Wednesday, June 13, 2007
The cost of immigration
I'm sure this piece will get picked apart, but the fundamental point strikes me as pretty unassailable.
It refreshed my memory about a point I have raised here before: If buying cheap consumer goods made by foreign workers is good for the American economy, why isn't it good to import foreign workers and have them make the goods here?
When I raised that question at the Aging Writers Kaffee Klatsch a couple of weeks ago, someone who shall remain nameless (because it was Jim Larson) said that the reason is that when aliens are here, we have to provide them with certain benefits, such as access to schools and emergency medical care. When they stay in their own countries, that's not our problem.
Is the calculation really that cold? Is the real reason we are worried about illegal immigrants that we can't exploit them sufficiently? Come on, Wal-Mart shoppers, straighten me out.
It refreshed my memory about a point I have raised here before: If buying cheap consumer goods made by foreign workers is good for the American economy, why isn't it good to import foreign workers and have them make the goods here?
When I raised that question at the Aging Writers Kaffee Klatsch a couple of weeks ago, someone who shall remain nameless (because it was Jim Larson) said that the reason is that when aliens are here, we have to provide them with certain benefits, such as access to schools and emergency medical care. When they stay in their own countries, that's not our problem.
Is the calculation really that cold? Is the real reason we are worried about illegal immigrants that we can't exploit them sufficiently? Come on, Wal-Mart shoppers, straighten me out.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Radio in decline
As I was driving to the bank a few minutes ago, I heard a news report on health damage to veterans who served in the Gulf War. At first, I wasn't sure what station it was, but after a minute or so, it became unmistakable. The scientist being interviewed was given uninterrupted time to speak. The reporter asked serious questions and waited through in-depth, serious answers before speaking again. Obviously, it had to be NPR. Within 60 seconds, the whole approach to the report had exhibited a sense of depth, of restraint and thoroughness that simply would be unimaginable in modern commercial radio.
Which left me just one question: Why?
Which left me just one question: Why?
Monday, June 11, 2007
Constitutional question
The Wyoming law that determines how Sen. Craig Thomas' successor will be selected may be unconstitutional.
Sunday, June 10, 2007
How to fold a diaper
Some regular e-mailers include quotes with their submissions. I just got one of the best yet:
Spread the diaper in the position of the diamond with you at bat. Then fold second base down to home and set the baby on the pitcher's mound. Put first base and third together, bring up home plate and pin the three together. Of course, in case of rain, you gotta call the game and start all over again.
~Jimmy Piersal, 1968
Push polling
Montana Democrats have just issued a warning that Republicans are using push polling to attack Max Baucus and Brian Schweitzer. They are asking anyone who gets a call to write down exactly what was said and contact the state party at media@montanademocrats.org or at (406) 442-9520.
Anybody had a call?
Anybody had a call?
Bumper sticker of the week
Last week's Delivery Day Bumper Sticker of the Week: "When will the rhetorical questions ever end?"
Actually, now that I think of it, I'm not certain that quote is 100 percent accurate, and I'm not even sure I saw it on a bumper sticker. But I saw it, or something similar, somewhere.
Actually, now that I think of it, I'm not certain that quote is 100 percent accurate, and I'm not even sure I saw it on a bumper sticker. But I saw it, or something similar, somewhere.
Friday, June 08, 2007
The disappearing cinema
Don't ask
City Lights links to an op-ed piece about the military's don't ask, don't tell policy, which has cost us 58 Arabic linguists and essentially left the American military speechless in Iraq.
Like the op-ed writer, I attended the Defense Language Institute but in an era when the draft was on, and the policy was don't tell and don't let anybody find out. So I had two thoughts about this piece:
1. What in the heck was going on in those Arabic language barracks?
2. In those days, public calumny of gays was so strong that lots of gays allowed themselves to be conscripted rather than admit their sexual orientation. So it was sort of just taken for granted that the homosexual composition of the military was roughly equal to the homosexual composition of America as a whole. No soldier I knew ever admitted to being gay, and maybe nobody was, but there were always stories. In fact, one guy about whom the most stories probably swirled turned out to cash in on most G.I.s' California dreaming: He fell in love with a Monterey girl.
