Posted by: Kevin | February 26, 2009

Scared Kids? Maybe, but more likely Scared Parents!

On the Today show (and in msnbc) there is a piece about how a BBC children’s show being aired in America is scaring children because one of the hosts has one arm.  Actually, she has one whole arm, and most of the other … a genetic defect left her without a hand.  She is otherwise a beautiful young woman.

I have had the pleasure of raising two very fine children who are now two very fine young women themselves.  I remember several instances in their early childhood where we came across an individual with a disfigurement of one sort or another.  I don’t ever recall them being frightened … very curious (sometimes to my embarrassment), but NEVER frightened.  And we’d come across far worse than missing arms.  Certainly a missing eye (not hidden) is ’scarier’ for example.

Here’s the thing.  At the age, a child takes their cues from their parents.  If the parents rush them away, as though the problem might be contagious, then sure, the child will be scared by that.  That’s called “Bad Parenting”!

I’ve seen this in practice in so many ways.  I grew up as a teenager in a large apartment building, and one of my neighbors was a teenager (I’ll call Albert) with a mental handicap.  He was a very nice man, just not as intelligent as the rest of us.  So many parent would absolutely yank their kids away from him … you’d think their little arms would come out of their shoulders!  Then the whispering (not quiet enough).  Then the looks.  The the FRIGHTENED looks, which never were there before.  Albert wouldn’t have hurt a fly.  This was a ridiculous response.

Actually, this seems to be a truth in the world:  There are open minded people and close minded people.  The open minded people don’t suffer from fears like this, and in general are more learned, and even more happier.  Close minded people are stubborn, fearful, and in my opinion not the best parents.

Posted by: Kevin | December 22, 2008

NOT Guilty? Who is?

In my very first post (http://fcdemocrat.wordpress.com/2008/11/08/the-beginning/) I commented about a situation in Massachusetts in which a young boy shot himself to death under the supposed care of a gun instructor while “getting to try out” an Uzi sub machine gun.  In today’s MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28352151/) we learn that:

  • The police chief that owned COPS Firearms & Training says he’s not guilty
  • The gun club declare it isn’t guilty

OK, who is guilty?  The 8 yr old?  Somebody put an Uzi in his hands with which he accidentally shot and killed himself. Obviously he did NOT have training, and did NOT have adequate supervision at the time.

Not guilty?  Really???

Folks, the ENTIRE SYSTEM is guitly to have allowed this to happen.

Denying guilt in this is a total waste of time.  No one in this situation is guilt free.  There are different amounts of guilt all through this organization.

Of course this was an accident all around also.  But that doesn’t change the guilt factor.  Not one bit.  Ask any auto insurer when you have an accident with your car … yep, it was an accident, totally unplanned.  Still happened on your watch, bud.

Posted by: Kevin | December 20, 2008

Slave Labor in the United States, TODAY!

I’m going to let you in on a not so well kept secret.  Slave labor never really went away.  All that changed is how people are kept indentured (and perhaps I am slightly bending the definition of indentured).

In  my years as a Software Developer in various capacities I have met literally dozens of indentured servants.  How am I classifying these people?  Easy … these people in one way or another became acquainted with a company that sold them “The American Dream”, in many cases charged them a life’s savings in their country of origin to get them to America and then got them a visa to work here.  They now owe the company for that legal work, the transportation here, etc.  To pay the charges off, they will utilize their technical skills as computer consultants, earning the same fee (on the low end for their skill set to make them more attractive) as any other consultant in America.  But that fee doesn’t go anywhere near them … it goes to their ‘firm’.  Often it goes their by route of 2 or even 3 intermediate firms!  By the time everyone has taken their cut, what’s left would not pay anyone in America anything they’d be happy with.  Let me say that again, they are not getting paid anything that ANYONE would be happy with, not even the McDonald’s worker, the garbage man, whatever you want to say.

Why are they doing this?  Like I said, they are indentured.  Why else?  By the time they pay back the dept, they are now some period amount of time in to the acquisition of their green card.  If they quit and move on, it starts over.  It takes a MINIMUM of two years to get a green card.  If they’re significantly in to it, and the companies make sure they will be by the time the transportation expenses are paid off, it is real easy to SCARE them in to not moving because their green card is ‘right around the corner’.  I have seen people strung on a month at a time for years.  They are PETRIFIED, and of course they have no idea of the legalities of any of this.

