The Need for Immigration

Extremely interesting article in the April National Geographic about population. Some really excellent data, and thought provoking looks at two countries on opposite ends of the population paradox, Nigeria and China.

For those who may have missed it, Earth is now home to over 8 billion people, that mark having been reached sometime late last year. A remarkable number, considering that our planet's population was around 3.5 billion inhabitants 65 years ago when there were many who thought that we were approaching the limits of being able to feed and shelter our ever expanding global population. Fortunately, advances in agriculture created a "green" revolution that not only countered the more than doubling of our planetary population, but combined with medical and technological advances, increased longevity as well.

Another item you may have missed is that India overtook China as the most populous country on Earth. As the specific piece on China explains, the lowering fertility rate for China as well as the one child policy enacted in the 19070's has resulted in, not only a birth rate below replenishment levels, but a population that is aging dramatically. There are some who are predicting that China's window of opportunity to realize its goal of being the world's greatest economic power, may be closing,  simply because it may not be able to handle all the problems that are associated with having too few workers to support too many elderly folks.

On the other side of the coin, as is true for most of sub-Sahara Africa, Nigeria's population continues to explode, with some predicting that it will become the third most populous country, supplanting the US, in 25 years, or less. Whether Nigeria can feed its burgeoning population is still in doubt, as they already import a huge amount of food as it is.

Is the Big Blue Marble on the verge of reaching peak population during this century, perhaps at just shy of 10 billion? It is a rather bold prediction when one considers that it took humanity all of history up until the first decade of the 1800's to reach 1 billion people, then another 125 years to get to 2 billion, and 32 years or so to reach 3 billion. At that point, we added another billion people in 15 years, and another billion every 12 years since, excluding the 14 years it just took us to reach 8 billion. 

Yet, there is evidence that the arc that tracks our growing population since the early 20th century is getting a bit flatter, more gradual. And, for countries in what many call the industrialized, western world, declining birth rates are already apparent. Italy and Japan are the most extreme examples of this trend, but one of the graphs in the article which depicts fertility rate by country, starkly illustrates that Europe, North America, most of South America, Australia, Russia, and even India and China all have birth rates below replacement levels. Only Africa, parts of Central America and South America, parts of Asia and Indonesia and the Middle East have fertility rates above 2.1 (the replacement rate), and only sub Sahara Africa still has rates above 4. If we assume that as their economies improve, as education levels increase, as access to birth control and family planning methods become more widespread, and, if the migration from rural to cities happens at a pace similar to what has happened everywhere else in the world, even those countries may drop back closer to replacement levels in another half a century.

So, is this a problem?

Some say, considering how strained earth's resources are, or more precisely, how unbalanced the distribution of its resources are, it may be a good thing if population growth eases. Perhaps, once a leveling off occurs, and we address the inequities, a new pattern of growth can emerge, but one where we don't need poorer and low resource countries to encourage 4 or more births per woman knowing that high infant mortality rates will impact that number. Can you imagine, a world where every birth is desired, every life can have some confidence that ample opportunity for attaining the basics of clean water, ample food, shelter and economic opportunity will be provided?

Which, sorry for the delay, brings us to Immigration.

One of the major reasons that a country like China may struggle to maintain its population of workers to support its aging population, is its restrictive immigration policies, both cultural and governmental. Conversely, one of the major advantages that the United States has, is its historically liberal immigration policies, and cultural identity of valuing the melting pot theory label. 

Of course, we have been far from perfect in this area, having enacted many different immigration quotas which restricted targeted foreign populations from coming to America. But, in general, and certainly when compared to most nations, America has been proud to welcome those seeking freedom and economic opportunity. Hey, we even have a statue in New York Harbor which greeted the millions of immigrants who came to our shores in the late 19th and early 20th century. See my ode to Lady Liberty below.  

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2015/09/immigration-and-statue-of-liberty.html

Yet, there are those in America today who want to piss away this advantage. Who believe that those who seek refuge from despotic or autocratic regimes, who yearn for freedoms that their birth nations are unable to provide, who prefer to jettison all that they know in terms of culture, traditions, even family and friends to come to America, are not worth having, not worth giving the benefit of the doubt to just as our ancestors were given 100 years ago. 

