What Does Immigration Reform Look Like? (#Flashback Friday)

         Six years ago I was on my blog talking about similar things as I am discussing in my recent posts.  For today I had mentioned that I was going to discuss racism.  I'll get to that on Monday I suppose.  In this current post I'm going to participate in another Flashback Friday...

     Flashback Friday, introduced by Michael G. D’Agostino of A Life Examined is a monthly blogfest, occurring on the last Friday. Michael’s directive: “Republish an old post of yours that maybe didn’t get enough attention, or that you’re really proud of, or you think is still relevant etc.” Please add your link to the list at the end of the post if you’d like to join in.

        THE POST I'VE CHOSEN FOR THIS MONTH FIRST APPEARED ON TOSSING IT OUT ON Thursday August 12, 2010-- TO SEE THE ORIGINAL COMMENTS TO THAT POST YOU CAN CLICK ON THE TITLE BELOW TO BE TAKEN TO THE ORIGINAL POST...

What Does Immigration Reform Look Like?

         
         The immigration controversy is big here in California and Arizona.   In fact, the issue of immigration is one of the major issues that Americans are most concerned about after things like the economy and unemployment.   The immigration law that was passed by Arizona has caused a furor among liberals with cries of racism and invasion of constitutional rights.   There are many calls for immigration reform.

              What does immigration reform look like?

             As usual words have been charged and falsehoods created to help raise emotions.  So before we start the debate let's clarify the issues and define the wording properly.  The issue is not immigration.  The real issue is illegal aliens coming into this country to establish themselves without going through the legal channels and often having no true respect for the values that are the foundation of the United States.  Letting the floodgates of immigrants flow across the borders unchecked has led to more drug opportunists, gang members, human traffickers,  and terrorists to come into the country blended into the horde coming here to take advantage of our great country.  We are allowing a dangerous trend to occur.

               These immigrants are putting a burden upon our law enforcement, social services, educational systems, and the job market.  Standards are being lowered in our society.  Schools are suffering as the education process is slowed for those with advanced learning potential who are held back by non-English speakers and those with a lower quest for education.  Recent statistics in California show the dropout rate at 46% with a whopping majority to be Hispanics.

             There have been indications of movements such as La Raza and Azatlan that would like nothing better than for certain parts of the United States to revert to Mexican rule.  Mexican flags and those of other Latin American countries are becoming common sights as disrespect for the flag of the USA grows. 

              The furor raised by the Arizona law regarding immigration is based on a sham fueled by liberal and Hispanic activist propaganda.  The Arizona law merely states that the police will actively enforce federal law.  What a novel concept!  The police enforce law?  Where did they get such an idea?

             I don't like what's happening.  And before you suggest that I am racist or anti-immigrant, keep in mind that my wife is from Latin American.   She and her entire family came to the United States through legal channels, completing all of the necessary processes and legal papers over many years to eventually become proud citizens of the United States.  Her daughter and nieces and nephews have been honor students and college graduates and have gotten good jobs.   They did it right and I have no problem with anyone who wants to take this approach to immigration.

              If people aren't going to respect our laws of citizenship, why would we expect that they would respect any other laws that were inconvenient for them?  The way I see it employers who are hiring illegals need to be penalized and the anchor baby clause of the constitution needs to be amended. 

              What to do with all of the aliens who are currently living in the United States illegally?   There are estimates of anywhere from twelve to twenty million.  How should these people be handled?   What about future immigration?   Are you happy with the flood of illegals or are you against it?    What is the upside?

A Political Flashback Friday Post

       This presidential election is nearing an end and most of us are more than ready for that.  Except there's one more problem to consider:   Now we have to deal with whoever is elected and whatever repercussions come along with that.  The real craziness might just be beginning with the election results.  It can be interesting to look back to see what sentiments were in previous elections so I've dug back into the archives to revisit a post I did after the last election in 2012.   Was I right then?  Or will this election surprise us bigly?  Read on and share your thoughts if you are willing to do so...

     Flashback Friday, introduced by Michael G. D’Agostino of A Life Examined is a monthly blogfest, occurring on the last Friday. Michael’s directive: “Republish an old post of yours that maybe didn’t get enough attention, or that you’re really proud of, or you think is still relevant etc.” Please add your link to the list at the end of the post if you’d like to join in.

