Click on my name above to send me e-mail.

All Blog entries are © 2001-2007, J. Alec West.
Browse the 2006 Blog, the 2005 Blog, or the 2004 Blog.
...or...
Choose a Blog entry by title in the NAVBAR below.
(Most recent titles are listed first.)

2007 Blog Articles Below

The Truth About Political Parties
Thursday, August 9, 2007 - You might love him. You might hate him. But I must admit to a sneaking admiration for radio talk show host, Michael Savage. I neither agree nor disagree with what he says. But, it's clear that the man thinks about an issue before he comments on it. However, sometimes his thinking is not totally clear. He often comments that our two major political parties don't have many differences between them anymore. And he often refers to these politicians as "Democans" and "Republicrats" to illustrate this opinion. However, I beg to differ. The political parties themselves haven't changed. But the people in those parties have changed.

Each party has a sort-of "thorn" in its side, reminding the party faithful of what a TRUE party member should believe in. The Democrat thorn is named Dennis Kucinich. He's the only real Democrat running for the 2008 Presidency. And the Republcan thorn is Ron Paul, the only real Republican running for the 2008 Presidency. Everyone else is a (pardon my French) "kiss-butt" trying to please the widest possible spectrum of the electorate - while wearing the mantle of a major party to give them credibility and acceptance.

I've not yet tossed my hat into any candidate's ring. For me, it's too early. But I must admit I'm leaning toward Ron Paul. He's not only a military veteran, he was a military physician (yes, he's Dr. Paul). This means he knows acutely what's at stake when U.S. troops are sent into harm's way - and would do so only as a last resort. And as a member of the House of Representatives, he's also on the Foreign Relations Committee. This means he's been continually updated on the state of the world making him a formidible statesman. And a few years ago, when he ran for President on the Libertarian ticket, I supported and voted for him.

In any case, I wanted to share a humorous perceived truth about political parties. It's a short short article/story I wrote back in 1994 titled, "The Libertarian Luncheon - Or Why There'll Never Be A Libertarian President." I usually wait until the Presidential election year to dredge it out and reprint it on this site. But, since so many candidates have already tossed their hats into the ring, I decided to dredge it out early. Don't worry, though (grin). It will find a place in my 2008 blog pages, too. Consider it a beginner's lesson in Political Economics 101 - with tongue firmly planted in cheek. You may find it simplistic or even downright wrong. But like it or not, here it comes:

The Libertarian Luncheon (or why there'll never be a Libertarian President)
© 1994-2007, J. Alec West

Once upon an election year, patrons crowded a posh Washington, D.C. restaurant for lunch. A man entered the restaurant and called for their attention.

"Fellow citizens," the man began. "I'm the Democratic candidate for President of the United States. And, if you vote for me, I'll pay for your lunches."

Patrons gave the Democratic candidate a round of applause. But, unknown to the patrons, the Democrat planned on paying for the lunches by instituting a post-election tax. The tax would not only pay for the lunches but would pay the salary of a bureaucrat he'd hire to collect the tax. Then, another man entered the restaurant and called for their attention.

"Fellow citizens," the man began. "I'm the Republican candidate for President of the United States. And, if you vote for me, I'll not only pay for your lunches - I'll promise that you'll never EVER have to pay me back."

Patrons gave the Republican candidate a standing ovation. But, unknown to the patrons, the Republican planned on paying for the lunches by charging them on the VISAs and MasterCards of their children and grandchildren. Then, another man entered the restaurant and called for their attention.

"Fellow citizens," the man began. "I'm the Libertarian candidate for President of the United States. And, if you vote for me, I'll pay for my lunch and you can pay for yours."

Patrons booed and hissed. And, therein lies the reason why there'll never be a Libertarian President. Libertarians consistently tell the American electorate the one truth they hate to hear and refuse to accept - that there's no such thing as a free lunch.