A quick Google of the terms “Indian Workers in US” yields more results than you can imagine.  Here’s just one.  More interesting perhaps is that the issue is FAR MORE broad than just computer contracting.

This is what the H-1B Visa is for.  When you hear that technology companies need more H-1B visas to bring in “talented worked” what you should be hearing is they want more cheaper workers to replace equally capable American workers.  Since my trade is Software Engineering you might all be thinking that my real purpose for this article is elimination of the H-1B Visa since these Visas represent American jobs.  I definitely do feel that the H-1B Visa is abused in this way.  I know for a fact that there are qualified American software engineers that are unable to get jobs when H-1B Visas are said to be in short supply.

But I also know, personally, many of the H-1B Visa possessors, as fellow human beings.  And as stated earlier they have been lied to and manipulated to increase the wealth of another.  In truth, elimination of the current H1B Visa system would be a benefit to both Americans and those that want to use it to become Americans (of which I have no desire to stop).

A proper H-1B Visa program is necessary.  I don’t want to put a wholesale stop to immigration.  That is one of the things that, in my opinion, defines this country as a special entity in the world (well, normally … today that may not be so true).  That said, I do think that any country’s first duties is to the citizens it already has, and to that end we can’t be creating Visas that displace jobs for Americans.  Lobby’s can’t simply be allowed to pressure politicians in to creating Visas for positions they “can’t fill because their is insufficient talent in the American workforce” when the truth is they “won’t fill the positions with available American workforce if they can get far cheaper foreign labor”.  Anyone working in America should be earning competitive salaries … the cost of living here is the same regardless of your background.  So if you are able to get along on less money there is a reason, and as we’ve seen, that reason is corruption and abuse.

Can we bring people over to work at a reduced rate without the corruption and abuse?  Let’s put aside whether it is fair to Americans or not for a minute … an argument could be made that if a foreign laborer can get along on some amount, Americans will need to adopt or perish.  But to answer the question, how will the laborer that needs so little to survive on get to America?  Who will pay that bill?  Once here, the laborer still has to pay America cost of living.  If the laborer in question has a low cost of living to begin with, they almost definitely won’t have the funds necessary to travel to America on their own.  If they did it would likely be their life savings!  What a risk!  So they probably need corporate sponsorship to get her.  But would a corporation do that without any guarantees?  No, they’re going to want some form of guarantee that the investment in moving the individual here and paying the legal fees for the visas, etc, is going to be paid back.  In fact, this is what we already have, and we already know the potential for abuse.  How can we do it without that potential?  I don’t have the answer, because as soon as you establish that the corporation will need some sort of assurance of payback you have identified an indentured state, and that’s where the potential starts.

When we look at immigrants that came to America to pursue “the dream,” whether they be Italians, Irish, English, French, whatever, we see people that came here on their own.  They used their own fortunes, whatever that might be, and completely uprooted themselves to come here.  There was no looking back, and indeed it WAS a HUGE risk.  That is what makes America the country it is!

Coming here on a work Visa and sending money back is frankly an entirely different story.  This isn’t investing in the American Dream at all, its siphoning others ability to do so and worse sending money out of our economy, which worsens the trade imbalance.

Coming here to work on a Visa and not sending money back is better, but still not the same.  Again, my big problem with this is the deprivation of an American’s pursuit of the same dream.  If the laborer is not planning to live here permanently, then ultimately the money earned IS going back, so its not that much different.

Now if the ultimate goal is immigration, that’s a great use of a visa, one I support whole-heartily … and yet still I will only support that if the immigrant is not taking jobs away from Americans.  That’s been a long time problem.  We can look back in our history and measure all sorts of periods when different immigrant races seemed to be displacing American’s from jobs.  Today, however, we have the ability to calculate something called “the jobless rate,” and thus we KNOW if they are jobs or not.  We even know WHERE there are jobs and where there are not.  And we have a different visa program for that, called the H-2B visa.

Competition is a healthy thing, and if there are jobs of a certain kind (enough jobs that the jobless rate in that area is statistically the same as normal turnover), then some immigrant jobs in that area should be welcomed as well.  But if the job is one that there are already Americans having trouble finding jobs, that isn’t the right time to be filling Visas for positions in that area.

