skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Well, friends, it has been a while since I sent out a Go Joe! entry, but the time is ripe to spread the wisdom of my favorite Senator to the masses once again. Joe's back in the news, and the Sunday shows (caught him on Meet the Press last Sunday, anyone?) as his name pops up again and again in the speculation about who Obama will tap to be his number two. I myself just voted for him today in the Congressional Quarterly Veepstakes, where he has reached the final against a far less well-rounded VP maybe-be (they can't say "wannabe" or they take themselves out of the race), General Wesley Clark. Go vote for Joe!
But more seriously, I want to talk to you about this man's thoughts on our country's foreign relations and its impact on our national security. Having chaired the Foreign Relations committee for years and having brokered peace in the Balkans among other accomplishments, we owe it to ourselves to pay attention to what Joe Biden has to say. On April 15, 2008 he gave a very powerful and profound speech at my alma mater, Georgetown University in Washington, DC entitled "2008 and the Stakes for America's Security". He delivered another, shorter address at the Deleware Jefferson-Jackson Dinner on April 28, 2008, which was equally important. In both, he addressed the incredible importance of the 2008 Presidential Election and the damage that has been caused by the Bush administrations "myopic view"of foreign policy, which has done so much to endanger rather than to protect the United States. This damage must be stopped, repaired and not allowed to reoccur. In Senator Biden's view, the election of Barack Obama as President of the United States is the most important first step we can take to those ends, as John McCain is "joined at the hip" to Bush's mistake-riddled War on Terror.
The use of the adjective "myopic" is particularly apt for describing the Bush foreign policy post 9-11. It was as though after that fateful day, every issue facing the World, facing our neighboring countries in Latin America, our friends on the other side of the Atlantic, the emerging economic powers of China and India, the war-torn of Africa, all their issues just vanished and all that existed on the foreign policy front were Muslim extremists. Even the other Muslims disappeared--almost a billion of them. Even Isreal became a marginal side show. And Iraq? Oh, yeah, there were Muslim extremists there--and they must have been even more extreme then the ones in Afghanistan and Pakistan who actually caused 9-11. All the rest? Well, good luck.
Biden had this to say on 'in his speech at Georgetown, " is simply wrong. Terrorism is a means, not an end, and very different groups and countries are using it toward very different goals. If we can't even identify the enemy or describe the war we're fighting, it's difficult to see how we will win it." He admits groups like Al Qaeda need to be taken out, but by different means--and those means have to be directed in the right places--like in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Further he points out that these groups, when compared to the United States, are puny. But we go after them like bulls in the china shop upsetting all the fragile pieces that make up this World. That in turn causes all types of ill-will around the globe directed at us -- not at those who initially attacked us. We do more harm then good to the people of Iraq, to our own troops, to their families at home. The image that comes to my mind is of an elephant afraid of a mouse. And while we are flailing around attempting to squish the tiny rodent, we have lost sight of the rest of the World. We trample over things we had no intention of hurting and we can't clearly see the other predators that might be creeping up behind. This particular passage from Biden's Georgetown speech addressing the Iranian threat is very important:
What about Iran? Would drawing down increase its already huge influence in Iraq? Or would it shift the burden of helping to stabilize Iraq from us to them and make our forces a much more credible deterrent to Iran's wider misbehavior? The idea that we could or even should wipe out every vestige of Iran's influence in Iraq is a fantasy. Even with 160,000 American troops in Iraq, our ally in Baghdad greets Iran's leader with kisses. Like it or not, Iran is a major regional power and it shares a long border-- and a long history-- with Iraq.
Right now, Iran loves the status quo, with 140,000 American troops bogged down and bleeding, caught in a cross fire of intra Shi'a rivalry and Sunni-Shi'a civil war.
Biden continues and explains the benefits to us of a draw down. If you have time, I encourage you to read the speech in its entirety. This myopic, simplistic view of the World has to end. We have to look at the complex facets of each part of the World and address them in a productive manner. We can't just run around the planet stepping on people--even if we don't like them. We can't even appear to be doing that if we want to be respected and, well, safer.
Biden for VP? We could do a hell of a lot worse. But regardless of whether he stays in the US Senate or joins an Obama Administration, pay attention to this man. He's right (or left--if you know what I mean?)
