Though, even having said that, it doesn't answer my rebuttals about how the so-called Liberal Media hosts some of the most conservative hosts and regularly supports right-wing issues.   And also... any sort of evidence that right wing media does the same.

Some journalists may trend liberal personally, but they do what it takes to pick up that paycheck every other Friday.

From the I Cannot Resist Wry Comedy and Please Don't Hate Me Mike O'Brien Department:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100430/ts_ynews/ynews_ts1882

The link above is a short Yahoo News article on a constitutional amendment so Arnold can run for President. I was doing really good keeping that little absurdist voice in my head at bay until I hit this paragraph:

"But the obstacles to any constitutional amendment are steep. Even if a new bill were to be introduced — hardly a priority for an already busy Congress led by Democrats with no foreign-born presidential prospects on its bench —"

Well, of course they have no foreign-born presidential prospects on their bench..

I don't know how I feel about Arnold as President. He's more liberal than say, Bill Clinton, but as noted above, his basic belief structure in terms of how government works is at odds with what I believe in.

And... like... look at what it's gotten us in California. Sure, he stands up to the legislature and fights them on the budget each year, but to what end? Basically it means government employees don't get paid for a few months while the fight rages and in the end, California is still basically bankrupt.

Clearly there is a problem, but just as clear to me, Arnold's solution of just fighting it out ain't helping.

If we got someone in there who wanted to trim the budget, but did it in a way where they were able to work it out - cut here, give there, etc. That would be one thing.

But I do like his social liberal views. Half the time, when he's talking, I think "Oh, he's not so bad, for a Republican" but in the end, being a nice guy isn't enough.

Oh, and the whole pandering thing... Running a popular action movie star to get votes? Ugh. That bothered me. Anticdotally, I knew a lot of people who voted for him just because he was the guy from the movies. Christ.

Funny though - the main talking point of the insane right on the radio is how much they love the constitution... except the part where it keeps Arnold for running for office...

My post began with a gentle "in all fairness to John..."

I was giving you the benefit of doubt here.

John asks: Are you always this confrontational & arrogant?

No, I never am. You're misunderstanding my posts.

I think we're looking at the situation the wrong way - we need to step back from it and look at the bigger questions.

Why are people coming here in ways that are breaking the laws? What are the laws?

The United States immigration laws that exist are stricter for Latin Americans than for the rest of the world. So, let's look at that - why? Is it because there are more immigrants? Or because of treaties and policies in place? etc.

Second - why are so many coming here? Supply and demand is a big answer - we need the cheap labor, we hear. But to what end? We also hear that they're taking our jobs, but are they? I'm asking these questions - I don't know the answers. I THINK that they are not - I THINK that our labor market, even in these tough times, are not going to scrub toilets or pick fruit for sub-minimum wages, but... what if they are? And if they are, is that right? Should anyone work for sub-minimum wages?

There's a lot of talk on the radio that the minimum wage is too much. That employers shouldn't be shackled to that wage. Yet without it, in persuit of the bottom line, employers would work you for a cent an hour, or less if they could (and before 1865, they could and did.)   And workers realize the insult of the minimum wage - ie - "if I could pay you any less, I would".

So - many questions.

My thoughts are this: Improve the Mexican economy and job market - NAFTA failed us - they moved jobs to mexican border towns and went from paying high american union wages to dollars a week for the same labor. In some cases, it was great for the local workers in those towns - it as sure more than they were making before. Jeffery Sachs argues this in his book "The End of Poverty" - that as inhumane as it sounds, these sort of jobs are the first step to evening out the world balance of poverty.

But I say it can be better - let's see the wages go up - not just due to American companies - and all across these nations - and we can help by adjusting tarriffs and trade restrictions. No easy task - it will play hell with our GDP, for sure, and we'll be paying a lot more for our Gap clothes and WalMart plastic trinkets, but in the end, Mexicans (and Chinese and Indians and Afrians, etc) will make a decent living in their home countries, and in turn, we in America will have a better market to export goods to.

That ties into Sachs' thesis about World Poverty.

But it would also change the dynamic of Mexican/American immigration, among other things.

Another thought? We need to change the way we and they see things. The land that we call "California", "Arizona", "New Mexico", "Texas"? That was called "Mexico" 150 years ago. There's no question of what it is now, or who should be in charge of it, but likewise, should there exist an attitude of "Get out, Mexicans!" - should there be a more welcoming attitude? We're living in what was once Mexico - can we not have a happy open relationship with them? Does it need to be so advisarial? And I mean that both ways - Mexican Government and People should feel the same way American Government and People should feel - we're all cousins. Why treat Mexico differently than Canada? Is it a hassle when we cross the border to the north to enjoy delicious gravy fries, or Tim Horton Donuts, or gambling or Canadian Women? Or Cheeseburgers - Canada has the best Cheeseburgers.

I don't mean to go all hippy here - a border is still a border, and safeguards should be in place - fact is, we had 50 years of nuclear build up thanks to the cold war, and now we have religious fanatics of all kinds (not just muslims, though they are the most vocal) who would love nothing more than to walk into America with a suitcase nuke and take down a major American city. So, sure that is a valid point.

But is the Great Wall of Chi..America the answer? And literally, no, because we currently have a treaty on the books with Mexico saying we won't do that. But even if we renegotiate that treaty, is that the best answer?

Again, these ideas aside - there are many questions that need to be answered about why people are coming and why are they doing it illegally.

Like - do all of them understand that what they are doing is illegal? Is it made clear where they're coming from? And once they get here and realize it's illegal, why are we treating it like they murdered someone? They crossed a line in the dirt. Not shot a civil rights advocate in the chest with a shotgun in front of his wife and kids.

I hear a lot about - "forget everything - a law was broken!" But was that law just? More questions. And ok, the law was broken. I jaywalked to get to the Subway Sangwhiches shop at Lunchtime today. Should I be PUNNISHED(!!!!)? Or should I pay a fine and move on.

Many many questions.