I've been tracking the recent stories about the immigration debate and whether we should have some sort of a guest worker program. It's a topic that really interests me. Many families that I met on my mission in Argentina are now living here in Utah (some legally, some not), and I regularly work with Latino immigrants at the Guadalupe Legal Clinic.
I am in favor of adopting some sort of a guest worker program, but only as long as that program has a path towards citizenship/residency in it. I like the idea of recognizing that our economy is driven by immigrants who do all of the jobs that we are too prideful to do, and I like the idea of allowing immigrants to come out of the shadows a little bit. But I think that the guest worker program needs to put the immigrants on some sort of a path to citizenship/residency. A guest worker program without such a path would be fundamentally flawed. It would presume that immigrant workers will return to their home country after their work visa expires. I don't see that happening.
I like the bill that Senators McCain and Kennedy co-sponsored and that, with the help of Senator Spector, got pushed through the judiciary committee largely in tact (Senator Hatch voted against the bill, which may prompt me to write a letter). It puts the guest workers/immigrants on a kind of citizenship/residency track, and it requires that the immigrants pay back taxes and a fee, learn English, stay out of trouble with the law, and a few other things. This country needs immigrants. There are a lot of bad immigrants in this country (caught up in drug trafficking, ect.), but there are a lot of good ones too. The good ones work hard, stay out of trouble, contribute to the economy, and their kids go to college and become professionals. I think this kind of a bill would do a lot to help the good ones, the immigrants who really deserve it. It rewards immigrants who come here willing to work hard and stay out of trouble, and its incentives help the immigrants to participate in society (speaking English, paying taxes, not always worrying about INS, not being afraid to stand up for themselves at work because their employer threatens to them you in to INS, etc.). I can't tolerate bills that seek to punish/segregate immigrants without distinguishing between the good ones and the bad ones, and this bill does not fall into that trap.
The Senate's bill is definitely better than the racist/elitist/protectionist piece of legislation that the House passed and that Senator Frist is trying to get, which would make it a felony to be an illegal immigrant (now it is only a civil violation), and it would establish civil and criminal penalties for anyone employing or assisting illegal immigrants (I can't tell if that would apply to all of us at the Guadalupe Legal Clinic or not).
The one counter-argument that I find persuasive is that this kind of a program is unfair to those who are in their home countries, going through the appropriate channels to get work visas, waiting their turn. I agree that this is unfair to them. The way I would remedy this unfairness is to make the fee/fine for illegal immigrants who are currently in the country and who want guest worker status significantly higher than for those who have come here or who are waiting to come here through appropriate channels.
Here are some links to some interesting news articles on the subject:
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-me-immig26mar26,1,7374804.story?page=1&coll=la-headlines-frontpage
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/26/politics/26cornyn.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/27/AR2006032700684.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/28/AR2006032801223.html?nav=hcmodule
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/24/AR2006032401719.html?sub=new
Monday, March 27, 2006
Sunday, March 26, 2006
Movie Review: Good Night, and Good Luck
Katie and I were up at my parents' house Friday night and, after watching UConn hold off Washington in the Sweet Sixteen, we popped in Good Night, and Good Luck. All I knew about it was that George Clooney directed it and had received a nomination for Best Director. I was pleasantly surprised, as the movie began, to find out that it was about Edward R. Murrow and how he took on Senator McCarthy when no one else dared. I had studied bits about the McCarthy era and his Senate hearings before--in law school and in an American Literature class (while studying The Crucible (a play inspired by the McCarthy hearings))--and I had heard a kind of tribute to Murrow on NPR that talked about how he had challenged McCarthy. So I already knew a little about the subject. But beyond the fascinating subject matter, the film is really well done.
The history of this movie really interests me. I think it's a fascinating time in American history. The movie takes place in the 50's, right when the Cold War was really beginning to heat up. McCarthy went after anyone in a military or governmental position that had had any affiliation (or whose family had had any affiliation) with communism or socialism. As the movie shows, quite a few people had had some sort of an affiliation with the communist party. You will notice that most references to a connection with communism came "20 years ago," or in the 1930s. That's so because socialism and communism actually became moderately popular in America in the '30s. We were in the middle of the Great Depression. Capitalism, it seemed, had failed. And on the other side of the world, Russia, which had been communist for almost 15 years, was putting out what turned out to be propaganda about how their economy was thriving under a communist system. That climate lead a lot of people in the US and all over the world to explore communist or socialist ideas. They would attend a meeting or a rally or sign up to receive a communist brochure or publication. That was all it took, and, 20 years later, McCarthy labeled them communists and ruin their lives and the lives of their families.