June 10, 2008
Sometimes we here in the United States feel that we are the only ones on Earth that face certain problems. Sometimes we live in a bubble. That's a problem, because there is much we could learn by looking at our problems in a broader context and learning from the rest of the World. We also tend to compartmentalize many issues and see them only through a very small prism. We don't like the complex. But the reality is that many issues overlap and sometimes not in the most obvious of ways. Immigration is one such issue.
Poor people who cannot manage to feed or educate their families, at least the brave, pro-active ones, will often move to unknown, foreign lands in an effort to provide for those they love. Many people have come to this country in recent years looking to better their lot and that of their families. Here in Texas, many of those immigrants are Hispanics, many of those Hispanics are Mexicans, but in other parts of the United States you will find illegal Irish (some of whom are headed back now that their home country's economy is on the rise), illegal Africans, illegal Asians and on and on. The Dominican Republic, a third world nation by most anyone's standards, is doing very well when compared to the hapless nation of Haiti with which it shares an island and the DR is inundated with immigrants coming to work in cane fields and other back breaking jobs.
On the other side of the World, Western Europe is the destination of choice for many immigrants from Northern Africa, the Middle East, some Eastern European countries and even--Latin America. Ironically, since I had decided yesterday to write on this topic, today's New York Times addresses the immigration issue as tackled by Spain, a country whose population is only 40 million, meaning that its immigrants represent an enormous percentage of its inhabitants, even when compared to the United States. In his article "Border Crossing: Spain, Like the U.S., Grapples With Immigration, Times' reporter, Jason DeParle, informs us that since 1985, Spain has run six legalization programs. Three years ago, in one such program more than 600,000 were legalized. While some argue that the legalizations encourage more immigration--and it might, especially the immigration that comes from the reuniting a families, the Spanish feel the benefits of a legalized, documented and therefore known workforce trumps those concerns. Besides, the majority of Spanish, and immigrants themselves, believe that most immigration stems from economic need regardless of the opportunity for legalization or lack there of.
June 14, 2008 (I was pulled away from my blog, but I am back.)
In Spain, where medicine, among other social safety nets, is socialized, even illegals have always been granted free access to health care. With legalization programs, all services and work protections become the right of the newly naturalized immigrants. With these additional protections in place, most immigrants have seen their wages rise. Immigrants need not live in the shadows and the Spanish government is aware of who lives among the greater population.
While Eastern Europeans and Africans make up a substantial portion of the immigrants to Spain, the majority of the country's newcomers come from Latin America. That does aid in the assimilation to Spanish life, because the language barrier is minimal, but that should not keep us from learning from the Spanish experience.
Also in Europe and covered, too, this week in the New York Times in an article titled "Classroom Door Gives Immigrants an Entry to Society" by Souad Mekhennet, is a model for integrating immigrants into the adopted society through language classes. Germany's immigrant population is largely made up of Muslims from cultures very different from its own--more foreign to the modern German society by any stretch of the imagination than our Mexican immigrants are from its US neighbor. And the percentage of foreign-born residents is seemingly overwhelming in some major German cities. The article reports that of Frankfurt's 600,000 residents, almost 1/3 are not German citizens.
For years, the ever growing numbers of Muslim students in the city's public schools seemed to have parents who didn't care about their education, who never participated in parent-teacher conferences or responded to letters mailed to their homes. The Muslim kids were not engaged in school or in the larger German society. Well, neither were their moms--those charged with raising these children in a foreign and often forbidding foreign land. Then came "Mama lernt Deutsch", or "Mom learns German", a program for women only provided at their children's elementary schools during the school day with daycare for the younger siblings. In addition to being convenient, local and taking into account the need for childcare, the program was also designed to eliminate another extremely important obstacle for many of the women it hoped to help. No men were allowed. No male students. No male teachers. Some Germans balked at this. But it was the key to the success of the program.
Now that the women were learning German, and just as importantly, interacting with their female GERMAN teachers, they finally had a safe door into German society. The women started venturing out into the community. They could now read the letters and invitations to their children's schools and stopped throwing the strange writing into the trash can. They started showing up to parent-teacher conferences. Their kids started doing better in school. They, in turn, will contribute much more to the German economy and will no longer belong to such a separate World within Germany's borders. The program costs $235 per student and at this point, though it has been shown to be successful and has been copied in several German states and has been introduced nation-wide in Austria, the government has not picked up the tab. Only those who can afford the tuition can participate at this point. As in the United States, immigration policy is a touchy subject in German politics.What this program shows is that even the most desperate cultures can be integrated if people take the time to understand and accommodate initial differences at the start.
