something called “terroir”), beyond imagination.
“How can a grape do this?” I often asked myself. I’ve yet to find anything else that varies from spare to lush, bare-bones naked to voluptuousness, flowered to steely, sweetly fruited or spicy, almost hot, and variously year to year and place to place as man and nature effect and affect the raw material provided by simple vines.
The vines themselves, young, mature, or ancient, even cloned, initiate the adventure and harbor the potential, unleashed with time, care and devotion to reward patience, provide instant gratification, or turn a profit. A combination of science, art and inspiration that knows no equal in civilization, maybe even the hallmark of civilization, lies in the bottle of wine.
My initiation was at the hands of Bill Gamble and Joe Saglimbeni. Joe delivered out of the trunk of his car. Bill had a connection to Joe and led me to my first purchase of more than a single bottle of wine. Joe had cases of 1985 Simi Cabernet from California’s Napa Valley (then, I didn’t even know California had a “Napa Valley”) that he offered for $9 a bottle. On a summer afternoon, after hours in Bill’s office, my eyes were opened as if in revelation.
We drank from coffee mugs, and the scent, color and taste remain embedded in my memory. Following Bill and Joe’s instructions, I sniffed first, then sipped, rolling the drink over my tongue “This is wine? I asked myself. Wow! I bought a case, and was hooked. Little did I know, and I would’ve told you you were crazy if you’d predicted it, that in a year I would be paying more than that for a single bottle, 6 or 12 at a time. Gladly. And laughing at my good fortune at the bargain. Maybe it was me who was crazy.
Bill and I followed our ’85 Simi with a headlong foray into 1986 and ’87 California cabernets and zinfandels. “Vintage” took on a new meaning. Within 2 years Joe had started what was to become the largest wine shop in town, and my collection held over 25 cases, with “verticals” of my favorites and bottles worth over $200 apiece. California cabs, “chards” and zins, French Bordeaux and Rhones, Australian Shiraz and various South American and East European selections were among my friends.
Tastings, subscriptions and “wine guides” helped us to focus on what and where to look for the wines that were best for us. Mike Kelly, “Master of Wine” became our friend and guru. “For us” being the operative words, as we shared our discoveries and explorations. Wine scavenging became a habit as we traveled. “The rule of three” guided our forays shops and stores: Any overlooked bottles were purchased in threes for us to share, the finder getting any singles or odd lots. Wine was an adventure and a mission.
Wine in all its glory and variety became a large part of my life. Soon I was buying “futures” with confidence and smug satisfaction that I was ahead of the pack and “in on” secrets others coveted. My collection expanded to include ports and other “fortified” wines, and effervescent as well as still wines.
Today, I am still intrigued and beguiled by the fruit of simple grapes, but less frequently astounded. Start simply, with an open mind, indulge your curiosity, and follow your taste and instincts as you explore wine. You may be satisfied, surprised, or gratified, sometimes disappointed; but you will never be bored.
© 2000 John R. Wondra
Immigration Reform and The Ellis Island of the 21st Century, or "Help Us Assimilate Your Tired, Your Poor"
Last year, Congress debated, agreed on, then let die proposed immigration reform legislation. This fall, the issue will be resurrected in the run-up to the general election.
The ideas discussed included $5,000payments, repatriation/deportation and employer sanctions. None of the discussion considered the role that the countries of origin, or at least of crossing, should play.
Perhaps a plan involving all of these concepts should be considered, putting major responsibility exactly where it belongs: on Mexico, Canada, employers, and the immigrants themselves. The following represents just an outline of such a plan; but, without an outline, you really can’t get started. So, consider the following as one possible solution to the problem of illegal immigration.
Perhaps the idea of a $5,000 payment for aliens who have repatriated isn't so bad after all, if you work it correctly.
We should plan to eliminate the incentive to come, increase the incentive to stay, and provide the ability to eventually assimilate for those who would otherwise enter the United States illegally.
