UNCLE SAM WANTS......ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS?

So far I've done a pretty good job of fulfilling my promise to piss off everyone on both sides. But as far as I know, I've yet to really receive any flack from my Hispanic friends. Part of the reason is I have so much respect for Hispanic people. I don't think I would be overstating my position if I said I think Hispanics are the hardest working people in America. Most of my opinions about Hispanics and their efforts to come to the U.S. result from my two years working with the Spanish-Speaking Center that once existed here in Flint. I had several new Mexican immigrants working under me doing house construction and I got to know some of them really well. An interesting fact among the Mexicans that I got to know is; even though they were here legally, they all had several family members living with them that were not. The plan was, as near as I could decipher it, for one of them to go through all the bribes and paperwork involved in getting here legally, then set up a house that the illegal ones could stay in. All of the Mexicans I had working with me took their entire paycheck home to support their families and kept none for themselves. That's hard not to admire, such a great loyalty to their family and so little concern for their own needs and wants. However, it still leaves America with the problem of millions of people here illegally that we don't have any way of knowing who they are or if they are a danger to society. Building a better border is a good starting point, but what do we do with all these people? I have an answer that is sure to piss a lot of people off, but considering the other options, it's at least worth looking at.

So what's my plan? Put them in the military. Hang on, hang on, don't get too upset just yet. Hear me out and then you can start criticizing. First off, it's totally voluntary, I'm not talking about drafting anyone. Second, I have a carrot to use to draw them into considering the military as an option. Citizenship. Not only for themselves, but for two of their family members. Here's my plan; If your here illegally as of right now, (not for future violators) you can head on down to your local recruitment office with two family members in tow. If you sign up, you go into the military and all that comes with it. You are given a three year, revocable visa for yourself and your two family members and when you complete your tour of duty, presto! Everyone becomes a legal citizen of the United States. Not a bad deal all around. The United States gets the hardest working people on the planet for it's depleted military and records of who the illegals are, and the illegal immigrants get a path to citizenship that isn't an amnesty program that rewards them for breaking the law. What could be better? An extra bonus would be having a lot of people in the military who, well, look a lot like Mid-Easterners. That can come in handy in infiltration. Teach a few Hispanics Arabic, have them grow a beard, and bam, instant Muslim extremist.

The best part is, these people are looking for a way to serve this country. Honestly, the people who fight to get into this country, legally or illegally, love this country more than the people who have lived here all there lives. That's just a fact. Talk to almost any of them and they'll tell you .

So what's the downside? Here's some of the questions people that I've proposed this idea to have had. Q: What about non Mexican immigrants? A: Let 'em do it too, we need to know who all the illegals are. Q: That wouldn't be fair to the average recruit who doesn't get to use the program, would it? A: Granted. I think we should remove the college incentive for the illegals to equal things out. A: Isn't this just going to make it even more likely that we'll go to war? A: Let's hope not, but at least if we do we'll have enough people to do it right. Q: Isn't it racist to try to expand the military through illegals? A: No, I don't care what color they are. If your here illegally, you have been using our resources (schools, health care, etc.) and you should put something back into the well for all you took. That applies to everyone. The fact that most of them happen to be Hispanic has nothing to do with it. It's the fact that they came here illegally that makes them a eligible, not that they're brown. I wouldn't care if we had a problem with Canadians, same solution.

So here's your chance people. Let me know if this has any merit or if 'ol H.C. has finally fell over the edge. We have to do something, and the Democrat idea of legalizing everyone reeks of amnesty for lawbreakers. On the other side, the Republican idea of arresting everyone or having them pay $10,000 fines is damn near insane. This would give them a chance to rectify for their past deeds and serve this country in a way that would make it hard to call them anything other than a full-fledged American Vet and a U.S. Citizen. As for the rest of the illegals, after we offer them an honorable way out of their situation, I'll have a lot less sympathy for them if the Republicans get their way. H.C.

