hat tip to Gull.
"Oregonians for Immigration Reform" have found true love -- in the form of a fancy, expensive grape harvesting machine that goes by the sexy name of New Holland Braud.
According to the Oregonian the anti-immigration group is
touting "the European machine as a beacon of a future without illegal labor."
Jim Ludwick, president of Oregonians for Immigration Reform, learned that a New Holland Braud grape harvester had been sold to a vineyard in McMinnville, Ore., last year.
It picked 3.5 tons of pinot noir grapes in 20 minutes with three workers,
the Capital Press article said. Usually that would have taken 34 workers an
hour.
Finally, Ludwick had an Oregon example to make his case. He began to tout the New Holland harvester in speeches, as well as to state legislators, members of Congress and radio talk-show hosts.
"This is what modern societies do," he said. "They mechanize and wean
themselves off cheap stoop labor."
That may well be true, but let's ponder the implications. The adoption of
mechanized agriculture as a tactic for combating illegal immigration
simultaneously accepts the theory that the jobs being done by illegal immigrants are jobs "Americans don't want to do" and abandons the hoary anti-immigration plank that demands secure borders to "protect American jobs." Mechanized harvesting means fewer jobs, period. And of course, even as it reduces the number of available jobs, it does absolutely nothing to alleviate the pressure that pushes immigrants across borders, legally or illegally, in search of a better life. In fact, if more mechanized harvesting of crops that have hitherto been out-of-bounds for robots leads to greater efficiencies for American farmers, allowing them to compete even more effectively with farmers in developing nations, it could conceivably make those farmers even worse off, and contribute even more to their motivation to pick up and move.
Your basic neoclassical economist will tell you that anything that makes a
sector of an economy more efficient will generate capital that can then be
plowed into other sectors of the economy, creating more jobs and prosperity for all. From this perspective, the prospect of a future in which robots do all the hard manual labor is nothing to worry about. But a growing body of research, spearheaded by Harvard economist Lawrence Katz, suggests that technological progress may be a bigger villain, in terms of contributing to growing income inequality in the world today, than everybody's favorite boogeyman, globalization (in which category we will include outsourcing, offshoring and worker migration). At best (or worst) globalization plus technology are together putting the squeeze on
everyone who doesn't have the skills or education to thrive in our increasingly technologically mediated world.
Reducing the number of available "stoop labor" jobs without simultaneously beefing up investments in education and job training and social safety net protections -- not just in the United States, but everywhere -- seems a bit short-sighted. If technological change really is contributing significantly to growing income inequality then the world is facing much bigger threats than anything posed by "illegal labor.".
.
Happy Birthday, America --
I believe that illegal immigrants who have roots in our country and want to stay should have to pay a meaningful penalty for breaking the law, to pay their taxes, to learn English, and to work in a job for a number of years. People who meet these conditions should be able to apply for citizenship ...
FLASHBACK to Katrina and claims that federal authorities failed
to respond appropriately .....
This is a radio interview of the breaking story from Hannity
Radio.
Check out the ONLINE trail of posts, letter from a DNC attorney
to FreePress and the radio station, and comments from PowerLine blog.
From a FreePress post:
I was listening to the Quinn & Rose show this morning on XM radio when
Host, Jim Quinn told his audience that Howard Dean called Kansas Gov. Kathleen
Sebelius early, around 5 am, one morning after the tornado had destroyed the
town of Greensburg, Kansas and discussed with her what to say about the tornado
and how to blame the war in Iraq and the Bush administration on a slow response
to the aftermath. He also said that she, Gov. Sebelius, called Senator Sam
Brownback's office only to learn he wasn't there but then called him on his cell
phone and reached him while he was in his car were she confessed to him that she
had been instructed by her party leadership, (more specifically, Howard Dean) on
how to politicize the tornado's destruction of Greensburg and attack the White
House and the Iraq war for a seemingly slow response. She reassured the Senator
that her allegations didn't blame him or Pat Roberts, also a Kansas Senator, for
the lack of immediate response. That would explain her public statements to the
press that proved later to be untrue. She made statements to the effect that the
Iraq war and the deployment of the national guard units to Iraq from her state
has left Kansas without the equipment and man power needed to respond more
quickly to the tornado's aftermath. This all turns out to be false and the
governor herself has back tracked on her own claims. Mr. Quinn also revealed
that she confessed to Brownback that she couldn't pass up such an opportunity
like this to attack the President whose approval ratings, in this hostile
political climate, is so low. These revelations are startling and if true should
call into question the governors competence and her judgment. Quinn adamantly
stressed that his source, who he didn't name because he was sure it would
jeopardize his job, was extremely reliable and in a position that would give him
direct knowledge of these revelations.