Okay, I promised some insight on what I learned at the Convention and all I've done is feed you a bunch of stories from far off lands. There is a method to my madness. On the morning on Saturday, June 7th, I attended a caucus with the title of Immigration and the Economy. The presentation, titled "Connecting the Dots: How to Achieve Border Security and Immigration Reform through Economic Sustainability" was made by Eddie Aldrete, Senior Vice President of International Bank of Commerce and member of the Alliance for Security and Trade (AST). He is also associated with the Texas Boarder Coalition on whose website (www.texasbordercoalition.org) you can find a wealth of information on the immigration issue. I have written to Mr. Aldrete in hopes of getting a link to his Power Point presentation and a list of the links to the video clips shown. Of course, I'll pass them on if I can.
For those of us who are familiar with the immigration issue in this county, there were plenty of stats to back up our arguments that the fence is not practical and is financially irresponsible. There were knowledgeable, experienced people to site when talking about the senselessness of rounding up twelve million people, of the almost complete neglect of the Northern border, coastlines and enforcement of visa overstays, which blow holes in the "national security" argument to the border control fight. There was also a great graph to demonstrate how the inflow of immigrants mirrors the employment trends in the United States. People come when there are jobs to be had. What made these sections of the presentation so very powerful was that the sources for the information in the presentation were almost entirely government agencies--not partisan think tanks or PACs.
But the most powerful point of this presentation was an argument that will tie us right back to our friends in Europe. The fertility rate. Western European countries and famously, the Japanese (more on them later), have been experiencing constantly lower fertility rates for decades. Spain, a country discussed earlier in this post, has a birthrate of 1.29. The United States currently sits at exactly 2.1. What rated do you need to replace your current population level? 2.1. And, keep in mind, the reason we are even as high as 2.1 is because immigrant families tend to have more children than do native born Americans. Take away immigration and we fall below the sustainable fertility rate. Native-born Americans do not have enough babies to sustain our population.
Now I know what you are thinking. Our population keeps rising. Well, that is true. But what keeps the population growing is the improvement in the health of Americans. They are living longer. That means that we are graying. We all know we've got a huge population of baby boomers about to retire and therefore getting ready to collect social security--for longer than the generation that preceded them. Colleges bursting at the seams right now are fixin' (God, I love Texas) to see their enrollments or at least their applicant pools shrink when its current wave has rolled through. Eventually, we'll start dying and our population will begin to fall. Who will pay for social security? Who will fill our universities? Who will drive our economy? Do we want to end up like Russia, where the population drops by 700,000 people per year and where women are paid $9000 to have a child? Desperate times.
Meanwhile, to our south, is Mexico, whose birthrate is currently at 2.4, though even that is expected to drop below the replacement level of 2.1 fifteen years after ours does. So do we want to turn the 12 million back and slam the door shut or do we want to legalize those who are here? Do we find out who they are, educate them, collect more taxes from them (in addition to the billions they pay already--including into social security, which they currently cannot collect), allow them to continue sending remittances home, shoring up the economy of our neighbor and thereby truly improving our security?
What's the next step? Well we currently allow only 65,000 work visas to skilled workers, such as engineers, per year, though last year 120,000 people applied on the 1st day of the application period and despite the fact that major tech employers are now setting up facilities in Canada and taking all the related jobs that go with them and could be filled by Americans should they keep the facilities here, because they can't get their people into this country. There are only 5000 visas available annually to unskilled workers--our excess demand--485,000 workers annually. What does that mean? Well, already many of the California farmers who have not been able to get the needed workers to harvest their crops over the last couple of seasons are moving their operations to Mexico. What does that mean? Well, our groceries have to get trucked back to us and small Mexican farmers are in trouble--hurting their economy and displacing more people.