THROUGH A CHILD'S EYES

Yesterday, a very unusual incident happened to me. Since we've been discussing people and the way we stereotype each other, I thought it would make a good example of what can happen when we don't give each other the benefit of the doubt. However, while exploring the different ways to approach the story, I thought about my own rules for the media (which to a lesser extent includes me). One of the rules I outlined was to "only bring race into the story when it's relevant." I thought about whether or not this story was absolutely about race and I decided that we could still learn the lesson without it. So, I'm going to let all of you guess the race of the players and I won't tell you any different. But be careful and use this as an opportunity to examine yourself.

While on my way out to my car after work, I noticed a police officer friend of mine (not the same one in the previous post) standing in the shade, watching the students making their way both to and from their cars. We started talking about the safety of the students and how people need to be involved in protecting one another. Suddenly, a call came over his radio about a suspicious man who was standing in front of our day care center. The campus police started swarming toward the day care center from every direction. My friend and I could see what was going on from our view across the river. Another call came across his radio. Several parents were demanding that the police come immediately as the man seemed to be very agitated. We could hear a couple of officers respond that they were nearly there. My friend then commented that he couldn't really see what the problem was as there was no mention of a gun or any threatening actions. More calls came over the radio describing the man, nothing seemed to me to indicate that he was doing anything unusual. Again my friend noted that it didn't seem suspicious to him, but the radio made it clear that the parents and staff were not taking any chances and would not let any kids out until this man was checked out. Finally, after a brief silence, a call came over calling for the "all clear". The man was simply waiting for his daughter and was agitated because she was supposed to be out by then, and he was in a hurry. Somebody it seems, owed somebody an apology.

Now, there are a lot of things to consider here. The staff had never seen this man before because his wife usually picked his daughter up. And he did seem agitated. But it seems to me they jumped from stage one to stage four without considering two or three. Why not just ask the man if he needed help? What was he there for? The answer did seem to be his appearance.

Now, I want you to consider the possibilities. Did you automatically assume he was black? Why? What about my friend? Was he the same color as the man? The same religion? Is it possible the man was a Muslim? An Arab? Maybe even wearing a turban? Could he have been a large white biker-looking guy? How about a skinny creepy-looking guy? What color were the parents? The staff? Take a second and think about where you thought this was all going and why.

Since I'm not going to tell you about the specifics, let me tell you what bothered me the most about this whole story. His daughter. It brought tears to my eyes to think of his little girl (our day care only takes kids under 5) standing there wondering what's going on. "There's a bad man outside?" she must have thought to herself. Certainly she could sense that something was going on. By not demonstrating one simple act; the benefit of doubt, we changed that little girl's perspective of how she viewed her father, and the way she viewed other people's opinion of him, based only on appearance. I'm sure her dad will be fine, by this stage of his life he knows the worst of humanity. But it saddens me to think we robbed a little girl of her innocence, because we couldn't be brave enough to ask an unarmed man, "Can I help you." H.C.

WHAT CAN WE ALL DO TO END RACISM?

As much as I truly hate talking about race, I've come upon a few stories lately that I think can help us all understand one another. My banner on this story is a little misleading, so let me start by saying we're never going to completely eliminate racism. I'm sorry to have to tell you that, but I wouldn't be being completely honest if I didn't come clean and explain that racism, like terrorism, violence, crime, bias, and a lot of the other plagues of mankind are unfortunately here to stay. The best analogy I can give you is one that was given to me by my friend Will, "I mow my grass even though I know it will just grow back, the point isn't to stop it completely, the point is to keep it under control." I think everyone should agree, all the things I mentioned above should be kept under control as much as possible. With that in mind, I have a few suggestions on how we can help keep racism as limited as possible.