Really, the movie is about publicity (not as in publicizing a movie, a book, or a celebrity but as in keeping things open to the public). There are obvious warnings about the dangers of news outlets not being free to report the news as it is (either as a result of pressure from sponsors, fear, or a desire to please a certain demographic/political philosophy). The public, essentially, only knows what it does from what it gets from the media, and if the media isn't free to report the facts as they are, then that's a problem. In a similar vein, one major problem with McCarthy's methods were that they were secret. The hearings themselves were public, but neither the accused communists nor the public were allowed to see the "evidence" McCarthy had against them.
Besides the interesting history and themes, I thought the movie itself was well done. The acting was convincing, and the directing was excellent. The movie used actual footage from the McCarthy hearings and from Murrow's news stories, which I really liked. It made the movie seem so authentic. And since the whole movie was done in black and white, the archival footage blended right into the movie. Unlike Forrest Gump, where the archival footage was more of a novelty, this historical footage was used to make the movie really feel like you were seeing something authentic. Sometimes you couldn't tell what was actual footage and what was not.
Anyway, I highly recommend the movie. I hope you like it.
* Interesting tidbit: In one of the first few scenes of the movie, it shows the group of news reporters around a table discussing the news. You can hear a distinct reference to "Benson." They say Benson said something or did something (I don't remember exactly what they said he did or said, but you hear a clear reference to "Benson"). They are referring to the then-Secretary of Agriculture, Ezra Taft Benson. He was a member of the Quorum of the Twelve already, but he was permitted to serve as Eisenhower's Sec. of Agriculture.
The history of this movie really interests me. I think it's a fascinating time in American history. The movie takes place in the 50's, right when the Cold War was really beginning to heat up. McCarthy went after anyone in a military or governmental position that had had any affiliation (or whose family had had any affiliation) with communism or socialism. As the movie shows, quite a few people had had some sort of an affiliation with the communist party. You will notice that most references to a connection with communism came "20 years ago," or in the 1930s. That's so because socialism and communism actually became moderately popular in America in the '30s. We were in the middle of the Great Depression. Capitalism, it seemed, had failed. And on the other side of the world, Russia, which had been communist for almost 15 years, was putting out what turned out to be propaganda about how their economy was thriving under a communist system. That climate lead a lot of people in the US and all over the world to explore communist or socialist ideas. They would attend a meeting or a rally or sign up to receive a communist brochure or publication. That was all it took, and, 20 years later, McCarthy labeled them communists and ruin their lives and the lives of their families.
Really, the movie is about publicity (not as in publicizing a movie, a book, or a celebrity but as in keeping things open to the public). There are obvious warnings about the dangers of news outlets not being free to report the news as it is (either as a result of pressure from sponsors, fear, or a desire to please a certain demographic/political philosophy). The public, essentially, only knows what it does from what it gets from the media, and if the media isn't free to report the facts as they are, then that's a problem. In a similar vein, one major problem with McCarthy's methods were that they were secret. The hearings themselves were public, but neither the accused communists nor the public were allowed to see the "evidence" McCarthy had against them.
Besides the interesting history and themes, I thought the movie itself was well done. The acting was convincing, and the directing was excellent. The movie used actual footage from the McCarthy hearings and from Murrow's news stories, which I really liked. It made the movie seem so authentic. And since the whole movie was done in black and white, the archival footage blended right into the movie. Unlike Forrest Gump, where the archival footage was more of a novelty, this historical footage was used to make the movie really feel like you were seeing something authentic. Sometimes you couldn't tell what was actual footage and what was not.
Anyway, I highly recommend the movie. I hope you like it.
* Interesting tidbit: In one of the first few scenes of the movie, it shows the group of news reporters around a table discussing the news. You can hear a distinct reference to "Benson." They say Benson said something or did something (I don't remember exactly what they said he did or said, but you hear a clear reference to "Benson"). They are referring to the then-Secretary of Agriculture, Ezra Taft Benson. He was a member of the Quorum of the Twelve already, but he was permitted to serve as Eisenhower's Sec. of Agriculture.
Sunday, March 19, 2006
Letting Our Lights Shine in Our Closets?
Since it is Sunday, I thought I would do a religious post. I'm mainly going to pose a question and see if anyone has some good insights on the matter.
For the last few years now, I have struggled to reconcile a couple of verses of scripture, both of which are in the Sermon on the Mount. In Matthew 5:14-16, it reads "Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works, and glorify your Fahter which is in heaven." But in Matthew 6:1-2 , it says "Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven. Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, they have their reward."