        THE POST I'VE CHOSEN FOR THIS MONTH FIRST APPEARED ON TOSSING IT OUT ON Friday November 9, 2012--a few days after the presidential election of that year. . TO SEE THE ORIGINAL COMMENTS TO THAT POST YOU CAN CLICK ON THE TITLE BELOW TO BE TAKEN TO THE ORIGINAL POST...

Why We May Never See Another Republican President

 The Barnum & Bailey greatest show on Earth, the world's largest, grandest, best amusement institution. General view of the twelve colossal water proof canvas pavilions, ... (Photo credit:Wikipedia)

          I didn't want to do this post.  I told myself I would not, but here I am doing it anyway.  I guess I just can't keep my big mouth shut.   I'm sorry if I'm turning anyone off by posting this.  If you click away from this post I'll understand--not completely, but I do understand that some readers don't want to deal with topics like this.  Besides, I'm asking you to think and God forbid that anyone hurt themselves by thinking too much.

          Don't let me lead anyone to believe that I think I know much about any of this topic of politics.  Like many of you I'm just an observer of this whole mess with no direct personal investment in the process.  I listened to what the media and the candidates had to say and then I voted.   This post is only a matter of my interpretation of what has transpired in the 2012 U.S. elections and what I think it could mean for the future of  this country.   I hope you will read this, consider what I have said, and give us your thoughts.   I hope we can start a dialogue and come to some rational conclusions.

          The way I see it the Democratic Party of today is quite a bit different than what it was 50 years ago or so.  Not that I've paid that much attention over the years, but I think the Democrats of yesteryear might be a bit confused if they were to suddenly appear on today's scene.   There have been big changes in the Dems whereas the Republicans have held a steady mostly focused course since the mid-1800's--Grand Old Party is a fitting title indeed.

          Along about the 1970's the Democrats opened a Pandora's Box and started unleashing a whole hodgepodge of issues.  It's been a process that has continued until this day.  But let me stop and back off of this analogy.   After all I'm no big fan of Greek mythology and Greece is no model to emulate seeing as how they have all of the problems they've been having.  Instead let me return to my favorite analogy, one that is in a more capitalistic vein--the circus.

           Ah yes, the political parties and the elections are like circuses.  Just as in the real world of circuses there are many different circuses.  For now the main circuses of influence that we will concern ourselves with are the Democrats and the Republicans.   And it's starting to look like the Democrats are the greatest show on Earth to borrow the slogan from Ringling Brothers and Barnum and Bailey, the great American conglomeration of circusdom.    The Democrats are poised to become the constant winners in all future U.S. Presidential elections.

           Why do I say this?  The Democrats have a bigger tent.

           The Republicans might be likened to something more of an old-timey mudshow traversing the countryside playing to the crowds who are looking for more traditional fare.   They pitch a tiny tent and put on their show with a few clowns, some standard political circus performers all performing variations of the same act, and one old tired elephant.  The crowd mostly knows what to expect throughout the performance because there is a predictability and an agreed upon standard of values.  The audience consists primarily of hard-working Americans who value independence and would prefer the government to stay out of their business as much as possible.

            The Democrats on the other hand pitch a gigantic tent amidst a massive midway.  A pompous parade lures their crowds to the celebratory grounds where hot dogs and cotton candy are doled out freely before the big show begins.  And that show!   What a show it is.   Three rings of dazzling displays with action at the tent top and everywhere you look.  Everyone is excited with so much going on--so much that no one can take it all in.   The audience members keep their eyes on their favorite acts and miss most of the others.  The important thing here is that everyone goes away happy because they all got want they wanted.  It makes no difference that they didn't see everything in the show.  They saw what they came to see and that's what matters to them.

           So what am I getting at?   You tell me.  It's my circus metaphor and I think it makes sense, but then again I wrote it.  If I started dissecting this and started getting down to specifics then I might offend somebody.  I might make someone mad.  I might lose another reader.  If I started getting too open and honest then I might start sounding like a Republican--or at least what an unafraid Republican should sound like.  But let's face it--honesty and forthrightness can be risky business in our society.