First, the United States should place some of the onus for stemming the flow of illegal entrants on the sources: Mexico and Canada! What if we agreed to send each country the funds (the controversial $5,000 payments) conditioned on the creation of "Emigration Centers” (ECs)? Such centers would bear the responsibility for verifying identities, performing criminal background checks, certifying health and "readiness." Readiness would include some marketable skill and at least a rudimentary ability to communicate, orally and in writing, in English. (That's only what we get from most of our public schools anyway; why hold our neighbors to a higher standard?)
Before any payments would be made, each country would have to demonstrate successful interdiction of potential border crossers before they crossed. Say, for example, that for every 1,000 such apprehensions, or every 10 "Coyotes," (I know, you'll say it's a bounty; but so what?) we would make a $5,000 payment toward the construction, staffing and operation of the ECs. There might even be a "debit" for those who got through and were apprehended on U. S. soil. Maybe the U. S. and the neighbors could jointly construct and organize the ECs, leaving the operations to the hosts, subject to our oversight. By participating in the construction and operation, we provide jobs for our own people, and ensure that facilities and programs meet the standard the United States sets for readiness.
Before an emigrant would be able to leave, transported by us at our expense, he would have to demonstrate completion of the EC program; he'll get a passport-type document for use in the future in the States. Upon boarding the transport, he would be given an entrance package and a small amount of cash to get him started. Since we'd cleared the occupants, crossing would simply be a matter of using an HOV lane at the border and debarkation at some pre-determined location. Many border and near-border communities already have bus and transportation facilities specifically catering to travelers from the host country to the U. S. Entrepreneurial emigrants could establish hostels, motels and other facilities for their temporary accommodation.
But, that's long term.
Short-term enforcement would be more drastic and politically costly.
First, it will become an offense, for a 5-year period beginning with the enactment of the EC legislation, subject to Congressional extension, for any employer to pay an illegal immigrant any wage equal to or above the minimum wage. (That's more than they would make if they were at "home" anyway.) It would be a “per se” offense; there'd be no requirement to prove knowledge, awareness, or negligence. In other words, if there’s an undocumented worker on the payroll, making minimum wage or more, the employer is presumed guilty. Penalties would be economic only. Fines that increased by factors of 2, 5 or 10, based upon the number of illegals or violations, would be a disincentive to hiring and an incentive to verification.
During the 5-year period, the ECs would be established and opened, and must be in operation before its' expiration. The economic penalties could help offset the initial costs of the ECs.
Second, a 1,000 man Federal task force under I. C. E. will be empowered to enforce the Federal wage/verification laws; and certain local laws against employers and supervisors, individually. Random raids, following the establishment that an employer was in violation, would occur. The raiding squads would be small; these aren't thugs after all, and we're not "rounding up" scores of employees. Employers arrested for (creatively thinking) "maintaining a common nuisance" or "harboring a fugitive" would be delivered to local authorities for custody and prosecution. Of course, although not likely, local aw enforcement enforcing such laws would not be doing Immigration or Border Patrol enforcement. They’d only be working under local ordinances. Lists of offenders would be published. If the local charging authorities or courts decide to release on recognizance or “nol prosse” (elect not to prosecute) these arrestees, that's their prerogative. But, the point will have been made.
(Imagine how it will look on the 5:00 o'clock news as a restaurant, factory, janitorial shop, or farming operation were raided, and the owners and managers were carted off, leaving the workers behind for I. C. E. or whomever to handle!) Business would howl; hence the need for a Federal face on the arresting authority. But the point, once made, will not likely be forgotten.
Of course, the result of this two-pronged approach could potentially be expensive for consumers, due to decreased or more expensive production. But it will also prove or disprove the stodgy argument that "illegals are taking our jobs." If Americans fill the places at the same cost, there's no loss. If they don't, then we'll have to step back and reevaluate the necessity of border enforcement again, but at least with solid facts to support the arguments, rather than speculation and cries of racism or liberalism.
The net effect will be to minimize the incentive for the potential illegal immigrant and the employer as well, at little real cost to them or the consumer.
So, here's a plan that minimizes the "economic opportunity" that encourages illegal immigration in the short run, and provides a reasonable way to ensure that those who do come in in the future will at least have the clearance and ability to immerse themselves in the American culture and workplace. They will be, if not welcomed, at least tolerable and functional. It's not Ellis Island; but this isn't the 20th century, either.
