Voter Motivation

Do you think democrats Jim Webb and John Tester won Senate seats last November because of their policy strengths or because the public perceived them to be the more authentic macho American guy? Did they win over independents with their health care arguments or did boots and buzz cuts have anything to do with it? Did red Virginia all of a sudden change its mind about the policies of the democratic party or did voters buy into an image? In addition to Tom Frank's, entire books have been written about the motivations of the American voter. It is not the policy. Voters are not that informed. Typically voters establish loyalty to one political party by age 25 and do not change it for life. The rate of participation in our elections indicates that most voting-eligible Americans do not care enough to even bother to vote. As far as candidates go, it's not the product; it's the salesman. I am not saying republicans are phony and democrats are authentic. I'm saying both parties are phony populists and republicans are better at fooling people. Think John Kerry with a shotgun or George Bush in a cowboy hat. Democrats always get bashed for cozying up with the Hollywood elite, but it's republicans who actually put actors on the ballot (Reagan, Schwarzenegger, Fred Thompson). Could that be because actors are good at acting? Now 17 months away from the presidential election, regular Americans don't care - they'll just wait for the "experts" or their favorite TV/radio personality to tell them whom to vote for. A personal example of this would be my vote for Bush because Al Gore has a lisp and seems kind of faggoty. Like you, I had a limited political awareness until recently (this president's term), and I sure thought those 1990's Limbaugh jokes about democrats were knee-slappin funny. I always get into trouble at my in-laws house when I laugh about Clinton's BJ's in the oval office. Looking back 10 years, I think that was the sum total of my knowledge about his presidency. Another example: the 2004 election was not about political experience, effectively fighting terrorism, or domestic initiatives. It was about windsurfing, "flip-flopping", expensive haircuts, and foie gras. I just think that most people vote with their gut, not their head. The secret to winning elections has nothing to do with better ideas for the country; it is to make the opponent seem like an intolerable choice.

Effective Counterterrorism

The public has recently learned of two plots insided the USA that had no capability of doing serious damage to America's survival. The Fort Dix and JFK Airport plotters are some of the most pathetic enemies this country has ever known. My understanding of the Fort Dix plotters is that any attack would have looked less like a horrendous massacre against unarmed poor folks, and more like a quick suicide by cop (against soldiers, tanks, helicopters). Their training amounted to paintball games in the woods. Of their mighty arsenal of 9 guns, 7 were inoperable. The JFK idiots had no weapons, no firm plans, and had been infiltrated by the FBI at least 17 months ago. The engineer at JFK said that if the operation had succeeded, the bombers would have been the only ones killed, and the fuel pipeline would have remained intact. Clear and future danger, maybe, but execution and effectiveness were laughable. The most important point is that both cases were cracked with good old-fashioned police work: infiltration, informants, and legal wiretaps. These guys should appear in the stupid criminals file and spend the rest of their lives in the box. Because the surveillance and interrogation rules were followed, they likely will do just that. Once again, the Law Enforcement strategy worked: 12 foiled plots since 9/11. I'm happy these scumbags are off the street. Law enforcement is to be commended for functioning as it should. I do have to wonder though, why some people are so eager to elevate these foiled plots to a catastrophic threat to western civilization (Giuliani!). There is a huge lack of perspective.

Cost/Benefit of Illegal Immigrants

I finally found a reputable study on net cost, from the Wall Street Journal:
"The President's Council of Economic Advisers added up all these costs and benefits, updating the procedures used by the National Academy of Sciences, and concluded that the value of non-citizen immigrants to the overall economy is a net positive $30 billion a year."

It makes sense to me that the value of US products that illegal immigrants purchase exceeds the value of free US school/medical services they get. Of course this study only examines cost in dollars. There was no consideration of natural resource or infrastructure usage. Also it should be noted that $30 billion is not a large number in terms of percentages of illegal immigrant population, or percentage of US GDP. However, I am convinced that the only remaining valid arguments for tightened immigration control are:

1) rule of law
2) security
3) language/culture preservation
4) possible depressed job/wage market for US citizens