           What does the Republican Party need to do to win another U.S. presidential election barring any major missteps on the Democrat side?   Do they need a bigger tent?   I think that would just make them Democrats.   I'd say they need to find more ways to cram more people into that little tent.  Republicans will need more numbers to win the next presidential race, but I don't think they need a bigger tent to do that.  However if the Republicans don't find a way to outsmart the big tent circus party then we may never see another Republican president.

        Do you think the Republican tent is bigger this election?    Is the message of the Democrats truly resonating with people or will most who vote Democrat do so based on habit and tradition?   What do you dislike most about presidential elections?

         Next Tuesday November 1st!!!!   A Battle of the Bands that might predict the winner of the election.   Or maybe not.  Whatever the case I hope you'll come and play along.   I think it will be fun and I hope you'll find this Battle interesting. 

Related articles

• Jersey City circus ban given final OK
• Philly Style
• Restaurants display political signs; does it affect business?
• Political Atheism Within The GOP

Contemplating Sense of Place (Flashback Friday)

       
       Where exactly is your "home"?   Do you have a place where your roots are?   Or as the adage goes, "where your heart is"?   In this post I'll be reflecting on this concept of having a home, a place of connections, and being from somewhere...

       IT'S FLASHBACK FRIDAY - A TIME OF THE MONTH WHERE YOU CAN REPUBLISH AN OLD POST OF YOURS THAT MAYBE DIDN'T GET ENOUGH ATTENTION, OR THAT YOU'RE REALLY PROUD OF, OR YOU THINK IS STILL RELEVANT ETC. THIS BLOG-GO-ROUND IS HOSTED BY MICHAEL G D'AGOSTINO FROM A LIFE EXAMINED--THAT'S WHERE YOU'LL FIND THE REST OF THE PARTICIPANTS OR TO JOIN UP YOURSELF.

THE POST I'VE CHOSEN FOR THIS MONTH FIRST APPEARED ON TOSSING IT OUT ON MONDAY, DECEMBER 20, 2010. TO SEE THE ORIGINAL COMMENTS TO THAT POST YOU CAN CLICK ON THE TITLE BELOW TO BE TAKEN TO THE ORIGINAL POST. MY REASON FOR CHOOSING THIS PARTICULAR POST, BESIDES IT BEING AS RELEVANT NOW AS THEN, IS THAT IT IS RELATED TO MY MOST RECENT BATTLE OF THE BANDS POST AND IT'S RELATED TO THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN ON MY MIND RECENTLY. ..

Where're you'all from?

            Robert Young Drake was a professor of English at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville from 1965 until 1999.  A noted English scholar and author, Robert Drake was most associated with his homespun stories about the fictional West Tennessee town of Woodville.  Drake was well known for his story-telling skills in the rich dulcet tones of an aristocratic southern gentleman.  After suffering a stroke in 1999, he was forced to leave his beloved teaching position, returning to his hometown of Milan, Tennessee where he died on June 30, 2001.

               I was fortunate to have had Dr. Drake as my professor of creative writing for two classes when I attended the University of Tennessee in Knoxville in the early 1970s.  One of the corrections he made to my thinking had to do with roots and what we think of as home.

              In the first class we were given the assignment to write about ourselves so that Dr. Drake could get to know his students a little better. This was to be a brief autobiography that included where we were from.  My story was the example that he always looked for to teach one of the first lessons about being a writer.

             Since I had moved around a lot in my life I wrote that I wasn't really from anywhere.  My hippie philosophy at that time tended more toward existentialism.   I tried to portray myself as the rootless wanderer in life who was searching for self and purpose.  That was the cue for Dr. Drake's lecture on roots.

             "Everybody's from somewhere," he enunciated in his rich southern accent.  He went on to give examples of writers like his favorite, Flannery O'Connor, who was from Georgia.  Writing, he explained, is an extension of who we are and an expression of our experiences and our heritage, all of which has roots in particular place and time.

               It was in that class that I began to appreciate my Tennessee home.  Even though I hadn't been born there and hadn't grown up there, it was the place that felt most like home and the place with which I could most identify myself.