The ideas discussed included $5,000payments, repatriation/deportation and employer sanctions. None of the discussion considered the role that the countries of origin, or at least of crossing, should play.
Perhaps a plan involving all of these concepts should be considered, putting major responsibility exactly where it belongs: on Mexico, Canada, employers, and the immigrants themselves. The following represents just an outline of such a plan; but, without an outline, you really can’t get started. So, consider the following as one possible solution to the problem of illegal immigration.
Perhaps the idea of a $5,000 payment for aliens who have repatriated isn't so bad after all, if you work it correctly.
We should plan to eliminate the incentive to come, increase the incentive to stay, and provide the ability to eventually assimilate for those who would otherwise enter the United States illegally.
First, the United States should place some of the onus for stemming the flow of illegal entrants on the sources: Mexico and Canada! What if we agreed to send each country the funds (the controversial $5,000 payments) conditioned on the creation of "Emigration Centers” (ECs)? Such centers would bear the responsibility for verifying identities, performing criminal background checks, certifying health and "readiness." Readiness would include some marketable skill and at least a rudimentary ability to communicate, orally and in writing, in English. (That's only what we get from most of our public schools anyway; why hold our neighbors to a higher standard?)
Before any payments would be made, each country would have to demonstrate successful interdiction of potential border crossers before they crossed. Say, for example, that for every 1,000 such apprehensions, or every 10 "Coyotes," (I know, you'll say it's a bounty; but so what?) we would make a $5,000 payment toward the construction, staffing and operation of the ECs. There might even be a "debit" for those who got through and were apprehended on U. S. soil. Maybe the U. S. and the neighbors could jointly construct and organize the ECs, leaving the operations to the hosts, subject to our oversight. By participating in the construction and operation, we provide jobs for our own people, and ensure that facilities and programs meet the standard the United States sets for readiness.
Before an emigrant would be able to leave, transported by us at our expense, he would have to demonstrate completion of the EC program; he'll get a passport-type document for use in the future in the States. Upon boarding the transport, he would be given an entrance package and a small amount of cash to get him started. Since we'd cleared the occupants, crossing would simply be a matter of using an HOV lane at the border and debarkation at some pre-determined location. Many border and near-border communities already have bus and transportation facilities specifically catering to travelers from the host country to the U. S. Entrepreneurial emigrants could establish hostels, motels and other facilities for their temporary accommodation.
But, that's long term.
Short-term enforcement would be more drastic and politically costly.
First, it will become an offense, for a 5-year period beginning with the enactment of the EC legislation, subject to Congressional extension, for any employer to pay an illegal immigrant any wage equal to or above the minimum wage. (That's more than they would make if they were at "home" anyway.) It would be a “per se” offense; there'd be no requirement to prove knowledge, awareness, or negligence. In other words, if there’s an undocumented worker on the payroll, making minimum wage or more, the employer is presumed guilty. Penalties would be economic only. Fines that increased by factors of 2, 5 or 10, based upon the number of illegals or violations, would be a disincentive to hiring and an incentive to verification.
During the 5-year period, the ECs would be established and opened, and must be in operation before its' expiration. The economic penalties could help offset the initial costs of the ECs.
Second, a 1,000 man Federal task force under I. C. E. will be empowered to enforce the Federal wage/verification laws; and certain local laws against employers and supervisors, individually. Random raids, following the establishment that an employer was in violation, would occur. The raiding squads would be small; these aren't thugs after all, and we're not "rounding up" scores of employees. Employers arrested for (creatively thinking) "maintaining a common nuisance" or "harboring a fugitive" would be delivered to local authorities for custody and prosecution. Of course, although not likely, local aw enforcement enforcing such laws would not be doing Immigration or Border Patrol enforcement. They’d only be working under local ordinances. Lists of offenders would be published. If the local charging authorities or courts decide to release on recognizance or “nol prosse” (elect not to prosecute) these arrestees, that's their prerogative. But, the point will have been made.
