A modest border proposal

Like our president, I want to build a wall along the border with Mexico. But I don't want to build a wall that separates our peoples, but builds links of friendship across the border. 

- - - - - -

There is a famous play about two men who build a fence between their properties.  They both wanted their children to want to get to know each other, and they figured that the fence would get their kids interested in knowing each other.  It's a famous musical, and one well worth seeing if you get the chance. But I'll be darned if I can remember the name of that play now.

Since this wall is to be built for purposes of friendship, I propose using both Mexican and American children (of various ages, all under adult supervision) to build this wall as play, using Legos as their prime building material.  The wall would be 50 Meters long, by 1.5 Meters high, and 20 Centimeters thick. At the center would be an American hand shaking a Mexican hand in friendship. This wall would be the first wall built to bring people together, and not keep them apart from each other.

- - - - - -

Our current president wants to force Mexico to pay for a wall that its people do not want. He has just suggested that he is thinking of sending our troops South of the border to deal with "Bad Hombres" in Mexico. Is this the way to make friends?  I doubt it. Our Southwest was settled by people of both Anglo and Mexican heritage. And it's about time we stopped being the bully, and treated our next door neighbor with respect.

Something that most people don't realize is that there is already a wall along parts of the USA/Mexico border. It hasn't solved out problems with Mexico, it has only made them worse.  If we were to build Trump's wall along the border, we'd spend at least $25 billion for materials alone - and that doesn't account for the cost of labor.  Is it worth the price?

One might say, what about all those people crossing the border?  We have a right to keep them out. And this is a valid point. But many Mexican illegal aliens are moving back to Mexico for reasons of opportunity. NAFTA has helped Mexico develop, and we no longer have as big a problem with illegal immigrants crossing that border as we once did.  Instead, we're being infiltrated by illegals flying in from overseas, then overstaying their visits. And our President's proposed wall does absolutely nothing to stop them.  Instead, he's making a symbolic gesture which will accomplish little in the long run.

- - - - - -

Another person might focus on drug smuggling and other crimes which involve border crossing.  And to them I say that we should rationalize our laws. Making recreational drugs illegal has only served to act as a price support.  Berkeley Breathed (of "Bloom County" fame) made a point of this when a "hair growth tonic" was made illegal, and h ad Opus say "thanks for the price support". He then made jokes about all the ways drugs could be smuggled in, and showed how stupid many of these laws are.  To me, the only way to beat a narco mafia is to legalize and regulate such substances, killing off the profit margins.

How many people know that the laws against Marijuana were written to deny Mexican Americans their presumed drug of choice?  In the early days of the 20th century, Opiates were banned to deny Asians a recreational drug. And in the 1930's, Marijuana was banned to deny Blacks and Mexicans their fun.  Booze was made the only recreational drug available to the masses after prohibition ended - and we suffer from that decision today.

The Narco Mafia understands that drug bans only serve to increase their profit margins. But they have had a perverse side benefit.  They now take people from South of Mexico, move them through Mexico, and use these people to deliver their drugs into the USA.  They have taken over the "Coyote" trade, and have little interest in delivering people safely across the border to their final destinations. They have found another business where government provides them with price supports.

- - - - - -

If the problem is with the illegal alien, then we must do two things.  First, we must deal with the 12 million illegals already here. And for them, I want one last amnesty using the model established under Reagan's presidency.  But I do not want these people to ever become American citizens. Instead, I want them to be "green card" holders, so that they do not disrupt American politics in my lifetime.  Second, we must prevent new illegals from finding work, making it a criminal offense to hire (or otherwise employ) people who are not citizens or green card holders. And we must mandate the use of technology that would allow an employer to verify that a person has the legal right to work here. (We could also offer a bounty for those who lead the government to a successful prosecution of employers who violate this law.)

Americans need to feel secure.  And Trump's wall only provides an illusion of security. However, true friendship can provide the security we need, as friends can and will look out for each other....