What's the next step? Up the visa numbers to reflect the need. Let it float. Streamline it. Let legalized workers come and go home when they are done. Tax their wages. Not so many people will bring their families along to stay if they can come and go without fear. It will be interesting to see what happens if our unemployment rate continues to rise. Will this be the first time that we don't see Mexican workers heading back to Mexico when times are tougher in this country, because they are afraid they won't be able to get back and because the lives of their entire families is now rooted on this side of the border?
Of course there are humanitarian arguments for immigration reform, but those afraid of job loss and the collapse of our economy need to hear the economic argument. We are lucky. People want to come here. And we have a lot of experience in assimilating large immigrant populations. It takes time, but it can be done. Let's not wait until we become like the Japanese.
Yesterday Reuters, in an article "Japan Must Boost Immigration--Ruling Party Panel", reported that in Japan, a small island nation with a highly homogeneous population with no history of assimilating anyone the ruling party has come to the conclusion that they may need to stimulate immigration to their country to equal as much as 10% of their population if they want to save their economy. Their fertility rate? 1.22 (source CIA World Factbook).
One of the vendors at last weekend's Texas Democratic Convention was selling t-shirts that read: I survived the 2008 Texas Democratic Convention. But despite the marathon hours we kept, I have to say that I did far more than survive--I thoroughly enjoyed the whole experience. Grant it, I am quite the wonk, but I found the mood to be overall, very positive and the process, while admittedly slow, to be fascinating.
What I am most happy to report, will be bad news to any of the Republicans who were hoping that the Obama and Clinton activists would not be able to come together and commit to working towards the common goal of electing a Democrat to the White House in November. Certainly, there were a lot of disappointed Hillary supporters, but throughout the weekend there were numerous displays of party unity, including a moment in which all the delegates on the floor, be they pledged for Obama or for Clinton joined hands in a rather hokey, but heart-warming show of mutual support.
Additionally, there was great emphasis on down-ticket races. We heard from Rick Noriega, candidate for the U.S. Senate, who, with an energized Democratic electorate, has a real chance at ousting that bane of our existence, Senator Cornyn, in the fall.We also heard from a number of candidates who could help tip the balance for a Democratically controlled Texas State House. I was pleased to personally speak with Brian Ruiz, candidate for US House of Representatives, and Diana Maldonado, candidate for State House District 52, and was impressed with both of them.
Of course, this is the Democratic Party, so we were not without our divisions. There was even a move to unseat the current Texas Democratic Chairman, Boyd Richie. It failed and many dedicated Democrats differed with his leadership, but in this year, with so much on the line, disappointment quickly moved to acceptance of the vote and we moved forward. We are going to work with what we've got this year--and you know what? We've got a lot of good people with whom to work.
The Convention Chair, Austin's own, Kirk Watson, showed humor and grace in overseeing an immense, and potentially overwhelming sea of delegates and alternates. His star is on the rise. And when I say a sea of delegates, that is what I mean. While this was my first trip to the state convention, veteran party activists impressed upon me many times that the sheer size of this convention was much larger than any before it.
We also heard from nationally recognized Dems. The one with the largest celeb factor was definitely Chelsea Clinton, who received a standing ovation for her speech announcing her mother's support for Obama the night before Clinton's own eloquent and gracious words. Also of note was Governor Kaine of Virginia, who gave a ringing endorsement of Barack Obama. Virginia is poised to run blue in November. Kaine's speech was not the most energizing of the weekend, but should be noted that a large portion was delivered in Spanish. Obviously, it would be nice to get as many older Hispanics on board (many of the younger generations have already come out in support of Barack). Hopefully, a combination of Hillary's call for party unity and ongoing displays of their value by other national Obama supporters will melt their doubts and lead them to get out the vote for our nominee this fall.
Back home, I have received a barrage of emails from members of the Williamson County Delegation--mostly positive, some a bit whiny about lost races for committee appointments and national delegate slots, but mostly positive. Even the whiny ones were positive in the sense that people care. A couple were very positive, because they made suggestions on how we could better organize in the future. Those are the only ones I care about, because what's done is done and we need to be as affective as possible going forward. Most importantly, I believe is the need to impress upon those who run for the delegate position that the convention is what it is-long, wonkish and involves a lot of sitting around. Some left before important votes were taken, and that should never happen again. It is an honor to represent your precint(s) and it should not be taken lightly. We'll have to make sure that people are informed and understand what they are signing up for. But you know, we're Democrats, so nothing is ever going to be too pretty.