In short, anxiety about gays in the Army was roughly equivalent to anxiety about gays in real life, and no big deal anyway you looked at it. So how did it become a principle worth compromising our military capability over?
Like the op-ed writer, I attended the Defense Language Institute but in an era when the draft was on, and the policy was don't tell and don't let anybody find out. So I had two thoughts about this piece:
1. What in the heck was going on in those Arabic language barracks?
2. In those days, public calumny of gays was so strong that lots of gays allowed themselves to be conscripted rather than admit their sexual orientation. So it was sort of just taken for granted that the homosexual composition of the military was roughly equal to the homosexual composition of America as a whole. No soldier I knew ever admitted to being gay, and maybe nobody was, but there were always stories. In fact, one guy about whom the most stories probably swirled turned out to cash in on most G.I.s' California dreaming: He fell in love with a Monterey girl.
In short, anxiety about gays in the Army was roughly equivalent to anxiety about gays in real life, and no big deal anyway you looked at it. So how did it become a principle worth compromising our military capability over?
Blog power
Last week I whined about how tough it to deliver newspapers all day long and urged everybody to pick up a copy just so I would feel better. This week, although I haven't run the numbers, my seat-of-the-pants estimate is that as many as 500 more papers were picked up than last week. I feel great! Thanks.
P.S. Some of the improved pickup may have had to do with this story, which drew more response than anything I have written in a good long while. One fellow even stopped by to drop off a note saying how much he liked the story -- and left a $10 check inside, made out to me, not the company.
The funny thing about the response is that I never felt real good about how the piece turned out when I wrote it for Montana Quarterly. I thought seriously about not reprinting it in the Outpost.
So you never know. But I suspect here that the response had much more to do with the remarkable subject than with any skill on the part of the writer.
P.S. Some of the improved pickup may have had to do with this story, which drew more response than anything I have written in a good long while. One fellow even stopped by to drop off a note saying how much he liked the story -- and left a $10 check inside, made out to me, not the company.
The funny thing about the response is that I never felt real good about how the piece turned out when I wrote it for Montana Quarterly. I thought seriously about not reprinting it in the Outpost.
So you never know. But I suspect here that the response had much more to do with the remarkable subject than with any skill on the part of the writer.
Thursday, June 07, 2007
New page
You can see the rudiments of the new Outpost web page here. I spent a good chunk of yesterday trying to get the blog up and running over there and made some progress but haven't figured out how to make the comments function work.
Obviously, this is a work in progress, and we welcome advice and assistance. Within a few days, I hope, we will be updating the news daily over there and blogging as well.
Obviously, this is a work in progress, and we welcome advice and assistance. Within a few days, I hope, we will be updating the news daily over there and blogging as well.
Monday, June 04, 2007
Business bashing redux
Back on May 20, I quoted Webb Brown of the Montana Chamber of Commerce, who quoted Jon Bennion of the Chamber as saying the "vicious" attitude of the Legislature toward business during this session was a shock. I said I couldn't recall hearing much business bashing.
Today, Mr. Bennion replies, in part:
I don't have time today to go through five months of posts, but I would have to say that at a quick glance I didn't see a lot of verbal bashing on his site, although he does discuss many bills that the Chamber didn't like.
More rigorous researchers can check for themselves, and in any case the blog itself is of considerable interest as one insider's view of what went on.
Today, Mr. Bennion replies, in part:
I'd just point you to the blog that I do (www.montananmainstreetblog.typepad.com) and have you go through the last five months of posts. That should answer your question regarding my comments. I was at the capitol everyday and attended hundreds of hearings and floor debates. I tried to post as often as time would allow.
Also, the Chamber plans to release its 2007 Voting Review of the legislature and the governor this week. That should also provide you with more info.
I don't have time today to go through five months of posts, but I would have to say that at a quick glance I didn't see a lot of verbal bashing on his site, although he does discuss many bills that the Chamber didn't like.
More rigorous researchers can check for themselves, and in any case the blog itself is of considerable interest as one insider's view of what went on.
Petition time
If you are interested in helping the Green Party get back on the ballot in Montana, go here. Or you can contact Chris Frazier at greenfuture2000@yahoo.com
Sunday, June 03, 2007
Interviewing 'improved'
I used to regularly read Jeff Jarvis' BuzzMachine, but he wore me out. His boundless enthusiasm about the new media world exhausted me, and his occasional thimbles of insight are often buried under gallons of blather. I cut back to once a week, just to keep up, and finally quit reading him altogether.