Its not like we don't have a worker shortage in America, don't face uncertainty in how we are going to pay for our own aging population. A new approach to immigration, one that combines a realization that, while some who come across our borders do so with evil intent, the vast majority come as our ancestors did, looking for a better world for their families. We have the tradition, we just need to silence today's xenophobes, those who cannot see past race and nationality variances. 

I have posted a number of thoughts on this topic in the past. Here are links to 2 of them.  

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2015/03/immigration.html

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2014/11/immigration.html

I would like to think that if the American people were asked to vote on a new immigration policy, yes or no, the following would pass.

1. Immediate citizenship for those brought illegally as children. I truly don't understand those who prefer to punish children for the sins of their parents, especially when so many of them often state that they should not be punished for the racist policies of their forefathers.

2. A non-judgmental registration process for all illegals which would provide those who comply with path to citizenship which might include military service, or an employment status of 5 years or more, or a clean police record, or any other idea that may come to mind that can be included which proves worthiness. 

3. A more equitable disbursement of those who come across the border so that the southern states are not bearing all the short term expenses. 

4. A commitment to addressing the security concerns of the southern states through better border security and more efficient methods of identifying those who are of criminal intent.

Of course, the devil is in the details, and that is fine. A true reformation of our immigration policies will take some time, but without a consensus as to our direction, it will continue to be a disaster, for those seeking to come here, those already here without documentation, and all of us who can see it isn't working.

And, it will take compromise. But to think that there is not a middle path between an open border and dehumanizing everyone who approaches our southern border, is not only sad, it is a negative reflection of our belief in our ability to solve problems. America is as diverse a country as there is today, possible as diverse as has ever been in history. If diversity is part of the strength that has made us great, why would we not continue to embrace it as a way to forge a better future?

Finally, a link to a story I wrote over 10 years ago in an attempt to convey that yesterday's prejudices always seem petty to us, just as today's prejudices will seem petty to future generations.   

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2012/04/debate.html

Would Mr Rodgers Neighborhood be Too Woke Today?

I recently heard that Twitter labelled NPR as a state affiliated news organization, reflecting, apparently an inability for Elon Musk to google NPR's funding details. I say apparently, because when I did it, I found that less than 1% of the funding for NPR comes from the federal government, information that took me, literally, seconds to discover. Soon after that designation was made, Twitter altered the label to "government subsidized" which is at least technically true, but still very misleading. As a result, NPR, and then PBS, announced they would stop using their accounts on Twitter. I imagine that Musk doesn't mind receiving millions of federal dollars to help him with his businesses, and to help his customers buy his products, but I wonder how he would feel being called a government affiliated or subsidized business?

Anyway, I bring this up because it dawned on me after reading this latest silliness from Musk, that if Mr Rogers Neighborhood, which was a staple for PBS and watched for more than 30 years by multiple generations of children might be too woke today.

Full disclosure, I was not a fan of Fred Rogers' show. I referred to him as Mr Vomit Man, because he seemed too nice, too caring, too sappy, perhaps even a bit fake. Of course, I was a teenager when I first saw his show, watched by my siblings. The fact that I was not the target audience for The Neighborhood, or even for Sesame Street for that matter, didn't mean much to me then, but during the mid to late 90's when my children were young, I realized how valuable, how positive, both these shows and Public Broadcasting was for their impressionable minds. 

One of my wife's favorite stories about our son, JW, was that one day he came into the kitchen and told my wife that the TV was broken. Nora hurried into the living room to see what was wrong, but there seemed to be nothing amiss. The TV was on, the picture and sound were working fine. What was JW referring to?

Nora had changed the channel from PBS to a regular station, most likely because the PBS children's shows were over. JW thought the TV was broken because those other channels which also broadcast children's shows, had commercials. It was these interruptions that he was not accustomed to, these ads for cereal and toys, etc that did not appear on PBS. The actual content was replaced by a commercial, so he thought something was wrong.

