How is this relevant?

I try to be good; try not to express my views on political crap… but this was too good to pass up.

California is wonderful place to live. I could go on and on about it… but every now and then a proposed law pops-up that is just… well… idiotic.

If you were a high school student learning philosophy – you may discuss the works of Socrates and/or Plato. While studying history, you might read about King Richard the Lion-hearted, Lawrence of Arabia, Kaiser Wilhelm II or Susan B. Anthony. In Literature, the works of Oscar Wilde, Emerson or Emily Dickinson might be perused. Well soon (if passed into law), the history books might say “Alexander Hamilton (January 11, 1757 – July 12, 1804) was an American politician, statesman, writer, lawyer, soldier and homosexual.” How the hell is this relevant?

The California State Senate approved a Bill recently that requires the identification of the sexual preference of historical figures in school textbooks if the historical figure was gay. Which, if the sexual orientation was somehow relevant to the lesson being taught – is fine. But this law would require a notation regardless of significance. For the life of me, I don’t understand what could possibly be gained by this sort of insertion (pardon the pun). The sexual preference of a historical figure (if not relevant to their historical contribution) is just textual fluff, irrelevant gribble to detract from their historical notoriety. I think it demeans the act that made them historical by blindly tossing in insignificant factoids because the law demands it. Let’s discuss their religion: Albert Einstein was a brilliant Jew. How about dietary desires: After a good beheading, Henry the 8th enjoyed his pudding. Oh, those are not acceptable comments… but text such as “after defeating the Persian Army, Alexander the Great enjoyed the silky pleasures of Asian boys” are within the boundaries. Why? What’s to be gained here?

Advocates of the law claim it will make gay students relate better to historical figures (and not feel outcaste) and straight student will appreciate the accomplishments of gays in history. But does it take a commonality in sexual orientation to make students relate to those in textbooks? “Benjamin Franklin was a politician, writer, inventor… and loved vagina”. Oh, I see how this makes me relate to him more on a humanistic level. I thought he was great man before – but the fact that he enjoyed a piece of poontang as well – damn; maybe I can be a politician, writer or inventor too. Oh look – it says that not only did Abraham Lincoln create the Emancipation Proclamation, he also was a strict heterosexual… that far outweighs any work he did to abolish slavery. Right? Do you look at Gandhi any different knowing he was straight? I sure do.

Oh Please…

A law that mandates textbooks to pen the sexual preferences of notable individuals is idiotic… period. If it’s so important to disclose the sexual appetites of those that made their way to the textbooks of our schools – then my education was surly diminished as a student. It’s my recollection that Joan of Arc wasn’t burned at the stake for being a lesbian, so it really doesn’t add or detract from her role in history (although, as a teenage boy, it would have placed images in my mind that would have distracted from the lesson).

So, this weekend enjoy the “The Da Vinci Code” – you can enjoy it more knowing that Leonardo Da Vinci was gay… or you can care less… as I choose.

Putting the “Illegal” into “Illegal Immigrant”

With the rain finally gone (sunny weather – yeah), I’ve been working on the yard. Tough work… the grass has had nearly three months to become officially ‘un-mowable’. I had to resort to hedge-trimming the grass, mowing, raking, bagging, and repeat. After two days (two sweaty and often painful days), I was ready to go down to the corner (by a local 7-11) and grab two or three guys to help me out. They are eager to work and I can pay them half of what I’d have to pay the neighbor’s kid, and they would do a far better job. However, that might be illegal.

I’m trying to get a grasp on what’s going on today – from everything I read, it appears that the government wants to crack down on illegal immigrants. This makes sense as 7.2 million illegal immigrants hold jobs in the United States, making up 4.9 percent of the overall labor force (according to a recent study by the Pew Hispanic Center).

So where I’m confused – why are legal immigrants so upset? Millions of legal immigrants plan to relay today (The Day without Immigrants) in protest to a bill (which stalled in the Senate) that:

A. Would make felons of the illegal immigrants
B. Calls for new walls on 700 miles of the 2,000-mile U.S.-Mexican border

Now the illegal immigrants, they should be upset. Becoming a felon means (if captured) you will be arrested, fingerprinted and (if not serving jail time) would be expelled from the country – never to return again (which is silly, because they weren’t allowed here in the first place – and that didn’t stop them). Some of the illegal immigrants working in the US are working under false documents and are actually paying taxes, social security and other monies – all going into a system that they are not legally a part of – so they will never receive the benefits.

I’m all for immigration – America was built on immigrants and has a long (if you consider 225+ years long for a Country) history of supporting immigrant workers. Is it so terribly wrong that the Country wants to provide work and benefits to those that came to the country legally? Is it so difficult to comprehend that perhaps – sneaking into the country, finding illegal employment and avoiding taxes (not all – but most) should be considered a crime? Hell, we already call them “illegal Immigrants” – this just puts a consequence on the position.

Undocumented workers make up 24 percent of farm workers and hold 14 percent of construction jobs. I’m sure they are doing an excellent job, but that’s not really the point. The point is – in order to legally work in this country; you must be a citizen, hold a green card or have a work visa – otherwise, you are ‘illegal’.

If Americans are worried about paying more at the grocery store because ‘legal’ farm workers get ‘legal’ salaries, benefits and (god forbid) proper working conditions – all contributing to the extra $.75 a piece for avocados, then consider this… there were 6-1/2 million farms in America in 1935, 5-1/2 million in 1950, and a 1997 census counted only 1,911,859 farms remaining (due to government involvement and restrictions - but that is a rant for another time).

I’m sure most of the anger (from the legal immigrants) stems from either the fact that ‘they’ themselves were once illegal or that they have family and/or friends that are illegal. But I ask them this – is it wrong for a country to want its working force to be legally protected (against unfair or dangerous working conditions, substandard salaries and guaranteed fair employment practices), fiscally responsible (paying towards retirement, social security and taxes) and accountable (insured)?

As far as the ‘Great Wall’ of America – its only 700 miles of over 2000 miles separating the US from Mexico… there’s plenty of room to ‘squeeze’ in. With an estimated number of more than 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States (the population of Ohio) – illegal immigrants will always find a way into the US… we just don’t want to make it comfortable.