(Post-article-addendum) - There's another more important reason why there'll never be a Libertarian President. Some ideas from the Libertarian Party are actually quite astute. But, whenever these astute ideas begin to receive "popular" support from the electorate, the Democrats and Republicans glom on to them ... as if the ideas were theirs in the first place. This makes the Libertarian Party an important source for a wellspring of new and forward-thinking ideas ... but at the same time, guarantees them the status of victim in a neverending cycle of "idea theft."

- 30 -

P.S. By the way, Ron Paul is not a Republican who glommed onto Libertarian ideas. In truth, a lot of Libertarian ideas are really traditional Republican ideas. This doesn't mean that Libertarians stole their ideas, either. It just means that Libertarians kept them alive until a real Republican (Paul) had the guts to be a Republican.

Perception Be Damned!
Friday, May 11, 2007 - An article published years ago in Newsweek titled, "The New American Crybaby," detailed examples of how our country has changed from a largely tolerant culture to one where everyone seems to be at each other's throats ... in and out of court. And part of that change involves "perception." If person A says something to person B, it's no longer enough for person A to accept responsibility for their speech and the real meaning behind what was said. Now, it's more important for person A to be clairvoyant enough to know how person B might "take" their speech - and be "sensitive" to "their" take. A recent example of this is discussed in an article published by OregonLive.com, the online mouthpiece of The Oregonian newspaper. Or, if the article is taken down, it can also be read in Acrobat format by clicking here.

Basically, a local late-night eaterie has, for several years, established itself as a restaurant with an "attitude." If you talk down or rudely to food service workers, they're likely to talk back to you in the same tone ... all with the blessings of the restaurant owner. And, when it nears closing time for the restaurant, cooks (who cannot see the customers they serve) have been known to decorate new orders for food with the words GO HOME! written on plates or the food on the plates using one sauce or another. But now, this long established traditional "attitude" has, in part, come to an end. Why?

One late night guest made an order. And when the guest received the order, the words GO HOME! were written on it in sauce. The problem? The guest was a Mexican immigrant. By the way, notice in the article that there is no mention of whether the guest was a legal or illegal Mexican immigrant. And remember, the cook cannot see the guests who receive the orders ... nor does the cook know guest names or other identifiers about a guest.

Restaurant regulars all know that there was no racial intent in this message. Even the guest's companion who spoke to The Oregonian about this admitted it. Nonetheless, she said, "...but it was an insensitivity to what is going on around us."

My take? B_U_L_L_S_H_I_T_!!! This lady, and anyone else offended by the remark, are the people with the problem ... not the restaurant. In order to make an "insensitive" remark, you at least have to know that it would be perceived as insensitive. And when a restaurant has practiced this act for years, what it God's name would lead them to the conclusion that such a perception could be made?

Sadly, we live in a world where we're expected to talk "softly" for fear of cracking anyone's emotional eggshells. A situation remotely similar to this occurred where I work. Here are the particulars.

Where I work, employees are out of the public eye and are therefore allowed to dress casually. However, I work for a government contractor. And anyone who's worked in such an environment knows that EEO (Equal Employment Opportunity) people are constantly on the prowl when it comes to something like sexual harrassment.

A male employee came to work one day wearing a teeshirt that depicted the cartoon caricature of a Sumo wrestler. The front of the teeshirt showed the wrestler from a frontal view, the back from a rear view. No "naughty" body parts were showing. It was merely a caricature of a Sumo wrestler in traditional garb ... and Sumo wrestlers have been featured on prime time TV sporting events. Nevertheless, a woman went to a supervisor and complained that she perceived the shirt as "offensive." Mind you, she was the "only" complainer among about 60 coworkers. Even so, the supervisor went up to the man - ordering him to go home and change his teeshirt. He refused. The supervisor then ordered him to go home and not come back until he changed both his teeshirt and his attitude. So, the employee left work.