* DON'T DEFEND RACISM*

Just so we all understand how extreme racism can get and why it is viewed as such a major issue particularly by minorities, I'm afraid I have to point out this example; Six sick twisted individuals in West Virginia, tortured a young black women in ways that are too horrific to even mention here. If you feel you have to know what really happened , I've linked the story here. Generally, I'm against Capital Punishment, but my reason is the inequity of the application of it, not the morality of it. With this in mind, I say B.B.Q. the bastards......'nuff said. This is the way we should all respond to acts of racism of this degree. No excuses, no examples of equal acts by the other side. In fact, let's just simplify it and say anyone who treats another human being in this way deserves the worst punishment you'll stand for morally. Too often I hear people rush to relativism just because race is part of the story. Think how bad you look when your on their side for any reason. This applies to all races, genders, or sexual preferences. Wrong is wrong and we should never diminish it.

*MAKE RACE AN ISSUE ONLY WHEN IT IS AN ISSUE*

Too often we separate ourselves when we don't need to. I don't care that Mike Vick was black, torturing animals for entertainment is wrong. I don't care that the people in the story above are white, kidnapping and torturing someone is wrong. I never will be able to figure out why race is brought into some stories but not others. Often I've seen articles about acts of violence against white people that would not mention color at all. I was only able to determine that the victims were white by looking at their obituaries or by their pictures in related articles. At the same time, I've seen articles on crimes of an equal degree that make race an issue when the crime was white on black. This is a common complaint by white people. What is the standard? I once questioned the editor of a major local newspaper on why this was so. He told me their policy was to publish race only when a advocacy group made them. When I asked if there was a advocacy group that would do that for white people, he said there wasn't one because they refuse to recognize any group that was deemed a racist organization, and all white advocacy groups get put in that group. I look at it this way; if there is some value in pointing out race, such as a description of a criminal, a systemic flaw in the system showing bias, demonstrating that a wanted criminal has shown a pertinacity toward a certain kind of victim, or anything else that would help the general public protect itself, then it's O.K. to show race. Otherwise, I would like to see this minimized as much as possible. A robbery is a robbery, A murder is a murder, it shouldn't matter what color, gender, or style of clothes the perpetrator or victim had.

*DON'T LET POLITICIANS USE RACE TO DIVIDE*

From Willie Horton to Marion Barry, politicians use race to separate and divide for their own benefit. Sometimes they do it to get elected (Willie Horton) and sometimes they do it to get themselves off the hook (Marion Barry). The idea here is simple, use code words and innuendo to move people (usually the most racist among us) to their side even though we know what they are doing or did is wrong. Unfortunately, this usually works, which explains why they do it. Sometimes they do it even when it makes no sense at all. A recent example of this is the case of Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick of Detroit. Mayor Kilpatrick was sued by two Detroit police officers for firing them in retaliation to complaints the officers had made against the Mayor. The officers had gone to the press about a supposed wild party that Kilpatrick had thrown which included a couple of strippers and an attack by Kilpatrick's wife on one of the strippers. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the two fired officers, awarding them $6.5 million for wrongful discharge. Kilpatrick then went on to assert the verdict was returned due to a mostly "suburban" (read white) jury. Never mind that both officers were themselves black. Even black Detroit Free Press journalist Stephen Henderson expressed his disdain for the Mayor's tactics by saying the Mayor was basically claiming, "Whitey stuck it to him." Unfortunately, the Mayor is right in believing a certain segment of black Detroiters will back him based only on that premise. We have to come to a standard that says it wrong for a politician to act badly....no matter his color, or don't be surprised if our cities fall to corruption.

