Saturday, May 17, 2008
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Letter to WSJ on their illegal immigration stand
Chicago IL Friday AM, May 30, 2008
WSJ editors
Gentlepeople:
The second sentence of the third paragraph of your Thursday, May 29 editorial 'The Menendez Method' reads: "No one wants to reward lawbreaking." Guess the first word of the next sentence. A hint, this is a Wall Street Journal editorial, so it's obviously "But", followed by the usual contortions trying to explain that there are laws, certainly, that should not be broken, but then there's those silly immigration laws, and if they threaten in any way guaranteeing a permanent class of perpetually bent-backed, low paid, agricultural workers, then so be it.
Why, if they were enforced, "growers will continue to move operations south of the border if they can't find labor in the U.S. at a price that allows growers to stay competitive."
Remember what happened to the US banana growers? Remember when red raspberries were in the store for only two weeks in June? Then better shipping techniques allowed them to be supplied near-year-round from Chile. It used to take a busload of (short) school kids to pick enough blueberries for a couple bowls of cereal and milk, now the grower calls up a guy who shows up in two days with a single machine, and whoosh, truckloads of crated blueberries.
When I read you spout this illegal immigration fetish, I can't believe I'm reading a top newspaper like the Journal. But the immediately preceding editorial starts out: "New Jersey is about the last place one might think to look for free- market policy reform," and before that: "Republicans in Congress may be out of gas, but that doesn't mean conservative ideas aren't percolating elsewhere...." page after clear thinking page of solid conservative positions.
But no, a yelp from a single southwestern lettuce grower threatening to move out if he doesn't get coolie-priced labor, and the WSJ editorial board is back in its illegal immigration fetal position. Grow up!
Arnold H. Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive B-8 Chicago IL 60640
WSJ editors
Gentlepeople:
The second sentence of the third paragraph of your Thursday, May 29 editorial 'The Menendez Method' reads: "No one wants to reward lawbreaking." Guess the first word of the next sentence. A hint, this is a Wall Street Journal editorial, so it's obviously "But", followed by the usual contortions trying to explain that there are laws, certainly, that should not be broken, but then there's those silly immigration laws, and if they threaten in any way guaranteeing a permanent class of perpetually bent-backed, low paid, agricultural workers, then so be it.
Why, if they were enforced, "growers will continue to move operations south of the border if they can't find labor in the U.S. at a price that allows growers to stay competitive."
Remember what happened to the US banana growers? Remember when red raspberries were in the store for only two weeks in June? Then better shipping techniques allowed them to be supplied near-year-round from Chile. It used to take a busload of (short) school kids to pick enough blueberries for a couple bowls of cereal and milk, now the grower calls up a guy who shows up in two days with a single machine, and whoosh, truckloads of crated blueberries.
When I read you spout this illegal immigration fetish, I can't believe I'm reading a top newspaper like the Journal. But the immediately preceding editorial starts out: "New Jersey is about the last place one might think to look for free- market policy reform," and before that: "Republicans in Congress may be out of gas, but that doesn't mean conservative ideas aren't percolating elsewhere...." page after clear thinking page of solid conservative positions.
But no, a yelp from a single southwestern lettuce grower threatening to move out if he doesn't get coolie-priced labor, and the WSJ editorial board is back in its illegal immigration fetal position. Grow up!
Arnold H. Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive B-8 Chicago IL 60640
Saturday, May 3, 2008
Chicago IL Saturday PM, May 3, 2008
WSJ editors
Gentlepeople:
William Tucker's Friday, May 2 'Notable and Quotable' makes a surprisingly rarely heard, but most significant point about the vast amounts of land required by the allegedly "clean, renewable, and sustainable" so-called 'green' energy sources.
An even more significant point can be made by considering that land is a two-dimensional space, and at that only 30 per cent of the earth's surface not covered by water.
Oil, on the other hand, comes from a 3-dimensional space, a space under every square inch of the earth's surface. And with all the exploration that's been done for oil, it has been significantly limited to places where it could be economically extracted, which at this time doesn't include a very major part of the 70% of the earth's surface covered by water. Add to that the constant redefinition of the economics of oil extraction by ever improving technology, and the green arguments become even less realistic. And continuing study of abiotic sources of oil (as discussed in some detail by David J. Bardin in an article "What if Methane's Inexhaustible?" in the Thursday, January 26, 1984 Wall Street Journal) make the greenies' positions yet more precarious.
Arnold H. Nelson5056 North Marine Drive B-8 Chicago IL 60640773-677-3010 ah_nelson@yahoo.com
WSJ editors
Gentlepeople:
William Tucker's Friday, May 2 'Notable and Quotable' makes a surprisingly rarely heard, but most significant point about the vast amounts of land required by the allegedly "clean, renewable, and sustainable" so-called 'green' energy sources.
An even more significant point can be made by considering that land is a two-dimensional space, and at that only 30 per cent of the earth's surface not covered by water.
Oil, on the other hand, comes from a 3-dimensional space, a space under every square inch of the earth's surface. And with all the exploration that's been done for oil, it has been significantly limited to places where it could be economically extracted, which at this time doesn't include a very major part of the 70% of the earth's surface covered by water. Add to that the constant redefinition of the economics of oil extraction by ever improving technology, and the green arguments become even less realistic. And continuing study of abiotic sources of oil (as discussed in some detail by David J. Bardin in an article "What if Methane's Inexhaustible?" in the Thursday, January 26, 1984 Wall Street Journal) make the greenies' positions yet more precarious.
Arnold H. Nelson5056 North Marine Drive B-8 Chicago IL 60640773-677-3010 ah_nelson@yahoo.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