               When we think about writers, we frequently associate them with place.  With Hemingway it might be Key West or Steinbeck the central California coast.    Many of us think about Hannibal, Missouri when we think of Mark Twain even though he did most of his writing elsewhere--but it was that place that shaped and influenced much of who he was and what he wrote.

                 As Dorothy Gale from the Wizard of Oz was to find out in her fantastical visit, there's no place like home.  A writer can take us anywhere imagination can contrive, but the story has to come from somewhere and that somewhere is inside of each of us.

                 Where are you from?  What do you consider to be home?  How does it influence your writing?  

Are Travel Vacations Necessary? (Flashback Friday)

       People all over are travelling and taking vacations which means they are spending lots of money on themselves and leaving carbon footprints all over the place.  That includes me.  Am I concerned?  Should you be concerned about your own vacations or the travel-for-pleasure that others do?   The debate is reopened for discussion...

  IT'S FLASHBACK FRIDAY - A TIME OF THE MONTH WHERE YOU CAN REPUBLISH AN OLD POST OF YOURS THAT MAYBE DIDN'T GET ENOUGH ATTENTION, OR THAT YOU'RE REALLY PROUD OF, OR YOU THINK IS STILL RELEVANT ETC. THIS BLOG-GO-ROUND IS HOSTED BY MICHAEL G D'AGOSTINO FROM A LIFE EXAMINED--THAT'S WHERE YOU'LL FIND THE REST OF THE PARTICIPANTS OR TO JOIN UP YOURSELF.


THE POST I'VE CHOSEN FOR THIS MONTH FIRST APPEARED ON TOSSING IT OUT ON THURSDAY MARCH 25, 2010.  TO SEE THE ORIGINAL COMMENTS TO THAT POST YOU CAN CLICK ON THE TITLE BELOW TO BE TAKEN TO THE ORIGINAL POST. MY REASON FOR CHOOSING THIS PARTICULAR POST, BESIDES IT BEING AS RELEVANT NOW AS THEN, IS THAT IT IS RELATED TO MY NEXT BATTLE OF THE BANDS POST WHICH WILL APPEAR ON MONDAY AUGUST 1ST AND IT'S RELATED TO WHAT'S GOING ON IN MY LIFE RIGHT NOW. ..

Are Vacations Socially Irresponsible?

           Today is Debate Day here on Tossing It Out.    I'm going to toss out the question to you, pose a few arguments, and then leave it to you to toss a response back to me.  Here is today's question:

Are self-indulging vacations that involve leaving home and spending a lot of money selfish and socially irresponsible?

           We are in an era of change, social responsibility, personal accountability--or at least that is what some would have us believe.  Each of us impact our world by our actions.  In absolute reality, the "fun" vacation of taking trips, going to touristy places, and spending lots of money to indulge ourselves and our families is not a necessity for us to survive.  Why do we feel the need to have these unnecessary excesses in the name of relaxation and entertainment?  Why might these types of vacations be a good thing?

        With all the talk about "carbon footprints" and the like, it is probably important to assess the  environmental impact of the travel entailed by vacations away from home.  Said travel uses up fuel for no practical goal oriented purpose.  Often energy used up at vacation destination is frivolous waste as it is sucked up by amusement and entertainment venues and travel for the sole purpose of seeing sights.  If people stayed home instead of traveling to a vacation destination it is probable that a great deal of energy would be conserved.  Also, one should consider the environmental damage done to more sensitive areas like national parks and similar destinations.  Travel vacations are environmentally unfriendly.

       These are economic hard  times for many families.  Many people are out of work, not to mention the huge financial hits that have been taken by many investors and homeowners.  People should probably be putting money away for what may be hard economic times to come.  Charging vacations to credit cards should not even be an option.  And even those who feel a sense of financial confidence might be better off thinking of socially responsible ways to put their money to work helping others.  Why should any of us be thinking about amusing ourselves with frivolity when so many in our communities are in need?   At the very least perhaps it would make more economic sense to use our accumulated savings to invest in home improvements.  Hire local out of work craftspeople and buy building supplies from local sources in order to provide some cash flow to our hometown economy.  Investing in ourselves and our neighbors will have more long term benefits than accumulating a few photographs and memories.