From the DNC letter to FreePress:
The statements quoted above are false and defamatory, are libelous and
slanderous, and clearly threaten to interfere with the DNC's operations and
ability to solicit support and raise funds by prejudicing the organization in
the the eyes of Democratic Party supporters and the public. For these reasons,
we demand that FreeRepublic.com (i) immediately cease and desist from further
dissemination of the above-quoted statements or any statements similar in
substance and (ii) immediately post a retraction of these statements in a
location on its web page at least as prominent as that on which the original
story appeared.Please let us know by noon tomorrow (May 11, 2007) whether you
intend to comply with these requests.
A PowerLine attorney responds:The attorney who sent the letter
on behalf of the DNC is attorney Joseph Sandler, representing the Democratic
National Committee. In my view, Sandler is a thug representing a bunch of
reprobates and bullies. Here's why. Under the First Amendment, as construed by
the Supreme Court in New York Times v. Sullivan, citizens are protected from defamation claim by public figures so long as the statements in issue are lacking in "actual malice," i.e, knowledge of their falsehood or reckless disregard as to whether they are false or not. Accordingly, our reader's Free Republic post based on the statements of Jim Quinn is constitutionally immune from a defamation claim. Whether Quinn and those who broadcast his program have such immunity is a different question, but the same constitutional protection applies to them. Professor and First Amendment expert Eugene Volokh coincidentally makes a closely related point based on the Sullivan case today. "Actual malice" is a tough standard for public figures to overcome. That's why defamation claims by public figures have essentially disappeared since the Sullivan case. Under the Sullivan case, the First Amendment affords wide latitude for the discussion of public figures as well as issues of public
concern.Sandler's letter to Free Republic incorporates no element of "actual
malice." It is couched in the traditional common law of defamation that the
Supreme Court killed for public figures in the Sullivan case. Sandler's letter
carries Governor Dean's denial of Quinn's assertions, but it does not even
allege that Jim Quinn had knowledge of the statements' falsity or made them with
reckless disregard of their truth or falsity.We therefore associate ourselves
with our reader's statements regarding Governor Dean and invite Mr. Sandler to
sue us for defamation as he threatens to sue Free Republic. This is to put him
and his client on notice, however, that we intend to seek our attorney's fees
under federal law for the assertion of a frivolous claim if he does so.
The press is famous for goading people into the race and then turning on
them once they get in. It's not a conscious strategy; it's just that the press
always has an interest in a new face in the race, especially a colorful one; but once he's in, "fairness" requires the press to be equally savage to him as it is to the other shrunken heroes in the contest.
What idealistic conservative doesn't want Fred Thompson? Many more than the realistic conservatives, I'd guess.
Call me a realistic conservative. A moderate realistic conservative. Mitt Romney is my candidate of choice. He declared his candidacy up-close and early. So did most of the other candidates. Serious candidates, that is.
I'm bored by hearing "Fred will declare later ...." Later? What the heck does that mean? What's he waiting for?
Either he's running or he isn't.
If he isn't, he's baited a few conservatives and collected sufficient speaking fees to promote his movie career. And idealistic conservative don't like being baited. And they have only one movie hero. (Make that two, if you've read Gull's blog.)
Yep, idealistic conservatives (and most all of us) like folks who stand tall and speak plain English while looking your straight in the eye. But don't bait them. Especially don't bait them after they've built up this mythocal image of some Reaganesque figure who's gonna swoop back into the political arena and carry them to victory.
Better let people know what you're gonna do, Fred. Fast. If you wait 'til summer to declare or declare not to declare, tempers will likely flare a bit more in the heat of the season. Campaign season, that is.
And no matter what you decide, mainstream media and every cable news channel will wonder aloud: why did it take him so long? What IS he afraid of? What was he waiting for? And the seeds of doubt will be planted .....
Come on in, Fred. Don't delay the inevitable. That is, if you're actually gonna come on in.
Here come the pigs again .... Here come the pigs!!!