But I was drawn back by a link at PressThink to this post, in which Mr. Jarvis waxes enthusiastic about improving interviews by conducting them via e-mail. My direct response is in his comments, I post here simply to add one example that helps make my case for the superiority of live interviews.
Back in Texas, I once profiled a longtime city council member who had been defeated for re-election. The upset had shocked and hurt him, and it was quite a while before he would even consent to an interview. But he was a colorful character (at one city council meeting, he had suggested an ordinance barring people from being poor) and he eventually came around.
Sitting at his kitchen table, we were wading through his biography, including time he had spent in the military as a demolitions expert. As he told me about that, he raised one hand, which was missing several fingers.
"Not much of an expert," he said.
Such moments, I suspect, will never be duplicated in the world of e-mail interviews.
But I was drawn back by a link at PressThink to this post, in which Mr. Jarvis waxes enthusiastic about improving interviews by conducting them via e-mail. My direct response is in his comments, I post here simply to add one example that helps make my case for the superiority of live interviews.
Back in Texas, I once profiled a longtime city council member who had been defeated for re-election. The upset had shocked and hurt him, and it was quite a while before he would even consent to an interview. But he was a colorful character (at one city council meeting, he had suggested an ordinance barring people from being poor) and he eventually came around.
Sitting at his kitchen table, we were wading through his biography, including time he had spent in the military as a demolitions expert. As he told me about that, he raised one hand, which was missing several fingers.
"Not much of an expert," he said.
Such moments, I suspect, will never be duplicated in the world of e-mail interviews.
Saturday, June 02, 2007
Death penalty reconsidered
From the Spokane office of the Better Business Bureau comes word of a scam targeting military spouses. The caller claims to be from the Red Cross with news that the spouse's soldier in Iraq had been wounded and transported to Germany for medical care. The scammer then asks for Social Security information to get the treatment started.
That's why I oppose the death penalty. For some crimes, it simply isn't cruel enough.
That's why I oppose the death penalty. For some crimes, it simply isn't cruel enough.
Steamed
No sooner had I finished whining yesterday about how much I had to do than I sat down to work on payroll. I use Quickbooks Pro, and I pay Intuit $200 a year to keep withholding tax tables up to date.
Of course, there was a problem. I have the 2004 version of Quickbooks, and I had been notified that it would no longer have access to payroll updates after May 31. It's Quickbooks' way of guaranteeing that it can sell enough new software to recoup the cost of creating useless updates every year.
I wasn't happy about that because I had absolutely no desire to change my version of Quickbooks. I didn't care if they dropped tech support for old versions because I never use tech support. I didn't care about having the latest version because the version I had worked just fine. And I didn't care much about losing access to payroll updates, even though I would still be paying for the updates for a couple of more months. It would be a problem eventually, I supposed, but not between May 31, the last day I had access, and June 1, the day I did payroll.
What I didn't realize was that not only would I lose access to new updates, but I also lost access to all of the updates I have been paying $16.58 a month for all these years. That information, which my money apparently only rented but did not purchase, simply disappeared. My withholding levels went to zero for every employee. My Quickbooks program, which I had carefully maintained, learned and updated for three years, had suddenly become worthless.
So I spent a half-hour wrangling with two different service reps, an hour and a half downloading a new Quickbooks version and at least an hour updating file formats to be compatible with the new version -- the old files weren't compatible with the new version, which makes the guarantee for the new version worthless. So like it or not, I'm out $170 to own an expensive new piece of software that I neither needed nor wanted and that, so far as I can tell, runs slower and is less convenient than the version it replaced. And I got payroll done three hours late, in part because I couldn't see the computer screen because of all the steam pouring out of my ears.
Somebody please explain to me why I am wrong to be unhappy about this. To me it is no different than if automobile manufacturers, in order to pay for ongoing R&D, simply placed a small incendiary device inside every vehicle so that it would blow into pieces every three years. In fact, that's sort of what the big American manufacturers used to do until the Japanese proved that there is money to be made in building cars that last.