The next day, the employee returned ... and so did his teeshirt. Angrily, the supervisor went up to him and ordered him home again. But this time, someone close to the employee asked, "What's your name?" The supervisor asked who wanted to know. The unknown man then identified himself as the employee's attorney and again asked his name. The supervisor complied. Their voices were getting a bit loud and a crowd of coworkers approached to gawk (grin). Then, the attorney told the supervisor that the employee's mother was Japanese. And to some men with Japanese heritage, Sumo is considered more than mere "wrestling," it's considered holy in its cultural significance. He then told the supervisor that if he sent his client home again, he'd sue the company for cultural bias against his client. The supervisor tried to get the two off the floor, to quietly shuffle them into the supervisor's office where no one else could hear. But the attorney raised his voice and said, "No, we settle this here and now! Does he go or does he stay?" By this time, the office manager (the supervisor's boss) had joined the melee and said that the employee could stay. Further, he told the attorney that the employee would be compensated for the time for which he was ordered home the previous day. End of problem ... almost.

About a week later (and to placate the complainer who still perceived the teeshirt as offensive), my entire work unit was called together for a special meeting. A rep from our EEO office gave us a lecture on "sensitivity" ... and how important it was to consider the "perceptions" of others, even to things we might innocently say or do. I've heard this kind of whiney crap several times, before and after the teeshirt incident. In any case, after she was done with her lecture, she called for questions. I raised my hand (evil grin). When she called on me, I asked, "Excuse me for asking this ... but will there ever come a time when the stuck-up sticky-beaks of this world are told to leave their emotional eggshells at home so the tolerant majority can get on with their lives?" She gave me an angry glare. "Please bear with me," I continued, "but I have an important point I want to make." I rose from my seat and approached her. Behind her was a blackboard with chalk and eraser.

I picked up the chalk and said, "I'm about to tell a joke to illustrate this point. The joke may sound like a dirty joke but it is NOT a dirty joke. Two Italian-American men are eating lunch in their employee lunchroom at work. A female coworker at a nearby table is eavesdropping on their conversation. One of the men says to the other:

"OK, itsa like dis. Emma, she come first. Den I come. Den two esses come togetha and I come. Den two esses come togetha and I come again. Den, two pee layta, I come again."
"The woman bolts from her seat and yells:
"If you don't keep your filthy mouth to yourself, I'll see you're written up for sexual harrassment!!!"
"Afterward, the Italian speaker bolts from his seat and yells back:
"Whatsamatta fo you, lady??? I was just teachin' my friend to spell-a Mississippi!!!
Then, with chalk in hand, I "translated" the Italian-American's comment the way he meant it on the blackboard for all to see:

"Emma, she come first."

M

"Den I come."

M-I

"Den two esses come togetha and I come."

M-I-S-S-I

"Den two esses come togetha and I come again."

M-I-S-S-I-S-S-I

"Den, two pee layta, I come again."

M-I-S-S-I-S-S-I-P-P-I

Then, I concluded with, "My point is that a speaker should not be required to be clairvoyant enough to know how his or her comment might be perceived by others. Rather, it should be the responsibility of the perceiver to determine the true meaning of a comment before he or she complains about it. We need far fewer sensitivity teachers in our culture and far more tolerance teachers ... to equip people with the thick skin necessary to survive in a world of ideas and words that, sometimes, don't mean what they seem to mean on the surface."

I returned to my seat. There was about 3 seconds of silence in the room. Then, without batting an eyelash, the EEO rep asked if there were any other questions or comments. More silence. The meeting was adjourned ... and so it goes ...

P.S. Here's a kind-of humorous post-article article I call, "Three Times I Almost Got Fired" (grin).

Incident #1 - Many years ago, I worked for the Veterans Administration (now called the Department of Veterans Affairs). I worked in the Portland regional office that, since, has been absorbed to Denver and no longer exists. Anyway, ever since leaving the Navy, I've always worn my hair long. Even now, at age 56, my hair is tied back in a ponytail that goes halfway down my back.

One day, I was at work doing my job when I overheard a conversation on the other side of a cubicle partition. I recognized the voices as the Assistant Veterans Service Officer (think "VP of the office"), Dick McLaflin, and the Regional Office Legal Counsel, Sam Menashe. Both men were making very uncomplimentary comments about "hippies." And finally, as their conversation concluded, Sam said, "Well, it just goes to show that you can't trust those longhairs."