         Also, Americans should consider what kind of message our travel sends to the rest of the world.  Do other countries really want to see Americans in their countries?  Sure, they want our money, but does the money ultimately go to a good place and does money spent abroad help the U.S. economy.  We may be very well supporting political regimes that would like to eventually see the U.S. put down.  So far as spending our money in countries that are U.S. allies, the question as to whether it would be better to spend our money at home still arises.

          If the financially able truly must go anywhere then they should consider the social significance of their travel choices.   Volunteering for aid missions helping poorer countries to become better or rebuild after disasters would be a merciful activity that would be more important than mere pleasure seeking.   Instead of going to Disneyland we should be taking our families to help build housing in poverty stricken areas.  Cruises should be replaced by spending time on the frontlines feeding and caring for the homeless.  Camping and hiking in the wilderness could be replaced with assisting farmers to bring in their crops.   It's sad to be having fun and recreation when many other cannot afford it or don't have the time because they have to work so much.

        What do you think?  I've just tossed this argument out there as one side of the debate.  I'm not going to say what my real stance on this debate question is because I want to hear your opinion.  But I will give a hint by saying that the arguments that I've presented here would probably be embraced by some people, but I have approached it somewhat tongue in cheek.  I don't want to say anything else right now.  Tell me what you think about this topic.

        Are you planning to go anywhere for a vacation this year?  Where are you going?  What do you like to do on vacation?

Looking Back (#FlashBack)

         
       It's Flashback Friday - a time of the month where you can republish an old post of yours that maybe didn't get enough attention, or that you're really proud of, or you think is still relevant etc. This blog-go-round is hosted by MICHAEL G D'AGOSTINO FROM A LIFE EXAMINED--THAT'S WHERE YOU'LL FIND THE REST OF THE PARTICIPANTS OR TO JOIN UP YOURSELF.


The post I've chosen for this month first appeared on Tossing It Out on Friday, April 29, 2011. To see the original comments to that post you can click on the title below to be taken to the original post. My reason for choosing this particular post, besides it being as relevant now as then, is that it is related to my next Battle of the Bands post which will appear on next Friday July 1st. ..

Your Yesterdays

"Refuse to write your life and you have no life." - Patricia Hampl

        Your past is the wellspring that supplies all interpretation of who you are and what you know.  A writer who attempts to shake his past becomes a mere amalgamation of the thoughts of others.  In the end that writer who tries to reject his past is merely a poseur who has betrayed his own true essence and is little more than a puppet master of word manipulation.

"Every author in some way portrays himself in his works, even if it be against his will."    ~Goethe

           Good or bad, everything that has happened to us in our lifetime shapes our world view.  We are who we have been and what we have known in our lives.  In natural writing this will come across organically and without shame.  No matter how much we try to force our words our true self is hiding somewhere within.  

"Everybody needs his memories. They keep the wolf of insignificance from the door."--   Saul Bellow

             Sometimes I hear people saying that they don't want to talk about themselves, they just want to write.  But why do we read a particular writer?  Sure it's the story and the writer's skill, but isn't it also the style?  The style comes from the writer's unique voice and the uniqueness of the writer's voice comes from who that writer is.  That writer persona has been formed and molded from the memories and experiences of the author.  If you want to be known as a writer, then you must speak in your own unique voice.

"Anybody who has survived his childhood has enough information about life to last him the rest of his days." --   Flannery O'Connor

         We sometimes hear the protest, "But my life isn't interesting--I've never done anything and nothing has ever happened in my life that's special!"  Therein lies your mission.  You've witnessed plenty in your lifetime. You've got plenty of data stored in your memory banks.  Now it's up to you to put it together into something interesting.  Like the letters of the alphabet can be formed into an infinite number of words, what you know can be put together in countless ways and told over and over.  No one has seen life from your unique perspective.

"The man who writes about himself and his own time is the only man who writes about all people and about all time." 

