Watch where you step....there are mines EVERYWHERE!

With immigration front and center again these days, we'd better be careful what we wish for.  There's a huge "unintended consequences" minefield out there.

I don't believe those who are saying we need to slam our borders shut and deport all illegals here now are thinking it through all the way.  If they get their wish, any nasty, dirty job that needs to be done, especially outdoors, might not get done.  Need to pour any concrete or spread any asphalt, put on a new roof, or have any landscape work done?  Haha....good luck!  Do you think your favorite restaurant can keep its doors open without them?  Farmers everywhere are already reporting they're having trouble finding seasonal help to get their crops harvested....much of it is now just being plowed back under.  (Wouldn't THIS be the ultimate "national security" crisis?)

What we need is an expedited method of vetting those who want to immigrate here, say within 2 or 3 months, vs the current 2+ years.  This long wait time is what drives many to just wade the river.  Let them apply at US embassies and consulates in their home countries and GET THEM AN ANSWER WITHIN A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME.  We need to bring illegals out of their thriving underground economy and make them full taxpayers.  Right now they pay little more than the sales taxes on their daily purchases.  Lets vet them, and if they're good people, welcome them and put them to work.  And if they aren't, turn them back / send them packing. 

Now, about those kids separated from their families....it's still wrong.  Why are we punishing the kids for the sins of their parents?  And I don't want to hear about what Obama or Dubya did.  Wrong was, is, and always will be WRONG!

S

What's this button do?

North Korea tried Saturday to launch a ballistic missile, and just like their last test attempt, it also failed.  Crashed and burned big time, it did.  The question now is WHY?  Was it simply a case of inferior engineering, or something else?  Sunday the former British Foreign Secretary suggested it was likely that a US cyber-attack was responsible for the North Korean missile's spectacular failure. 

We've heard for years now about other countries successful hacks / cyber attacks on American commercial and public interests.  Through all this I've been wondering, "What are we capable of doing to them?"  Of course, barring a security leak, we'll never know for sure.  But if science is truly on the cusp of being able to disable enormously expensive weapons systems with cyber commands from a dark, secure room somewhere, this could be a world "balance-of-power" game changer.

This potential new form of dominant warfare has far-ranging implications.  For many decades there have been only two true superpowers, the USSR / Russia and the US, with the US generally believed to have a considerable edge.  "Superpower" being defined as quantities and qualities of missiles, warheads, aircraft, submarines, tanks, etc.  Only a select few advanced countries could get into our very exclusive club.  

Now, with a relatively small financial investment, many smaller countries could soon find themselves in the Cyber Big Leagues.  Surely tiny Israel is there right now, joining the US, Russia, and China in the top tier.  Other potential members might include N Korea, S Korea, Japan, India, Iran, Pakistan, Turkey, and a few others you wouldn't think of as likely superstars.  

Can you imagine the challenges to traditional spheres of influence where former minor league players can demand and win concessions from today's superpowers?  Where most of today's massive aircraft carrier battle groups and nuclear-tipped missiles are made redundant?  Where warfare will be (even) more about electronic / digital measures and countermeasures than about the actual hardware?  Will today's heavyweights be able to gracefully and willingly share power?

For those who are today willing to appease the Tea Party's thirst for tax cuts at all costs, please think twice.  Cutting funding in the wrong places, such as in education, especially in the nerdy fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, would likely come back to haunt us in the not-too-distant future.  It's time to double-down on funding our future.  Cyber-nerds sitting at computer keyboards may not be as sexy as a fleet of stealth bombers, but they will likely someday be far more important to our national security.

Chew on that thought for a while.

S

So is it the message, or the messenger?

There seems to be a disconnect in America today between what some of our politicians are saying and how they are saying it.  I think in many cases the ideas they espouse might be acceptable to many of us, but for one reason or another it's the person conveying the message that is unacceptable.  Example: 

President Donald Trump is reviled by many because of his caustic, misogynistic style.  In general, though, his ideas of securing our borders, renegotiating our many trade agreements, working overtime to keep our companies here vs closing shop and moving overseas, etc, are not out of line with what most Americans want.  I think Trump was elected President in spite of himself, not because of himself.  He keeps saying, to borrow from Muhammad Ali, "I am the greatest!" when in fact 60% of us can't stand the guy.

Likewise, Bernie Sanders seemed to gain traction when he talked about health care for all, free college education, an end to corporate manipulation of our political process, out-of-control banks, etc.  To many these concepts, or maybe slightly scaled back versions of these concepts, had great appeal.  But when they heard it coming from an old school, firebrand, avowed socialist democrat, with the key word being SOCIALIST, they walked away.

I personally feel all these ideas have merit.  Our borders need to be secure, of course.  A literal $15Billion wall might be ill conceived, but aggressive patrolling, high-tech security measures, etc, are reasonable.  