It is for that reason alone, no commercials for useless items, that federal support, even at a minimum, is important. In a sea of advertising the latest and greatest everything, having one channel that does not indoctrinate our children into the morass of consumerism seems lost on those that continue the call to defund these necessary organizations. 

But I digress.

Fred Rogers, as the vast majority of people who watched his show with their children can attest, was the real deal. He truly believed that all people were special, especially all children. He didn't just believe in helping children understand the changing world around them, and their own changing minds and bodies, but felt it was critical to provide them with a safe neighborhood to be their true selves. 

Many people probably don't remember this, I certainly didn't nor had I read about it before today, but during an episode in 1969, Fred Rogers invited a local police officer, who was black, to dip his feet in a pool, thereby sharing that pool with the man. Believe it or not, this was pretty controversial back then, scandalous even to some self described religious people. Remember, white only public swimming pools, drinking fountains, food service counters, might have been officially abolished by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but reality didn't always match the law, and in those days, the media outlets were owned and controlled by rich, white men, so mixing the races, even just their toes, was a big deal. 

I provided this example, because, while I can't prove it, Fred Rogers having passed away 20 year ago, I feel comfortable in saying that he would have addressed head on the issues of inclusion, equity and diversity that have so many insecure adults foaming at the mouth. His neighborhood of 50 years ago was inclusive, so I have no doubt it would be so today. 

I know it might sound ridiculous to some, but I have no doubt that once Fred Rogers invited RuPaul on his show, to read, or count, or just have a laugh with the children, he would have been attacked by the religious right and the self imposed arbiters of morality. Yes, I believe that one of our most beloved children's TV pioneers, recipient of the 2002 Presidential Medal of Freedom, were he alive today, still advocating for a safe place for children, still including equal representation on his show, would be a target for the nonsense we see about being 'woke'. Fred Rogers was woke before it was a thing, and, I believe, would be proudly woke today.

Which brings me to the Bud Light controversy. As I understand it, the Anheuser-Busch organization sent a commemorative beer can (or cans) to Dana Mulvany, a transgender woman who had posted that she had just celebrated 1 year of being a woman. As Mulvany is one of the thousands of "influencers" who have followers on TikTok, etc, the venerable beverage company thought it might be a good idea to work with her, as a way to expand their market presence, given that since the advent of the IPA and craft beer industry, Budweiser and Bud Light have lost some market share, especially in America. So, while Budweiser products are still the most consumed in the world, it is foreign drinkers who have kept it at the top, not American.

Clearly though, as the backlash to this decision expands and reverberates throughout the beer drinking world, as other influencers produce their own videos and clips of them shooting up cases of beer, or vowing to never drink a bud again, and as some tavern and bar owners pull Bud Light to avoid altercations between their employees and patrons, and among their patrons as well, it begs the question, do these irate Bud Light drinkers really hate transgender people, or are they afraid to drink a beer that a transgender person might drink, and risk being ridiculed by more "manly" beer drinking friends and relatives?

Is their manhood that fragile, that buying a beer that a transgender person might like makes them less masculine? 

It used to be that many beer drinkers thought men who drank wine were sissies. Of course, Bud Light was considered a sissy beer by many manly men 20 years ago, what man cares about calories, right?, but that seems lost on these outraged customers.

My wife commonly calls beer like Bud Light, Miller Light, actually most American beers, weasel piss. I famously say that she likes her beer chewy, meaning with lots of flavor, even heavy.  Stouts were her beer of choice. So, to her, while men were free to drink Bud Light, she didn't think much of their choice. Put it this way, when we were in Ireland she had a Guinness virtually every night.

Would Nora shoot up some cases of Guinness if they associated with a transgender person in hopes of expanding their market? Undoubtedly not, since she does not live in fear that someone will judge her manliness by the beer she drinks. 

Think about it. Some men are upset about their beer of choice, Bud Light, being associated with a transgender person. Perhaps they should reevaluate their opinion about what makes a beer 'manly', or what makes a man manly, for that matter.

 

Eighty for Brady

I watched a movie called 80 For Brady a few days ago. While it was a fairly light movie, humorous, and even a bit sappy, I thought it interesting on a couple of fronts.