Its hard for me to reconcile these scriptures. I started thinking about this a few years ago when I was reading a Conference talk and one of the Brethren (Elder Holland, I think) said something about how when we are parents we should be conspicuous in practicing the gospel in order to teach our children by example. This struck me as odd because I had always focused on the instruction to not do your alms before men (yes, I recognzie the irony of me taking about how I don't like 'doing alms before men' in this public forum). Making sure that someone sees you doing a good act, even if it is your children, seemed odd to me.
I can now see how it is probably good to be conspicuous in your gospel practice, especially around your young children, so that they can see how gospel principles are applied in real life. But what about outside the family context? How can we follow the commandment to be good examples? To to hold up a candle or to set a city on a hill implies, I think, some degree of publicizing, which strikes me as odd. Maybe "alms" can be defined narrowly to only include religious rites like baptism, the sacrament, or prayer and not more general acts like honesty, kindness, and charity. But the footnotes (the Greek translation) define "alms" more broadly: "righteousness, acts of religious devotion." Maybe the distinction is in your personal motivation: if you are are doing an act of kindness so that people will think that you are a kind person--i.e. your own personal glory--then that would be wrong. But if you did it to set a good example and to inspire people to be better--i.e. to glorify God--then maybe that is ok. But in practice, at least for me, that's a hard line to draw.
Anyway, those are just a few thoughts. Its been helpful to write them out, and I think its an intersting issue to think about. That's one of the reasons I started the blog. Comments are welcome.
For the last few years now, I have struggled to reconcile a couple of verses of scripture, both of which are in the Sermon on the Mount. In Matthew 5:14-16, it reads "Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works, and glorify your Fahter which is in heaven." But in Matthew 6:1-2 , it says "Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven. Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, they have their reward."
Its hard for me to reconcile these scriptures. I started thinking about this a few years ago when I was reading a Conference talk and one of the Brethren (Elder Holland, I think) said something about how when we are parents we should be conspicuous in practicing the gospel in order to teach our children by example. This struck me as odd because I had always focused on the instruction to not do your alms before men (yes, I recognzie the irony of me taking about how I don't like 'doing alms before men' in this public forum). Making sure that someone sees you doing a good act, even if it is your children, seemed odd to me.
I can now see how it is probably good to be conspicuous in your gospel practice, especially around your young children, so that they can see how gospel principles are applied in real life. But what about outside the family context? How can we follow the commandment to be good examples? To to hold up a candle or to set a city on a hill implies, I think, some degree of publicizing, which strikes me as odd. Maybe "alms" can be defined narrowly to only include religious rites like baptism, the sacrament, or prayer and not more general acts like honesty, kindness, and charity. But the footnotes (the Greek translation) define "alms" more broadly: "righteousness, acts of religious devotion." Maybe the distinction is in your personal motivation: if you are are doing an act of kindness so that people will think that you are a kind person--i.e. your own personal glory--then that would be wrong. But if you did it to set a good example and to inspire people to be better--i.e. to glorify God--then maybe that is ok. But in practice, at least for me, that's a hard line to draw.
Anyway, those are just a few thoughts. Its been helpful to write them out, and I think its an intersting issue to think about. That's one of the reasons I started the blog. Comments are welcome.
Saturday, March 18, 2006
Raptor Red
I recently became possessed of an exceptional piece of literature--Raptor Red. It is a work of fiction by a paleontologist (most notable for his discover of the very large Utahraptor) who consulted Spielberg et. al. during the filming of Jurassic Park.
Allow me to quote from the back cover: "'A pair of fierce but beautiful eyes look out from the undergrowth of conifers. She is an intelligent killer . . . .' So begins one of the most extraordinary novels you will ever read. The time is 120 million years ago, the place is the plains of prehistoric Utah, and the eyes belong to an unforgettable heroine. Her name is Raptor Red, and she is a female raptor dinosaur." As People magazine aptly said, "Michael Crichton may be a great storyteller, but he even wouldn't have the nerve to write a dinosaur novel told from the dino's point of view."
I was a little skeptical at first--I wasn't sure how good a book told from the perspective of a female velociraptor could be--but it got great reviews on Amazon. I think this just might be the best little known work or science fiction since The Accelerators (written by Jenny Carter of MWSBF's brother and which also received rave reviews on Amazon).
I will keep you updated, and you can all borrow it after I am done.