*HOLD OUR MEDIA TO A HIGH STANDARD REGARDING RACE*

I have to give my friend Andre (Inside Andre's Head) credit on this one. He pointed out to me that the mainstream media has an obsession with missing white women and kids. At first I was a little sceptical, but soon I began to notice that what he was saying was true. (Sometimes it is necessary to point out inequities) White women and kids graced my T.V. screen almost exclusively. I have noticed though, that in recent times Fox News has responded to these accusations by running more stories about missing black children. (I'm still waiting on the missing black women) In the past two weeks they have run a story about a missing 10 day old child and a missing 3 year old. For at least recognizing this inequity, even if only under pressure, I give Fox Kudo's. I hope other networks follow suit. We need to make sure that our media, for whatever reason, doesn't seem to value anyone's life more than someone else's. I've said it before and I'll say it again, everyone's mother, father, brother, sister, whatever, grieve's for their loved one. If for any reason, you find yourself caring less about a child, or for that matter anyone, because of their race, gender, or sexual preference, take a long look at yourself in the mirror and see if you like what you see.

*DEFINE RACISM IN A WAY THAT'S FAIR TO ALL SIDES*

If there is any hope of us winning in our fight against racism, we have to come to terms on what racism is. I would hope that on the first example I gave you at least, we can all agree. As you all went through the rest of my piece, I'm sure it got more debatable. I hope that I at least gave all of you food for thought. One problem I see in our task of defining racism is in who should do the defining. Often on my campus, I see an effort by advocates to be the ultimate definers of what racism is. In there efforts to gain power, they work hard to shut out any other voices besides their own. If we are to come to any real consensus, we need to hear all sides. Certainly the debate will be emotional.... but it is necessary. To have one group do all the judging, or to have a group excluded from contributing is a way of guaranteeing that the problem will continue forever. If we can only make one step toward ending this plague, let it be hearing all sides and coming to a consensus, not a dictation. As I was telling a black police officer friend of mine the other day, " Your Great-Grandfather and mine would have never envisioned us standing here like this today; you a cop and me your friend." We have come far, but we have far to go. Let's all walk down this path together, we don't have to agree on everything. Only on the goal. H.C.

WHY ARE EX CLINTON AIDS DEFECTING TO OBAMA?

Question; What do Susan Rice, Anthony Lake, Ivo Daalder, Sarah Sewall, and Greg Craig all have in common? The answer? All five are respected advisers who once worked for the Clinton Administration and now work for Senator Barack Obama (D-Illinois) on his presidential campaign. Now, if Ms. Clinton is the wonderful person that the left-leaning mainstream media wants us to believe, why are so many people who stood proudly with her husband fighting hard to keep her out of the White House? Could it be that the loud accusations that ex-Clinton political consultant Dick Morris has been making about Hillary are all true? One has to wonder.

Ever since Mr. Morris left the Clinton Administration, he has been telling anyone that would listen that Hillary is.....well, a bit of a bitch. Maybe I'm being too kind to Hillary there. Frankly, what Dick Morris has been saying is Hillary is a down-right evil, power hungry, backstabbing, vicious bitch who will run over anyone and say anything to become this nation's first female president. He wrote a book bashing the Clintons (Rewriting History) and another one bashing all the main Democrat Players and their shady ways (Outrage). After each book, Dick went out on tour, telling anyone that would have him ( Mostly just Fox News and right leaning talk show hosts) how evil the Clintons are. He must have struck quite a nerve as the George Soros funded (through the Democratic Alliance) media arm, Media Matters, went directly after Mr. Morris, attacking both him and his book. To be truthful, I always viewed Dick Morris as a disgruntled employee, mad at being cut out of the picture and now out for revenge. But the amount of ex-Clinton advisers joining Obama's camp has got me wondering.

So who exactly are these people? Let me go down the list. Susan E. Rice was the United States Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs in the Clinton Administration, she was appointed by Bill in 1997. (Note that the Wikipedia site conveniently leaves Clinton's name out). Anthony Lake was one of candidate Bill Clinton's chief foreign policy advisers during his 1992 presidential bid. Following Clinton's 1996 reelection victory, Lake was nominated by President Clinton for CIA Director but was turned down after Republican objections. Ivo Daalder was in the Clinton administration from 1995-96, he served as director for European Affairs on President Clinton's National Security Council staff, where he was responsible for coordinating U.S. policy toward Bosnia. Sarah Sewall served as the first Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Peacekeeping and Humanitarian Assistance during the Clinton administration, and finally, Greg Craig was Clinton's lawyer during his impeachment proceedings.