By the way, in the Software industry as a whole, there really are VERY FEW technologies that are SO SPECIALIZED that there can only be a small group of people WORLD WIDE that can fit that position.  Software engineering is not that specialized.  There can be related technologies that make it more so (perhaps a software engineer that also possesses advanced graphics/mathematical skills), but this merely narrows the pool.  It doesn’t shrink it such that there aren’t enough in the country.  At least, that hasn’t really happened yet.

Its time for America to TRULY abandon slave labor.  Tell your politicians you want fair immigration laws.  (And, FYI, this is a bipartisan issue.  Both sides screw up equally.)  One thought is to eliminate the so-called dual-intent visa status.  This is what allows an alien working here under an H-1B Visa to apply for a green card at the same time.  Removing this ability would protect those drawn to the American Dream and abused by money hungry abusive corporations engaging in legal human trafficking and indentured labor.  The H-1B will remain for its intended purpose:  to supplant the workforce as needed with skilled employees from around the world.

Interested in this topic?  Here is some additional reading material:

Posted by: Kevin | December 9, 2008

Should Boston Ban Tobacco, EVERYWHERE??

A new article, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28097922/,talks about Boston being close to banning Cigar bars.  If you don’t know, a Cigar bar is a place that cigar smokers go to buy and smoke cigars.

I don’t smoke, anything.  I don’t use tobacco of any sort.  So you might think that I would be in support of this ban, or at least wouldn’t care.  In general I do support a lot of tobacco bans because tobacco tends to affect everyone around it, and we KNOW that it is a bad thing to be around.

But this is an establishment that NO ONE would go to EXCEPT for the purpose of smoking.  So to ban this is to say “Fine, do it at home, but don’t be having fun in public with it!  It offends me!”   And that offends me.

I’ve heard a lot of smokers complain about being unfairly targeted.  It looks like they may be right.

Posted by: Kevin | December 9, 2008

Undercover Mom

This is  a great read, as long as the story is still available on MSNBC.

The story is about a mom trying her best to protect her son, who was convicted of murder.  She believes him innocent and goes to EXTREME steps to find out how honest the jury is.  How extreme?  She undergoes a TOTAL makeover (weight loss, hair color change, etc), and she basically identifies and arranges to’meet’ one of the jurors on her son’s (now completed) trial.  The juror did NOT know who he was meeting … she had taken a new identity, even rented an apartment and claimed to have just moved from the West Coast.

She proceeds to flirt with and date the younger man, earning his trust over time, until eventually the subject of the trial can be talked about.  This is when she learns what she set out to learn:  the jury WAS biased.  In fact, the man she is talking to did the BIASING!  So, thus armed, she attempts to get her son a re-trial.

That’s not easily done.  And it is a whole different topic as to whether that should be done given her tactics!

This is a mother’s commitment.  Don’t get overly wrapped up in whether she did the right thing.  She DID find a problem with her son’s trial, and that came about because of a mother’s unwavering love and trust for her son.  I’ll neither condemn nor approve of these actions … the subject matter is too deep to be examined from such a distance.  But I sure admire her perseverance.

The media is alive again, if only for a brief period.  The Georgia runoff took place, and Send Chamliss (R) reclaimed his post in the Senate, breaking any chance of the Democrats achieving the 60 seat supermajority that would enable them to block filibusters, and generally swoop in and save the world from republican disaster.

That’s what was said … but, just a little while ago the SAME media was also saying that if Senator Chambliss LOST, and if Minnesota went Democrat, there STILL wasn’t REALLY a supermajority!  Why?  Well, because there’s always cross-over voters.  You’d really need closer to 65 of a party majority to be filibuster proof.  Anything less and you are in the shades of gray area, which is where we are now.  What that means is that sometimes the Senate WILL be filibuster proof because some centrist-leaning Republicans will vote with the Democrats, and sometimes it won’t because some centrist-leaning Democrats will vote with the Republicans.

So try NOT to let the media tell you how to vote.  Please do NOT vote for a candiate JUST to change the voting dynamics of the government.  Put GOOD people in the government and trust them to do the right thing.  If you put good people there, the trust is possible.

That’s my thought on the subject.