The Quickbooks people apparently haven't learned that lesson. I used to praise Quickbooks as the only piece of software I owned that was both understandable and useful. I will never praise it again. Quickbooks turned a loyal customer into an enemy. Nice going, guys.
SIDEBAR: One alternative is to simply get the tax table information and enter it into an Excel spreadsheet, then compute each employee's payroll taxes manually each pay period. Then my money goes to Bill Gates instead of the geeks at Intuit, which doesn't make me a heck of a lot happier. Early one Wednesday a few weeks ago, I was struggling desperately on deadline to get the paper out -- I had been working about 16 hours and had eight pages to go with about five hours to get them done. Suddenly my computer flashed me a message: Windows had downloaded an important new update and needed to restart the computer. Would I like to restart now or wait until later? Naturally, I clicked later. About five minutes later, I got the message again. Then again. And again. For a couple of hours, the message popped up every few minutes with no way to make it go away.
Finally, I had to go to the other computer to print out some pages. While I was gone, of course, the message popped up again. When I didn't answer, it restarted my computer and closed all my programs, wasting whatever hadn't been saved.
What the heck? Bill Gates, you may own the world, but you don't own my computer. Keep your grimy hands off.
Of course, there was a problem. I have the 2004 version of Quickbooks, and I had been notified that it would no longer have access to payroll updates after May 31. It's Quickbooks' way of guaranteeing that it can sell enough new software to recoup the cost of creating useless updates every year.
I wasn't happy about that because I had absolutely no desire to change my version of Quickbooks. I didn't care if they dropped tech support for old versions because I never use tech support. I didn't care about having the latest version because the version I had worked just fine. And I didn't care much about losing access to payroll updates, even though I would still be paying for the updates for a couple of more months. It would be a problem eventually, I supposed, but not between May 31, the last day I had access, and June 1, the day I did payroll.
What I didn't realize was that not only would I lose access to new updates, but I also lost access to all of the updates I have been paying $16.58 a month for all these years. That information, which my money apparently only rented but did not purchase, simply disappeared. My withholding levels went to zero for every employee. My Quickbooks program, which I had carefully maintained, learned and updated for three years, had suddenly become worthless.
So I spent a half-hour wrangling with two different service reps, an hour and a half downloading a new Quickbooks version and at least an hour updating file formats to be compatible with the new version -- the old files weren't compatible with the new version, which makes the guarantee for the new version worthless. So like it or not, I'm out $170 to own an expensive new piece of software that I neither needed nor wanted and that, so far as I can tell, runs slower and is less convenient than the version it replaced. And I got payroll done three hours late, in part because I couldn't see the computer screen because of all the steam pouring out of my ears.
Somebody please explain to me why I am wrong to be unhappy about this. To me it is no different than if automobile manufacturers, in order to pay for ongoing R&D, simply placed a small incendiary device inside every vehicle so that it would blow into pieces every three years. In fact, that's sort of what the big American manufacturers used to do until the Japanese proved that there is money to be made in building cars that last.
The Quickbooks people apparently haven't learned that lesson. I used to praise Quickbooks as the only piece of software I owned that was both understandable and useful. I will never praise it again. Quickbooks turned a loyal customer into an enemy. Nice going, guys.
SIDEBAR: One alternative is to simply get the tax table information and enter it into an Excel spreadsheet, then compute each employee's payroll taxes manually each pay period. Then my money goes to Bill Gates instead of the geeks at Intuit, which doesn't make me a heck of a lot happier. Early one Wednesday a few weeks ago, I was struggling desperately on deadline to get the paper out -- I had been working about 16 hours and had eight pages to go with about five hours to get them done. Suddenly my computer flashed me a message: Windows had downloaded an important new update and needed to restart the computer. Would I like to restart now or wait until later? Naturally, I clicked later. About five minutes later, I got the message again. Then again. And again. For a couple of hours, the message popped up every few minutes with no way to make it go away.
Finally, I had to go to the other computer to print out some pages. While I was gone, of course, the message popped up again. When I didn't answer, it restarted my computer and closed all my programs, wasting whatever hadn't been saved.
What the heck? Bill Gates, you may own the world, but you don't own my computer. Keep your grimy hands off.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)