Now, the question I have for all of you to chew on is this: Why have so many people who have faithfully advised, even defended, Bill Clinton during his years in the White House, joined up with a little known freshman Senator from Illinois to hopefully stop Hillary from becoming our next president? You know, I'm not sure I have the answer, but it is making me take a second look at all Dick Morris' accusations and wondering; Do all these people know something about Hillary Clinton that we don't....and should? H.C.

A DEMOCRAT AND A REPUBLICAN DISPLAY THEIR HYPOCRISY

As you may have noticed, I've created a new label (Giant Douches vs. Turd Sandwiches) for some of my posts. For those of you that don't watch South Park, it's a nod to one of my favorite episodes. The purpose of these posts will be to demonstrate how both sides, Democrat and Republican, are corrupt and complete hypocrites about what they claim to stand for. Since I think this is going to be a reoccurring theme all the way up to the fall '08 elections, I've decided to try to convince you that neither side is worth your loyalty. At the very least, you should be able to get a few laughs at how utterly stupid they both are as they condemn behavior....even as they participate in it.

* Keep Gay People Where They Belong, So I Can Find Them*

As some of you know by now, Larry Craig, a Republican Senator from Idaho, was caught this summer trying to pick up an undercover Vice-Squad Policeman in a Men's room stall at a Minneapolis airport. It seems Senator Craig played "footsies" and made some sexually advances to the undercover officer prior to his arrest. After a barrage of calls to resign by his Republican counterparts, Senator Craig finally conceded that he couldn't wait it out any longer, and resigned his position on Sept. 1, 2007. This wouldn't even be worth talking about if it wasn't for the fact that Senator Craig has been an outspoken opponent of Gay Rights in any form. Since this has been well reported by the mainstream media all I can add is this; When will gay Republicans learn that they shouldn't be in the closet about it, especially if their going to espouse anti-gay rhetoric? The only good news here is; at least the Republicans are holding their own accountable, even if it is only to end the "Culture of Corruption" tag given to them by the Democrats.

*Criminals For Clinton*

Speaking of the "Culture of Corruption", Hillary Clinton has found herself in the defensive position as she tries to explain why one of her top contributors is a fugitive from justice. It seems that Norman Hsu (pronounced like "Shoe") has donated over $225,000 to Democrat campaigns over the past three years all while being wanted for fraud and skipping out on his 1992 prison sentence. Hillary has tried to distance herself from Mr. Hsu despite having met him several times at fundraisers and even having had her picture taken with him. The general excuse being doled out by the Clinton camp is that she can't be responsible for the actions of all her donators (O.K., how about just the top 5?) and that Barack Obama also received some money from him as well, (Nice, throw someone else to the dogs to save your own ass.) For most of us older folks, this smacks of the Marc Rich fiasco. Mr. Rich was also a fugitive who gave heavily to the Bill Clinton Campaign and then was rewarded with a full pardon. It seems pardons are a big chip for the Clintons to get contributions. For the record, Mr. Hsu claims he wanted nothing in return for his contributions. (Insert laugh track here). This story was FAR less reported by the mainstream media and my guess is there will be no call by Democrats for any action to stop or punish this behavior.

Well, there you go. What a wonderful choice we have. Until the day voters say enough is enough and start "wasting" our votes on true third party candidates instead of these losers, I'm afraid the hypocrisy will just continue. The first step is to stop excusing their behavior. Republicans or Democrats, when you see this kind of thing going on, demand accountability, and not just during election years. If we don't demand better from our politicians and stop defending their bad behavior, our choice will continue to be between a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich, and it will continue to be what we deserve. H.C.