(Imagine how it will look on the 5:00 o'clock news as a restaurant, factory, janitorial shop, or farming operation were raided, and the owners and managers were carted off, leaving the workers behind for I. C. E. or whomever to handle!) Business would howl; hence the need for a Federal face on the arresting authority. But the point, once made, will not likely be forgotten.
Of course, the result of this two-pronged approach could potentially be expensive for consumers, due to decreased or more expensive production. But it will also prove or disprove the stodgy argument that "illegals are taking our jobs." If Americans fill the places at the same cost, there's no loss. If they don't, then we'll have to step back and reevaluate the necessity of border enforcement again, but at least with solid facts to support the arguments, rather than speculation and cries of racism or liberalism.
The net effect will be to minimize the incentive for the potential illegal immigrant and the employer as well, at little real cost to them or the consumer.
So, here's a plan that minimizes the "economic opportunity" that encourages illegal immigration in the short run, and provides a reasonable way to ensure that those who do come in in the future will at least have the clearance and ability to immerse themselves in the American culture and workplace. They will be, if not welcomed, at least tolerable and functional. It's not Ellis Island; but this isn't the 20th century, either.
Credit-Impairment Will Shrink Future Sales and Lending, Crippling Retail Industry
Credit-Impairment Will Shrink Future Sales and Lending, Crippling Retail Industry.
(Not to mention the reluctance to spend caused by increasing food and energy costs)
US Courts show: 850,912 Bankruptcy filings in 2007 (up 20% in 2008)
RealtyTrac reports show: 700,000 Foreclosure filings in 2007 (up 28% in 2008)
Questions:
Assuming foreclosure actions plus bankruptcy filings represent 5 to 10 unsecured creditors plus the mortgage lender, how will the loss of creditworthiness (“credit viability”) of these borrowers, the “credit-impaired,” affect these creditors’ future business? (add-in 2001 through 2006, plus 2008 for an accurate measure)
Even further; how will the huge number of recently credit-impaired borrowers affect retailers’ and potential creditors’ ability to anticipate any sales growth compared to that of the period from 2000 through 2006?
Will a “business recession” precede a “consumer recession?”
With so many credit-impaired consumers, will credit ratings, credit reporting, and credit standards remain meaningful, or useful?
What about collection practices and regulations?
All tolled, the approaching decade looks bleak for sales, lending, banking, and a large and increasing portion of the population in general! Everyone, including those who pay their debts as promised, knows someone who is behind or on the verge of falling behind on debt-service. Many know people who are severely behind and on the verge of much worse—bankruptcy or foreclosure. Mortgage and credit card defaults are expected to continue to grow or at least remain at a rate higher than in the recent past. Thus, the creditworthiness dilemna will not improve; and its effect on business will continue, perhaps compounded by the increasing portion of “credit-impaired” among the general population.
(Not to mention the reluctance to spend caused by increasing food and energy costs)
US Courts show: 850,912 Bankruptcy filings in 2007 (up 20% in 2008)
RealtyTrac reports show: 700,000 Foreclosure filings in 2007 (up 28% in 2008)
Questions:
Assuming foreclosure actions plus bankruptcy filings represent 5 to 10 unsecured creditors plus the mortgage lender, how will the loss of creditworthiness (“credit viability”) of these borrowers, the “credit-impaired,” affect these creditors’ future business? (add-in 2001 through 2006, plus 2008 for an accurate measure)
Even further; how will the huge number of recently credit-impaired borrowers affect retailers’ and potential creditors’ ability to anticipate any sales growth compared to that of the period from 2000 through 2006?
Will a “business recession” precede a “consumer recession?”
With so many credit-impaired consumers, will credit ratings, credit reporting, and credit standards remain meaningful, or useful?
What about collection practices and regulations?
All tolled, the approaching decade looks bleak for sales, lending, banking, and a large and increasing portion of the population in general! Everyone, including those who pay their debts as promised, knows someone who is behind or on the verge of falling behind on debt-service. Many know people who are severely behind and on the verge of much worse—bankruptcy or foreclosure. Mortgage and credit card defaults are expected to continue to grow or at least remain at a rate higher than in the recent past. Thus, the creditworthiness dilemna will not improve; and its effect on business will continue, perhaps compounded by the increasing portion of “credit-impaired” among the general population.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Casey Anthony will not stand trial
Nancy Grace and her ilk will prevent Casey Anthony's trial for murder or any other offense.