Allow me to quote from the back cover: "'A pair of fierce but beautiful eyes look out from the undergrowth of conifers. She is an intelligent killer . . . .' So begins one of the most extraordinary novels you will ever read. The time is 120 million years ago, the place is the plains of prehistoric Utah, and the eyes belong to an unforgettable heroine. Her name is Raptor Red, and she is a female raptor dinosaur." As People magazine aptly said, "Michael Crichton may be a great storyteller, but he even wouldn't have the nerve to write a dinosaur novel told from the dino's point of view."
I was a little skeptical at first--I wasn't sure how good a book told from the perspective of a female velociraptor could be--but it got great reviews on Amazon. I think this just might be the best little known work or science fiction since The Accelerators (written by Jenny Carter of MWSBF's brother and which also received rave reviews on Amazon).
I will keep you updated, and you can all borrow it after I am done.
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
March Madness, Baby
Its March Madness--one of my favorite times of the year. And, fortunately, this week is my spring break. I've been working a ton early on in the week, so that I can spend as much time as possible watching games. I just finished my bracket while watching the finale of Beauty & the Geek 2. I'm sure you don't want to see my whole bracket, so I'll just include a few highlights:
Final Four Picks:
Let the games begin.
Final Four Picks:
- Texas -- I wanted to pick West Virginia, but I don't think they can sneak up on people anymore;
- Gonzaga -- I know they're prone to choke, and I almost picked Kansas, but I think Adam Morrison and his handsome mustache will be clutch;
- UConn -- Can anyone beat them? Maybe Villanova;
- Villanova -- I really hope that guy's eye is ok. I'm sure that, even with a bad eye, they can get to the sweet sixteen, but the eye's going to have to be good for them to make it to the Final Four.
- Northwestern State over Iowa -- These guys played at Utah State for the Bracket Buster and gave Utah State all they could handle (which is very hard to do in the Spectrum)
- Utah State over Washington -- With Washington's small lineup, Nate Harris and Cass Matheus should do very well, and if J.C. Carroll's shot isn't bothered too much by Washington's athleticism (a big if), the Aggies should win
- Winthrop over Tennessee -- There's no way Tennessee is a 2 seed; they had an ok year in a bad SEC. And Winthrop has been tough in the tournament before
- UW-Wisconsin over Oklahoma -- They did it last year and should be able to beat a talented but inconsistent Oklahoma team
Let the games begin.
Monday, March 13, 2006
Movie Review: Millions
If any of you readers saw and liked Millions, please let me know why. I had heard that lots of people really liked this movie, and I'm baffled as to why. Yes, the little boy was cute, and it was funny how he knew all those facts about the saints, but I just felt like there was no coherent storyline. Why was the boy so set on helping the poor? Was he just kind-hearted? Was there some connection between loosing his mom and helping the poor? Did his mom do a lot of things to help the poor? I have no answers.
Also, the plot seemed to jump from one thing to another with no attempt at transition. It seemed like the boys were mentioning something about a nativity scene play and the next scene they were performing it and the bad guy was there to get them. The whole movie felt like that.
And the ending drove me crazy. It wasn't the ending itself--I actually liked the scene with the mother--it was the fact that it ended without explaining so many loose ends. Why were all those people showing up at the house? Was that just a "miracle"? What happened to the bad guy? Did he get caught? And what was that scene where the cardboard box took them to Africa? Where did the fact that the cardboard box house was a rocket come from?
Finally, what was the point? The kid learned that money does nothing but cause problems, so he burned it. But then the last scene shows what good things money can do like building wells in Africa (that's another thing: why Africa? Does he have some connection to Africa?). There are conflicing messages and no attempt to reconcile them.
Anyway, I was mad that I watched it, but a lot of people, including lots of people who know more than me, really like it. So watch it if you want, but don't get your hopes up too much.
Also, the plot seemed to jump from one thing to another with no attempt at transition. It seemed like the boys were mentioning something about a nativity scene play and the next scene they were performing it and the bad guy was there to get them. The whole movie felt like that.
And the ending drove me crazy. It wasn't the ending itself--I actually liked the scene with the mother--it was the fact that it ended without explaining so many loose ends. Why were all those people showing up at the house? Was that just a "miracle"? What happened to the bad guy? Did he get caught? And what was that scene where the cardboard box took them to Africa? Where did the fact that the cardboard box house was a rocket come from?
Finally, what was the point? The kid learned that money does nothing but cause problems, so he burned it. But then the last scene shows what good things money can do like building wells in Africa (that's another thing: why Africa? Does he have some connection to Africa?). There are conflicing messages and no attempt to reconcile them.
Anyway, I was mad that I watched it, but a lot of people, including lots of people who know more than me, really like it. So watch it if you want, but don't get your hopes up too much.