Now, this was and still is a Federal agency. And if I was a stuck-up sticky-beak, I could have made a Federal case out of it and filed an EEO complaint. Instead, I decided to have some fun with them. I stood up quickly with my head clearly visible above the partition and said, "Was someone talking about me?" Sam gave me a glare and said, "Dick and I were just talking about the old saying, Grass doesn't grow on a busy street." Immediately (I do have a gift for ad-lib on the fly, hehe), I looked straight at Sam's very bald head and replied, "You're right, Sam ... it only grows where it's fertile." Then I sat back down and snickered to myself. Nothing ever came of the incident, either.

Incident #2 - More than a few years ago at my current employer, I was taking my break in the company breakroom. One of the female employees had brought in a Victoria's Secret catalog and left it on a breakroom table. The catalog's cover showed a large-breasted woman wearing only a bra and panties, bending over to pick up a pencil. Her breasts were pressing tightly against the bra - so tight it looked like it might pop open. I giggled, held the catalog cover up to one of my male coworkers and said, "Hey, Stef. If Victoria bends over any further, the secret will be out." We both laughed and continued enjoying out break.

However, as I left the breakroom, a female coworker approached me and said, "I found your comment in there offensive." My first thought was to reply, "Geez, lady, get a life, will ya?" Instead, I wisely chose to give the only answer a man can give in such a situation to still retain his job. I said, "I apologize. It won't happen again." Had I answered in any other way, I could have been fired for sexual harrassment.

Incident #3 - A few years ago, I worked for a woman I consider the best supervisor I've ever worked for. She was tough but had common sense. And, she was a kindly person overall. However, she had one bugaboo. She had a ZERO tolerance personal policy toward dirty jokes and/or sexual innuendo.

One day, because my section achieved a sought-after productivity goal, she brought in a bunch of pastries to reward workers for their hard work. Among them were blueberry, poppy-seed, and chocolate muffins ... the kind you'd gain 10 pounds from, just for looking at them (grin). Anyway, a few women in our office take these pastries and just cut off a thin slice ... refusing to eat the entire pastry ... and leave the rest for someone else (or offer it to someone else). One of these women, a friend of mine, came up to me. I was working with a male partner who was our mutual friend ... and our work area was right behind the supervisor's desk. She held out the remains of a chocolate muffin and said, "Hey, Jim, would you like to eat my muffin?" The supervisor's head did an about-face, giving the woman a cold glance at the perceived double-entendre ... and my male work partner was trying to hold back his laughter. I looked right back at the woman and replied in a whispery voice, "Well, sure ... but not in front of all these people." The woman laughed and walked away. But, the supervisor's cold glance shot in my direction, hehe, and I thought my male work partner was going to fall out of his chair from laughter. I looked at my supervisor and said, "What? What did I say?"

The glare continued for a few seconds. Then, she just turned her head back around ... shaking it.

The May Day Violence In L.A.
Thursday, May 3, 2007 - First, an unrelated comment. As my last blog entry more than half-a-year ago indicated, I was diagnosed with macular pucker. My condition has since improved. However, I will continue to follow my doctor's advice to avoid inordinate eyestrain. I've ceased design work on all non-personal websites and will continue to refrain from doing this work. Instead, I will concentrate the lion's share of my computer time on writing and submitting both fiction and nonfiction to publishers for their consideration - a process made much easier on my eyes by use of large fonts during the development process - and made easier on a publisher's eyes by my recent acquisition of a Hewlett-Packard Color LaserJet 2600n printer. I will never go back to inkjet printing.

Now ... the topic at hand.

What happened in Los Angeles is only the beginning. It was called an immigrant rights protest march. Sorry, but I continue to believe that only LEGAL immigrants should have RIGHTS in this country. The rest should be deported, imprisoned, or shot. And the same goes for those who smuggle illegals across the border, employ them, or give them safe haven - since those who enable lawbreakers in their breaking of the law are ACCOMPLICES to the crime.