In-depth vetting of refugees and immigrants is not unreasonable, especially those from dysfunctional, violent countries, which today by default usually means Mid-East countries who are majority Muslim.  The key is them being scrutinized because they are from dysfunctional, violent countries, not because they are Muslim.

Why are we giving tax subsidies (write-offs) to companies to help them offset their costs of laying off American workers and moving overseas?  If they want to move, let 'em, but the costs of their move, including the retraining of their laid-off workers etc, should be paid by them, and not just dumped off on the American taxpayers.

Our trade agreements today are heavily skewed in favor of everyone in those agreements except the US.  I don't think we need any preferential treatment, but the playing field does need to be leveled.

A highly educated and healthy workforce is essential to our security and prosperity.  Funding these goals, even if they mean higher taxes, would be in our NATIONAL INTEREST.  We shouldn't pick and choose who we want to be healthy and who we want to keep sickly.  A vibrant economy needs everyone to be healthy and contributing to the maximum.  

And we need workers equipped with today's skills, not with yesterday's high school level rudimentary skills.   We should properly subsidize education to keep pace with the 21st Century, especially in certain critical disciplines.

Corporations, especially banks, will by their nature look out first and foremost for their best interests, screw the rest of us.  They are too nearsighted to realize their greed will eventually "kill the goose that laid the golden egg."  Corporate manipulation of our political system by their PAC's and campaign contributions should be forbidden. 

So you see, many of the ideas that came from both Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Bernie Sanders are IMO not out of line with what most Americans are thinking.  We just need to have them presented by candidates who come with less negative baggage.

S 

Free college education? Hmmm....lemme think on that.

I can remember my dad telling the story on more than one occasion of how there were only 11 grades of public school when he was a kid back in the 1930's.  I don't know if that was universal nation-wide or just in his small-town school district.  Regardless, according to him it was a bit later that a 12th grade was added to the free public education system.

I'm guessing dad missed being in his senior class photo as he was probably in the principal's office.  (This is actually a generic photo.  Doesn't matter....he would still have been in the principal's office :)

What brought this to mind was a Facebook post I saw today quoting Democratic / Independent / Socialist presidential candidate Bernie Sanders advocating a free college education for all.  

I'm sure this brought squeals of glee from one end of the political spectrum and cries of anguish from the other extreme.  That's always how we see things, either liberal or conservative, Democratic or Republican.  If one side proposes something, the other opposes it, just to deny their opponent the satisfaction.  

I don't look at things through those glasses.  I think "practical".  Example:

Knowledge is today exploding exponentially.  Kids today have so much more to learn than I did when I was in school.  Using dad's example, a 12th grade was probably added to the public education system because kids needed to absorb more information than they had in the past.  (I won't go in to the "dumbing down" of the system over the intervening years.  Grrr!)

Not long ago I was invited to visit the Lockheed Martin facility in Foat Wuth where we got a tour and heard a presentation by their PR folks.  They told of how their greatest challenge today was finding / hiring enough qualified American engineers.  (I say "American" because most of their work requires a very high security clearance, making many / most foreign-born engineers, technically qualified though they might be, automatically ineligible.)  They said our stagnant (my word) educational system was hindering them.

There was a time when obtaining a high school education was considered adequate for a bright future.  Then it became necessary to get a college education in order to climb the socio-economic ladder.  Today some sort of advanced degree is becoming almost mandatory in order to rise above the lower / middle management level.  Yet here we are 80 years after dad graduated, still with the same 12 grades of free public education.  Helloooo?

"But...but...how would we ever pay for it?"  Consider this (decade-old) census bureau chart:

Imagine how much more income tax revenue we could squeeze out of a Bachelor's / Master's / Doctorate Degree holder than we are getting from a high school graduate, much less a public school dropout?  I'd look there for the additional funding!

I don't think every kid should necessarily get a free ride to Stanford or Princeton or Texas Tech....well OK, maybe Texas Tech....or that post-high school education even has to mean "college".  There is a great need for trade skills such as welders, mechanics, medical techs, etc that require more education, but not an actual college degree.

I think this is an idea that might need to be looked into further.  It seems to me that it would be in our NATIONAL SECURITY INTEREST to have the best educated population and the brightest, most dynamic workforce in the world.  Right now lack of $$$ is no doubt holding back a lot smart kids.  Yes, some can work 2 or 3 jobs and perhaps get there, but along the way I wonder how many others would simply, exhaustedly, give up the dream?

I say let the #$%^& Democrats and Republicans fight over who's bright idea it was.  But lets do take the idea and see if we can find a way to make it work.  Seems to me we'll all be better off if we somehow can.

And you say....?

S