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
It's a Girl
Katie is participating in some study for first time mothers at LDS Hospital, and one of the incentives they give you, along with a few Target gift cards, is a few free ultrasounds. We went this morning and got a great ultrasound tech (or whatever they are called), and we were able to see clearly that our baby is a girl. Katie and I are way pumped. It seems more real now that we can refer to her as a "she," rather than an "it." Now we are really going to have to start thinking of some names.
I have attached a few pictures of the ultrasound. We don't have a scanner, so I just took pictures of the printouts with our camera. One is a side shot, where you can see one hand up by her face and the other up around her head; the other is a top shot, showing the top of her head and her arm. She is really cute. I think she has my perfect bone structure.
Monday, March 06, 2006
Meeting Baby Owen
I met my first nephew this weekend--baby Owen. He is very cute and very good. He slept most of the time and hardly ever cried (although I can't vouch for how much he sleeps or cries at night). Just about our whole family went down to St. George this weekend, and we all had a lot of fun.
It was especially fun knowing that I would soon be a parent as well. It made me notice a few things about babies that I hadn't before. For example, from the moment they are born, they dictate everything (I had been told this before, but knowing that it was coming at me fast made it more of a reality). Your whole schedule and everything you do revolves around that little babe. I have, therefore, created a list of (selfish) things that I want to do before we have a little dictator of our own.
Finally, I'm sorry I don't have a picture of me being a doting uncle. Our camera was temporarily displaced, so we couldn't bring it down to St. George. The good news is that we found the camera this morning.
It was especially fun knowing that I would soon be a parent as well. It made me notice a few things about babies that I hadn't before. For example, from the moment they are born, they dictate everything (I had been told this before, but knowing that it was coming at me fast made it more of a reality). Your whole schedule and everything you do revolves around that little babe. I have, therefore, created a list of (selfish) things that I want to do before we have a little dictator of our own.
- Get home from work/school and decide, on a whim, to go out to dinner
- Go on lots of walks with Katie
- Spend lots of time outside the house
- On a whim, go on a weekend getaway to the country (which will probably be the cabin at Alta)
- Enjoy being able to go somewhere with only having to dress myself
- Enjoy being able to do what I want when I want.
Finally, I'm sorry I don't have a picture of me being a doting uncle. Our camera was temporarily displaced, so we couldn't bring it down to St. George. The good news is that we found the camera this morning.
Friday, March 03, 2006
Maiden Voyage
Ah, my maiden voyage in to the blogosphere . . .
A number of different things have been the impetus for this mementos occasion. First was probably all the jokes I made every Wednesday before, during, and after our screening of Lost downstairs with Cblakes and Emily. Without fail, I would make some lame variation on the joke about logging onto the blogosphere to explore the various conspiracy theories surrounding the show. Then my friend Rob went off to Spain and Cblakes and I joked that he should create a blog about his trip. It was all fun and games until my dad registered the family for a .mac account, which provides space on a remote access disk (the iDisk) for the sharing of files and for the hosting of blogs and web pages. Then Rob really did create a blog (see http://robbiespain.myblog.com). I began exploring what .mac had to offer and researched the applications and upgrades available in iLife ‘06. The possibility of being able to easily create a family web site and blog with iWeb was just too tempting, especially considering the fact that Katie is with child. I just had to have a cool, electronic medium for showing off my sure-to-be adorable offspring (after all, I did convince Katie to let me get my PowerBook by saying that it would be like a high-powered, digital scrapbooking machine). So here I am. Enjoy.
A number of different things have been the impetus for this mementos occasion. First was probably all the jokes I made every Wednesday before, during, and after our screening of Lost downstairs with Cblakes and Emily. Without fail, I would make some lame variation on the joke about logging onto the blogosphere to explore the various conspiracy theories surrounding the show. Then my friend Rob went off to Spain and Cblakes and I joked that he should create a blog about his trip. It was all fun and games until my dad registered the family for a .mac account, which provides space on a remote access disk (the iDisk) for the sharing of files and for the hosting of blogs and web pages. Then Rob really did create a blog (see http://robbiespain.myblog.com). I began exploring what .mac had to offer and researched the applications and upgrades available in iLife ‘06. The possibility of being able to easily create a family web site and blog with iWeb was just too tempting, especially considering the fact that Katie is with child. I just had to have a cool, electronic medium for showing off my sure-to-be adorable offspring (after all, I did convince Katie to let me get my PowerBook by saying that it would be like a high-powered, digital scrapbooking machine). So here I am. Enjoy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)