As long as liberals embrace an open-borders philosophy, and as long as conservatives tacitly support illegal immigrants by dressing them up in fancy names like GUEST WORKERS, and as long as illegals consider their breaking of our border laws a RIGHT, the violence will continue and only get worse. It is getting to the point where citizens and legal immigrants (whose petition approvals are delayed each time an illegal crosses the border) will lose all faith in their government to protect the border. And when that happens, they will take the law into their own hands. It will be sad to see this happen ... but it WILL happen if our governmental and political nonchalance toward illegal immigration continues on its present course.

Some will rationalize that human migration has gone on since the beginning of human history ... that universal national boundaries have only existed for a few hundred years. And they ask which is more likely to predominate in the long run. The answer is simple. We have a choice between respecting the rule of law ... or anarchy. Take your pick because there's no middle ground.

Hands up ... all those who think that ONLY Mexicans are crossing our borders illegally. Hmm, not many hands went up. Border Patrol agent, Dan Green, has gone on record saying that one out of 10 illegals he caught in one Mexican/US border crossing were from either Yemen or Egypt. It wasn't noticed until, on the way to a processing center, some of the aliens were heard speaking Arabic. But illegals from a whole host of countries have been caught crossing the Mexican border into the US. Cubans? Who knows?

Criminals (including border violators) are like electricity ... they travel the path of least resistance. And our level of border security has made us a laughingstock among nations.

But, even if only illegal Mexicans were crossing the Mexico/US border, it would be best to ask the opinion of a legal immigrant to all this. I was married to one for 20 years. She was a legal immigrant from the Philippines, working in Los Angeles when we met. And when we married, and later when she became a naturalized US citizen, we petitioned 4 of her siblings (3 sisters, 1 brother). Not long after the time when their petitions SHOULD have been approved, we asked an INS office in Seattle what the delay was. The INS officer told us that petition approvals for legal petitioners are PUSHED BACK every time an illegal alien crosses the border ... since the INS has good estimates on their numbers.

Six years from the time when they were petitioned (at the time, the normal wait was three years), they were finally approved and arrived in this country. And when they got here, three of them went to work picking vegetables at a local farm ... the fourth got a job as a maid for a motel chain. So, when I hear someone say that Mexican illegals are "...only doing the work Americans won't do," I'd like to throttle them and yell into their faces:

"NO, THEY'RE DOING THE WORK LEGAL IMMIGRANTS WOULD DO IF THEY COULD ONLY GET HERE!!!"

Illegal immigrants indirectly took THREE YEARS of income out of the pockets of my ex-wife's siblings and put it into their own pockets ... all because they had the gall to waltz across the border into the arms of a government that didn't give a damn that they did. All her siblings wanted to do was obey the law - and this is how the government rewarded them.

Frankly, I know a few Filipinos who would like nothing better than to pack a few deer rifles into a pickup, drive down to the Mexican border, and pick off a few illegals as they attempt a crossing. And I imagine they might be joined by legal immigrants from Asia, Africa, and the post-Soviet republics who work along side them in the fields, the motels, the fast-food restaurants, etc., who've petitioned their OWN siblings ... and are dealing with the same delays caused by the same reason.

Seriously, a lot of people are worrying about the Minutemen patrolling the border. But if I were them, I'd be more worried about legal immigrant petitioners told that their spouses, sons, daughters, mothers, fathers, brothers, and sisters have to GO TO THE BACK OF THE IMMIGRATION BUS to let the preferentially treated Mexican illegals take their places.

So, who's at fault here? To determine who caused a multiple-vehicle accident, the blame always goes to the first vehicle in the chain. In this case, it is the Federal Government which, for a long time, has taken a laissez-faire attitude toward enforcing our border laws. How many people here honestly believe that this protest march would have even taken place if the laws already on the Federal books were enforced? The mess was created by the Feds ... who are safely sheltered from blame by those who would blame the janitors (LAPD) left to clean up after the mess.