A distraction and a risk

When the author of this blog was growing up, a 6 oz. bottle of Coke cost only 5 cents. 50 years later, the same 6 oz. bottle would sell for 50 cents, if that bottle were still available. (The 12 oz. can usually sells for $1.00 in many outlets, so I use that for my comparison.) Even if my prices are off a little, the price of most optional consumables has gone up by a factor of 10 since I was a child.

Inflation is the thief that robs us all without immediate pain. Governments tend to spend more money than they take in via taxes, and quietly run the printing press to repay creditors with inflated currency. America has done this several times in our history, most notably during the Great Depression, when we changed the price of an ounce of gold from $20 to $35, and then confiscated the gold in American citizens' hands. 

The second time America raped its currency was during the Vietnam war. Instead of taxing the public, and openly dealing with the costs of this unneeded war, we issued debt that would be paid off with cheaper currency. And our government got into the habit of printing money, inflating the currency, until we had short term interest rates approaching 18%. When credit card debt isn't expensive, the economy has serious problems. And we did have them in the late 1970's and early 1980's, where Jimmy Carter had to slam the brakes on the economy to prevent hyperinflation from kicking in.  (Of course, Ronald Reagan got the credit here, as actions of one president often show results in the next president's term.)

Today, we're seeing a great distraction taking place. Our president has decided that the public wants a stronger military (rah, rah, rah for our team - yeah, right!) and is willing to spend money that we don't have.  During his campaign, he posed a question which is very dangerous for the issuer of the world's settlement currency - why doesn't America renegotiate its debt, and settle for pennies on the dollar? Many people have forgotten that question, but I haven't. What will happen if he decides to pay back creditors with cheaper dollars?  

70 years after World War 2, the world now has several decent options for a settlement currency of choice, the dollar being only one of them. The other two possibilities of note are the Euro and the Chinese Yuan. Any nation or zone that issues the dominant settlement currency has a distinct advantage, as its businesses have an easier time dealing with currency risk. And that results in lower costs for the nation/zone, resulting in a higher standard of living for people within that nation/zone.

Can we afford another round of inflation?  No.  But based on historical trends, we will likely see one with disastrous effects. Hopefully, I am wrong, as there are a lot more people living on fixed incomes now than when I was a child, and they are much less able to afford the risks of inflation.

Abandon Ship!

And now the rats are fleeing the ship.  We now are hearing the clarion call from some of the most important conservative media that Trump should either play the game according to the rules, or the GOP will find a way to abandon him for its own survival.  Sadly for the GOP, the die was cast a long, long time ago.  And when they could have gotten rid of the cancer called Donald Trump, they dilly dallied until it was too late to do anything meaningful to stop Trump.

The soul of a political party is tested now and then.  The Democrats were tested when Bill Clinton was impeached by the house.  No one abandoned him, when he was guilty of a "petty" felony.  They were addicted to the money he knew how to bring to his party. The Democrats failed their test, but I'm not sure they could have passed it without tearing the party apart.  This season, it's the Republican's turn.  And they are failing with no excuse. When political leaders are saying that Trump is a con artist who has no business being president, but they support him anyway in the same breath - this is an example of the ethical and moral bankruptcy of the party. This is a colossal failure with no mitigating factors - and no excuses for their (expected) eventual loss in November.

This is a year where the GOP should have been able to easily win the presidency.  All they had to do was stop leaning towards the extreme right, and let Hillary's failings do her in.  In a news cycle that just reported that the Clinton Foundation placed a well heeled contributor in an important government security post, Trump kept making an ass out of himself, wasting another good chance to rightfully attack Hillary for "business as usual".

Trump is likely making a bogus claim that his taxes are being audited.  I'll bet that he doesn't release his taxes because he'll be shown to be a less than successful businessman who is engaged in many questionable deals.  Trump's history in making deals show that he knows how to prosper at the expense of others.  I can only imagine if this tendency holds true about a presidential run.  After losing miserably, he can set himself up as the ringmaster of another media circus, having a networked radio/TV show available over the air or on the internet, where he'll make more money than he ever did with NBC.  He'll continue to claim he was cheated, and people will pay to hear his nonsense.