First, other than Tom Brady and some other football players, the main characters were all octogenarians (except for one) on screen and in real life, and the 4 main characters were all women. While there have been more films with older women lately, there are far less than those with older men.  Hollywood has long had a problem with portraying mature women in rolls other than as suffering some type of debilitating disease, physical and mental, while roles for older men, while sometimes acknowledging their age, often pursue themes that are meant to counter the perceived limitations of older men, sometimes even portraying them with surprising (to the antagonists of the movie) physical and mental abilities.

For this film, Lily Tomlin, Rita Moreno, Sally Fields, and Jane Fonda, are presented through the lens of issues that older women face, loss of husband, less energy, past and current sickness, but are also accorded traits that are not associated with the elderly. Fonda's character still falls in love too fast, Moreno's character is a poker wiz, Fields' character can win a buffalo wing eating contest featuring very hot sauces. And they can all still dance. 

But this is not to say they are super women. Fields' character loses the Super Bowl tickets, Tomlin's character fears calling her doctor for test results for fear of hearing a cancer diagnosis, and all 4 women party like there's no tomorrow the night before the big game, but struggle to get moving the next morning. They are still elderly, just not decrepit.

One of the side stories of the flick is that it is clear that Sally Fields' character has tolerated a bias in her chosen field, has settled for the accolades that women are sometimes granted by men in a male-dominated field, is clearly the smarter and more confident of the two, her husband and herself, but has accepted the slights, has worked in the background even though she could have done more. 

I imagine it reflects the experience of a multitude of generations of women, especially in the 20th century when women were finally allowed to seek advanced degrees and attend the better colleges, yet still were denied opportunities in the work world. When I think of all the wasted energy, lost ideas and accomplishments that didn't happen because of men's insecurity and arrogance, it is heartbreaking.  Our society has advanced in a big way, but still not far enough.

Full disclosure, as a Philadelphia Eagles fan, the New England Patriots are not a team I cheer for, especially considering how they cheated us out of a Super Bowl win in 2004. But I do admire Tom Brady, must grudgingly accept that he is, if not the greatest, certainly one of the greatest football quarterbacks in history. That being said, his role in this movie did enhance my admiration a bit, even if just from the standpoint that, for all we actually know about the person, Tom Brady, we do know that he believes in the power of positive thinking.

It is this power, this never say die attitude, that propelled Brady from a 6th round afterthought draft pick to being thrust into the quarterback job due to an injury to the starter, to winning the Super Bowl in his first year, which is when the women began following football one Sunday afternoon when their remote stopped working. 

It is also this positive thinking that helped the Tomlin character battle and push back her cancer scare in the years following that fateful Sunday. And finally, it is this keep fighting frame of mind that proves pivotal in the end of the story.

For those of you who do not follow football, Super Bowl 51 between New England and Atlanta was a blowout for the first half and by the middle of the 3rd quarter, Atlanta led by 25 points. It is then that the ladies broke into the coordinator's box and Tomlin gave Brady the inspirational speech that propelled the Pats to the greatest comeback in Super Bowl history, and an eventual win in overtime.

Now, of course, that is the Hollywood version as depicted by the movie, but a true story in terms of the game. Afterwards, in the celebration of the locker room, Brady thanks the Tomlin character for her words, but also conveys his admiration for her, as she had included parts of her story, her cancer story to him and how she had faced adversity head on, just as he always did on the field. Brady, in the movie, knew that her battle, her real life battle against cancer, was far more important than winning a game, even the Super Bowl.

And that is the rub. We all know that it is the real life battles against disease, depression, sudden loss of family, and even the daily ups and downs that are the most important parts of life, yet we continue to funnel far more money towards sports and entertainment, and not enough towards education, medical research and better health outcomes. 

The end of the movie teases you at first, into thinking that the Tomlin character may have passed when the film resumes 3 years after that Super Bowl comeback, but prefers a truly happy ending where all the women are still together.