Stay tuned for tomorrow when I report on my take on the caucus for "Immigration and the Economy".
Good grief! Where do we begin? So much has happened since I last blogged--Kentucky went big for Clinton; Obama won handily in Oregon; Clinton stuck her foot in her mouth with the RFK assassination comment; the media blew the comment out of all proportion. But, all this is small potatoes next to Bush's reprehensible speech to the Israeli Parliament's damaging and hypocritical enthusiastic response to our President's comments. What the hell was he thinking? Then the Israelis went and gave him rousing ovation. Besides the fact that Bush should have learned from the Dixie Chicks, that you don't disparage domestic political figures abroad, you also don't just throw around mentions of Adolf Hitler willy-nilly--in of all places Israel or imply that people who would use diplomacy with other Middle Eastern players are equivalent to those who would have "appeased" the leader of the Nazis. You especially don't do this when members of your own cabinet, including Secretary Gates advocate the same policy. Can we please move this guy out of the White House now?
What else? Then Edward Kennedy was diagnosed with a brain tumor; another crazy pastor embarrassed Obama by sounded off at Trinity in Chicago; and President Bush's former press secretary decided to hang all his former boss' dirty laundry out to dry in a scathing new tell-all. Yesterday, the Democratic Party's Rule Committee showed the country just how messy democracy can get--live on CNN, deciding to seat the delegates of Michigan and Florida with half a vote each, and re-allocating the Michigan delegates, sending Ickes into a tirade that makes us wonder if Clinton will take this all the way to the Convention. Of course, she did sweep Puerto Rico--which won't get a say in the Fall, but so what? Meanwhile, Obama quit his church--praise Jesus! We await the final two primaries on Tuesday with bated breath. Will she ever just bow out gracefully--or at all?
I don't even know where to begin.
At the end of the week, I will be heading downtown to the State Democratic Convention. Due to my illness, which still, a month and a half later has me a bit tired, I missed a lot of the meeting and schmoozing and shouting and whining that has been going on in the lead up to choosing out National Delegates and State Committee members. I made it to the last shout-fest at the Georgetown Library in Georgetown, TX, where the Williamson County Delegation attempted to organize and united behind a ticket of candidates (and where I almost suffered permanent hearing loss thanks to the old fart who kept yelling things like "Bullshit" and "Enough already" in it). Judging from the constant stream of babbling email threads I've gotten since then, it was just a lead up to the real showdown at our pre-convention caucus on Friday. I'm thinking the National Rules Committee's got nothing on Williamson County Texas. I'll let you all know how it turns out.
Meanwhile, I'm still holding on to a glimmer of hope that Obama will tap Biden for VP.
Just touching base. Talk to y'all soon.
Well, looks like Democrats have looked past Reverend Wrong, I mean Wright and positioned Barack Obama to capture the Democratic nomination for President. Of course, Hillary will not go easily. Immediately after the week's two contests, she was off to West Virginia for a campaign rally in my grandmother's home town of Shepherdstown, West Virginia. Her remarks later in the week saying that her base included whites and, specifically hard-working whites, were not helpful. Does that mean that more educated whites don't work hard? Does that mean blacks don't work hard? What does that mean?
I'm not going to go crazy and call Hillary a racist or accuse her of class warfare, but Obama has been very restrained after what Hillary did with the "bitter" remark. We need to unite the Party. But, you know what, after this week, I think we have every reason to be optimistic about the Party coming together in the Fall. And Barack is on the right track--focusing on McCain, not pandering, not playing tit for tat and irritating the Clinton base.
Just as interesting and just as promising, the Democrats have won special Congressional elections this week in traditionally Republican districts, and may even win an upcoming election in a Mississippi district that has been redder than red for decades. This bodes well for Democrats, who need wider Democratic margins in Congress if either a President Obama or a President Clinton, will need support to get either of their platforms implemented.
What we, as Democrats, must do is resist the urge to arrogantly grind this win in the Republicans' faces and follow Obama's lead of just getting about the business of the country. If we can do that, we will stay in power and change the face of American government well into the 21st century. If we can't, we could become drunk with power and end up eating crow, just like the Republicans look to be doing right now.