Television programs such as Grace's provide so-called experts the opportunity to offer off-the-cuff opinions, statements and observations that can and will be used to hinder justice and aid or bolster outrageous or otherwise questionable and tenuous defense opportunities.
From day one of the news and talk coverage of the disappearance of 3-year old Caylee Anthony, people who should know better have said things that will assist her murderer's avoidance of swift justice. Nancy Grace, especially, and her guests have commented almost every evening on the conduct of the most likely suspect, the child's mother, Casey Anthony.
Variously describing the suspect's behavior as "not normal," "not mak[ing] sense," showing "no emotion" (what psych specialists call a "flat affect"), or otherwise unusual, these journalists and commentators have unwittingingly, or perhaps knowingly, aided the mother's best opportunity to escape trial.
Casey cannot employ an "insanity" defense, as that would require her to enter a plea of "guilty but insane," which she will not do.
Rather, these various celebrity experts will have to admit under oath to their previously broadcast observations. In light of a perceived sense of neutrality, objectiveness and expertise, their statements will be accorded significant weight. Any well-chosen defense psych expert will use these descriptions to support a conclusion that Anthony is unable to assist her counsel or defense, and is thus incompetent to stand trial.
A finding of "incompetence" will require the Court to order her release from jail, eliminate any possibility of a speedy trial, and allow Casey Anthony the relative comfort of an institutional setting in which she will enjoy much more freedom and liberty than a penitentiary. Only when she "recovers" will Antony be required to stand trial. As a former prosecutor, I know from experience that this can take years; the passing of which will dim recollections, cool passions and encourage the prompt resolution of a now-stale case through a much more lenient plea bargain than would ever be offered while the case is still "hot."
People who make or comment on the news need to be careful with their blase' opinions and observations. They ultimately do more harm than good; hinder rather than inform. No one benefits except the criminals, their "experts," and defense counsel's reputations.
Television programs such as Grace's provide so-called experts the opportunity to offer off-the-cuff opinions, statements and observations that can and will be used to hinder justice and aid or bolster outrageous or otherwise questionable and tenuous defense opportunities.
From day one of the news and talk coverage of the disappearance of 3-year old Caylee Anthony, people who should know better have said things that will assist her murderer's avoidance of swift justice. Nancy Grace, especially, and her guests have commented almost every evening on the conduct of the most likely suspect, the child's mother, Casey Anthony.
Variously describing the suspect's behavior as "not normal," "not mak[ing] sense," showing "no emotion" (what psych specialists call a "flat affect"), or otherwise unusual, these journalists and commentators have unwittingingly, or perhaps knowingly, aided the mother's best opportunity to escape trial.
Casey cannot employ an "insanity" defense, as that would require her to enter a plea of "guilty but insane," which she will not do.
Rather, these various celebrity experts will have to admit under oath to their previously broadcast observations. In light of a perceived sense of neutrality, objectiveness and expertise, their statements will be accorded significant weight. Any well-chosen defense psych expert will use these descriptions to support a conclusion that Anthony is unable to assist her counsel or defense, and is thus incompetent to stand trial.
A finding of "incompetence" will require the Court to order her release from jail, eliminate any possibility of a speedy trial, and allow Casey Anthony the relative comfort of an institutional setting in which she will enjoy much more freedom and liberty than a penitentiary. Only when she "recovers" will Antony be required to stand trial. As a former prosecutor, I know from experience that this can take years; the passing of which will dim recollections, cool passions and encourage the prompt resolution of a now-stale case through a much more lenient plea bargain than would ever be offered while the case is still "hot."
People who make or comment on the news need to be careful with their blase' opinions and observations. They ultimately do more harm than good; hinder rather than inform. No one benefits except the criminals, their "experts," and defense counsel's reputations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)