Posted by: Kevin | December 4, 2008

The Episcopal Church isn’t the ‘Right’ Church

Well, here we go again.  Frankly, I shouldn’t be surprised.  For reference, I am NOT a religious person.  Don’t confuse that with terms like atheist, agnostic, etc.  That’s between me and my, er, maker.  My point is that I don’t follow any religious beliefs.  I don’t believe any supreme being needs my devotion and faith.

Oddly, that hasn’t negatively affected my ‘morals’ at all.  Well, maybe if you include divisive issues like abortion, but I’m not going there in this blog.

Anyway, there’s a group of extreme conservatives that feel that the Episcopal church has, essentially, gone soft.  So they are forming a new church.  I don’t have the name off hand, but that doesn’t matter.  It is FASCINATING to me that every time a group of religious individuals that disagree on enough points feel like it, they simply form another chapter, if you will, and declare themselves the one, true, religion!  Isn’t that easy?

It’s a good thing government doesn’t work that way.  Imagine if a group of us thought another group of us were doing something wrong, and split off and formed a party…

Oh, wait … this is sounding familiar.  The problem, of course, is that the US is really a two-party system, so these people can’t effectively form a new party that will win in an election.

But it still happens, doesn’t it?  An extreme liberal?  An extreme conservative?  We even invent terms like neo-con (essentially NEW conservative) that is meant to tell us that this is BETTER.

But what’s really better is for us to debate things and work together, not to form splinter groups.  Disagree?  Let me know when you find the one, true religion.

Posted by: Kevin | November 20, 2008

Forced Marriage

France is an interesting place.  An interesting source of political news, of nothing else.  Recently I read this tidbit.  It’s about a Muslim couple that wed and on their honeymoon he discovered she was not a virgin.  According to his beliefs he felt cheated and wanted an annulment.  I am sure she was upset, but she also agreed to the annulment (what else was she to do?  This wasn’t going to be a great marriage!!)

Well, the lower court granted the annulment.  But, the French prosecutor (working for???) APPEALED the ruling and in the higher court PREVAILED and the annulment was reversed, essentially forcing a marriage that they did not want.

Why do this?  Because in France apparently they are trying to remove religion from all aspects of society, seeing it as the root of all evil.  We do fight a lot about religion, certainly in this country too.  Should we follow France’s lead?  Well, I would say France has taken it just a LITTLE too far.

Religion is a part of life.  Most of the people in the world believe in a god.  The remainder certainly have traditions routed in a religion.  Should we deny it all?  I don’t think so.  I like the idea of sharing it and learning about each others religions a whole lot more.

Posted by: Kevin | November 20, 2008

What will you sell your rights for?

Many (myself included) feel that President Bush has severely intruded on our Civilian rights, but he did so without paying us for them.  Would you be happier if you got money for it?

In http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27703655/, we learn about a woman that gets banned from a public location for the dirty dancing she performs there.  She then sues the municipality for this, and SETTLES out of court for a significant chunk of change.  BUT, does she regain the right to dance?  NOPE.  The town says they’d rather BURN THE PLACE down, and feel they’re doing nothing wrong, but they’re willing to pay $275,000 to make her happy to not dance.

And yeah, she’ll sell her right to dance for that.

Interesting, no?

Posted by: Kevin | November 20, 2008

Pro Choice and Pro Life Working Together

I was VERY heartened to read this article:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/17/AR2008111703682.html.  In it you’ll discover that some Pro-Life groups are investing their time and energy in to working with Pro Choice groups in areas that are mutually beneficial.  This is what I’ve been PUSHING for since I FIRST discovered the problem.

Now admittedly these groups are making this choice out of a somewhat desperate feeling that the government is just not going to support their point of view over the next 4 years (at a minimum), but I hope that this will outgrow that.  It should be about divisive fighting anyway.

If we can learn from this experience I bet we find that by working together we can actually accomplish MORE that is equally satisfactory to BOTH SIDES.

Sure, Pro-Choice people believe that every woman should have the option to get an abortion if needed, but I don’t think there are many that believe that people should turn to abortion as a first choice.  So recognizing that the common ground of eliminating all best last option abortions will make both sides accomplish a lot is a fantastic combination of effort.

And it shows what we can do when we work together.  We really can’t do much when we’re fighting…

Older Posts »

Categories