Where does this leave the GOP?  The way I see it, they would be smart to abandon the racist wingnuts in their base, and go back to the honest conservatism of a William Buckley and Barry Goldwater.  If they also abandon the evangelicals, they might be a smaller party which fights for survival at first.  But they will be free to promote a more coherent and more palatable policy - something that could easily hurt the Democrats if presented by a charismatic leader like Ronald Reagan. 

By now, you may be wondering who I'm going to vote for.  And I think it will be the Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson.  In New York, the Democrat running for president almost always wins the state. Since I don't like Hillary, and I am disgusted with Trump, I think it's a safe bet for me to give Johnson the vote - and hope that they get more votes than the GOP this year.  If this happens, all political hell will break loose - and maybe, just maybe, the political elite will realize that they have to do something for the rest of us, lest we vote them out....

Questions arising from the report on the CIA Enhanced Interrogation program

The recent release of the Senate report on the activities of the CIA in the wake of 9-11 is very disturbing. But I'm disturbed for reasons tangentially related to the document itself - that people will excuse violations of law and human decency in the pursuit of vengeance and political cover.

It's been over 13 years since the Twin Towers and the Pentagon were attacked. Many people were in extreme fear, as mainland America had never suffered a terrorist attack of this scale, nor had it been in the front line of any major wars since 1865. I remember my downstairs neighbor having a sticker on his car announcing "Lake Afghanistan" - as if the way to eliminate our fears was to bomb this country off the face of the earth. Even I was caught up in this fear - and lost sight of what my core values were and should have been.

Shortly after the attacks, the CIA was charged with gathering information which the government could act on. And as the report shows, they were ramping up a mass scale intelligence gathering program without much knowledge of how to do so. In short, they were flying by the seats of their pants.

In most technology fields, we deal with a three legged stool: Cheap, Bug Free, On-Time - pick any two. We have to make trade offs to deliver products with an acceptable balance of these three factors. In intelligence gathering, they have another three legged stool: Quick Information, Large Amounts of Information, and Accurate Information. Torture can produce a lot of information quickly, but the quality leaves much to be desired - as both Israelis and Egyptians would tell you. Skilled interrogation (as used by the Israelis and other governments) produces a lot of accurate information, but it takes time. In short, there is a trade off that has to be made in intelligence gathering.

What I find interesting about the executive summary of the report just published is that we have learned how many records were preserved by the CIA, save the videotapes of the "enhanced interrogations." This is reminiscent of the detailed records kept by a major Central European power in the 1930's and 1940's. The key difference here, is that in the USA, our CIA acted to hide information from both elected branches of government. In fact, one of the documents mention that if Colin Powell (then Secretary of State) hears about this, he'd be livid. Even worse, the CIA kept information from the then President himself!  Only the Senate and House intelligence committees had knowledge of the activities in question.

Ronald Reagan's signing statement on the ratification of the UN Convention on Torture states:

The core provisions of the Convention establish a regime for international cooperation in the criminal prosecution of torturers relying on so-called ‘universal jurisdiction.’ Each State Party is required either to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution.” 

Therefore, waterboarding and other "enhanced interrogation activities" are likely to be considered torture by the treaties we've signed.  Where is the outrage that our House and Senate oversight committees looked the other way while our laws were being violated? Are we a government of law, or that of expediency? This is a very important question.

Shortly after the executive summary of the Senate report was issued, I had a conversation with a gentleman I see regularly. And he parroted the view of the Republican rebuttal, as well as saying that this report should never be made public. He feels that whatever we do to others can be justified in the name of protecting Americans - even if it means breaking laws, then covering up the lawbreaking. I feel that we are a nation of laws, and sometimes it means that we suffer so that the powers of government are kept in check.

The big questions here that bother me very much are: Can we afford to allow a government act illegally, and then cover things up in the name of protecting Americans? Where is the point where allowing a government to act illegally harms Americans more than protects them? I have serious concerns in regard to religious obedience to law, as I know that some problems can not be resolved within the rule of law. On the other hand, how much freedom can we afford to give a government agency which seems to have gone rogue in the performance of its duty? I only wish I had good answers....