The solution to this mess? Here's the two-step process.

STEP ONE - Right now, it is optional for some employers to require employees to fill out an I9 form ... which also requires them to produce documents to back up the information on it. Simply make it mandatory. Then, make it mandatory to run only two pieces of information past our Social Security computers - the name on an I9 form and the SSN. If the name and SSN don't match (or is currently in use by another person in a different job), it becomes a Federal crime (falsifying information on a Federal document). After that, it's merely a matter of enforcing the document law (felony) as opposed to illegal immigration law (misdemeanor).

STEP TWO - When illegal Mexican immigrants are deported, don't just drive them to a border town in Mexico and drop them off. Put them on military troop-transport planes and fly them by the planeload to Chetumal - the southernmost Mexican town on the border with Belize. That way, to recross the US border, illegals would have to traverse the entire length of Mexico to reach it again ... a task very very few of them would be up for. Mind you, these 2 steps wouldn't stop all illegal border crossings. But they would so greatly reduce them as to make the problem much more manageable.

Do these two things and, by May Day 2008, I guarantee you'll see only a token march, a token protest, and little if any violence.

BUT ... you'll also see one more thing.

Earlier, I mentioned my ex-wife's siblings. We petitioned them to come here the legal way from the Philippines. When they got here, three of them immediately went to work at a local farm while one of them got a job as a maid for a motel chain. My in-laws working at the farm were working alongside immigrants from post-Soviet republics, from Asia, from Kenya, and from Mexico.

One day, the farm owner made a decision ... not out of any racist reason but merely to simplify his accounting. He decided that after a certain date, he would no longer make daily cash payments to workers. Instead, they all had to fill out I9 forms and would receive weekly paychecks (with appropriate taxes, if any, withheld). These were quick payments, too. Checks were available for pickup Saturday morning for work done during the previous Saturday-through-Friday period.

On the date he instituted this policy, the post-Soviets, the Asians, and Kenyans all showed up. But only a tiny fraction of the Mexicans showed up. However, that day, the farm owner asked his remaining employees to spread the word that he needed workers to make up for the missing Mexicans. In less than two days, his fields were full of workers again.

It is a myth to believe that illegal aliens are necessary to our economy. They are merely occupying jobs that legal aliens would fill given the opportunity to fill them. And who is more entitled to fill those jobs ... an immigrant who respects and obeys our laws or an immigrant who openly defies them?

When I voice my opinions to some people, I'm called a racist. OK, let's define racist. How many people here would be willing to walk up to a legal immigrant petitioner from Asia, a legal immigrant petitioner from Africa, and a legal immigrant petitioner from one of the post-Soviet republics, and tell them that it's OK to force them to have their petitions put on hold for twice as long as they'd normally have to wait in order to give illegal immigrants from Mexico first crack at the jobs they'd take? What makes an illegal Mexican immigrant more deserving of that job than an Asian? What makes an illegal Mexican immigrant more deserving of that job than an African? Who's the REAL racist here ... the person who demands equal treatment of immigrants regardless of their national origin ... or the person who demands preferential treatment of illegal Mexican immigrants at the expense of others?

Now, before I leave this pulpit entirely, I'll leave you with a joke. And though you might call me a racist for even mentioning this joke, I suspect my Filipino ex-wife and biracial son might disagree with you. OK, here goes.

One day, an undocumented worker walks into a bank and pulls a gun on the teller, demanding all the money in her cash drawer. She complies with the gunman but, unknown to him, presses down on a foot-activated silent alarm that summons the police. The police arrive swiftly and arrest the gunman before he can escape. However, as they're reading him his Miranda rights and telling him he's under arrest for bank robbery, he loudly protests - saying:

"No, you don't understand me at all!!! I wasn't robbing this bank, I was merely making an undocumented withdrawal!"

(sigh)

Undocumented worker my aunt Fanny! Illegal aliens should be referred to as what they are - illegal aliens. Period.