--

 George Bernard Shaw

          

Still the stubborn cry may be raised, "I can't keep writing about myself--my readers will get bored."  But perhaps you're confusing the uniqueness of your personal story and the shared experience of the human story.  We still read the great authors of the past because they tell a story that still applies to us in our age.  The settings, the nuances of language, the customs may have changed but the emotions and needs are much the same now as they ever were.  If we can successfully write our own story into the story of humanity then we have accomplished one of the main goals of being a writer.

"Everything one invents is true..." 

        -- Gustave Flaubert

        In one final attempt at argument you might say, "But I want to write fiction. I don't want to write a memoir or about anything that is true."

        It's still about you. Even if what you write is the most extreme fantasy, science fiction, or any other form, you are still part of the story. The story you tell is an extension of who you are and what you know and what you believe. If it's not these things, then what is it? Fiction? There is no real fiction, only fictionalized accounts of that which is true. If this is not the case then the story is not to be believed and the author is a liar.

"In a very real sense, the writer writes in order to teach himself, to understand himself, to satisfy himself."

-- Alfred Kazin

         Often on Tossing It Out as well as my memoir blog Wrote By Rote I have written blog posts based on my life and my experiences.  I don't worry too much whether the readers want to hear about what I think or what I've done in the past.  My main concern is whether it has been written engagingly enough for readers to want to read it and to be entertained in the process.  There are times when I might want to attempt to teach a lesson or even persuade a side of some opinion.  Like any writer, my goal is to please my audience, but since I am the first member of my audience who reads what I have written, my primary goal is to please myself with my work.  If you are not pleased with your writing then you need to write until you are pleased.  Always be honest with yourself.

           Do you think that at its deepest level all of your writing is essentially about you?      How easy is it for you to write without injecting your personal opinions or do you think it is possible not to do so?    Would you rather read something that shared your opinions about issues or something that is very much in opposition to what you believe?

When Are Apologies Appropriate? (Flashback Friday)

          It's Flashback Friday - a time of the month where you can republish and old post of yours that maybe didn't get enough attention, or that you're really proud of, or you think is still relevant etc.  This blog-go-round is hosted by Michael G D'Agostino  from A Life Examined--that's where you'll find the rest of the participants or to join up yourself.

        This post first appeared on Tossing It Out on Wednesday, May 22, 2013.  To see the original comments to that post you can click on the title below to be taken to the original post.  My reason for choosing this particular post, besides it being as relevant now as then, is that it is a clue to my next Battle of the Bands post which will appear on next Wednesday June 1st.  That will also be my next post as Monday I'll be taking off for Memorial Day.

       

When Are Apologies Appropriate?

      Sometimes apologizing can be an awkward and even humiliating experience.  I usually don't have any problem apologizing when I realize I've been in the wrong.  The experience for me can be very liberating and uplifting.   Sometimes I've even made new friends in the process.   Being at odds with anyone is not a healthy situation to be in.

       The need to apologize usually stems from one or more of the following:

• Misunderstanding what another has said.
• Not having fully heard what was being said.
• Taking the wrong side unfairly against another party.
• Jumping on a bandwagon without knowing all the facts.
• Not seeing things from the other point of view.
• Being selfish.
• Allowing jealousy or resentment toward another color your opinion of them.
• Flat out being wrong and sticking with that wrong for too long.

      Since I tend to be slow to react and I like to hear all sides of an issue, I usually don't end up having to apologize much.  Sometimes I might have to do some explaining to clarify things, but usually it's a matter of trying to help the disagreement side understand better what is going on.

       I don't recall ever having to make an apology for anything I've written on my blog because I try to think my posts through carefully and avoid saying negative things about other bloggers.  I may disagree sometimes, but I don't get vicious toward anyone.  This is not true with all bloggers though.   And I rarely see apologies coming from those sorts of bloggers.  Of course, I don't frequent those types of blogs too much so maybe I've missed some of their apologies.

      Do you apologize when you know you've been wrong or do you just let things go?   Do you have greater respect for someone who admits they are wrong and offers an apology?   Do you know of any bloggers who you think need to apologize to another blogger?    Are there any apologies you'd like to make to anyone?

        As a bonus here is a music video concerning saying "sorry".   Not that it has anything to do with my upcoming Battle of the Bands post other than being related in theme.