Would I have preferred a sad ending where the 3 women still watch football together without their fourth friend? Perhaps, since that is the reality of aging friendships. Positive thinking should never be diminished in its power to keep us active, alive, vibrant, but should not be misconstrued as a panacea for death.

Like all inspiring movies, 80 for Brady teaches us that material possessions, athletic fame, even success in one's chosen field should be the icing on the cake, not the cake itself.  We are presented with this lesson over and over again, yet still spend far too much of our time seeking transient rewards, and anguishing over who has the most and better toys.

Great athletes, great athletic feats are fun to watch. Someone who goes through chemo for a year, loses her hair, struggles to accomplish everyday activities is far less fun, but far more impressive. It is in the shadows of the everyday battles that occur in our homes and hospitals and treatment centers that real determination is demonstrated and it is there that real inspiration can be found.

        

Accountability, Finally?

Before beginning this post, I thought it prudent to read some that I had written about then president, now ex-president Trump. It was a not so happy stroll down memory lane but important in that it provided some perspective for me before continuing this post.

First, I found a reference to Michael Cohen in one of the posts, which made me smile. Partly because I said some not so nice things about the ex-fixer, someone who was one of Trump's personal lawyers for over a decade in addition to being one of the Vice Presidents of Trump Organization, a curious fact to consider when you hear Trump apologists accusing Cohen of being a liar (he was convicted of lying on behalf of his employer), and bad person. Was Trump that bad at evaluating his employees that it took 12 years to figure out Cohen was willing to do anything for money? Or was it just that Trump was the  perfect employer for such behavior. (I truly hope Michael Cohen is able to reverse his karma, but sometimes a few moments of truth telling isn't enough to counter balance decades of cheating and lying).

I also found a reference to Trump's use of the Fox Network to spread his lies about, to name just a few, Obama's birth place, election fraud, the danger of mail-in ballots, the deep state, his business acumen, his business dealings with Russia and China...

What makes me note this reference is the fact that Fox is being sued by Dominion for their repeated airing of lies about the integrity of Dominion's voting machines, a fact that Fox viewers won't see covered on Fox news and opinion shows. Obviously, we need to make sure that the First Amendment's protections for freedom of speech, especially for the "fourth" estate, remain strong, but for those who want to dismiss this suit as a threat to those protections, it might be better to consider that the first amendment is only strong when it can be used to determine when truth and the sincere search for truth are protected, not when the pursuit of the "green" as Rupert Murdoch testified, is the goal of speech via a news show. (Most people already forget that in the Smartmatic lawsuit against Fox, part of Fox's defense was their claim that their hosts were merely part of their entertainment staff, and that their opinions should not be considered news.)  

Anyway, for today's post, I would like to offer the opinion that, while accountability may finally be beginning for the ex-president, and that whatever transpires as a result of the Manhattan DA's case, it is the much more important indictments that should follow when the Georgia Attorney General reveals that grand jury's recommendations, and when Jack Smith's dual investigations, the classified document  and insurrection investigations, which will account for the real accountability that all who love American democracy are hoping.

What is truly amazing is that even now, as recently as the Waco rally last weekend, Trump still lies about the election, still claims he won "by a landslide", still continues to sow doubt in our democratic system of government, all because he is the epitome of a sore loser.

But my bigger point is this. I believe with all my being that no one wants Donald Trump to be indicted more than politicians like Ron Desantis, Lindsay Graham, Mitch McConnell, and perhaps even Kevin McCarthy, and certainly Rupert Murdoch. They all know that Trump is full of s**t, is a scourge on the american political scene and has no compulsion about taking down the GOP, not to mention America itself, but are too afraid, too cowardly to take him on directly. They need him gone, but need to show allegiance in their outrage at current and forthcoming indictments, because they need his base, his MAGA followers to maintain power. 

Desantis especially, is the most desperate for Trump to be removed from the political scene. He is already telling deep pocketed donors (behind closed doors of course) that he is Trump without the baggage, but doesn't have the guts to call him out in public because he needs the MAGA base. 

In public he declares he won't cooperate with an extradition order, should it come to that, but in private he is hoping like a 4 year old on Christmas eve, that Santa brings enough serious charges against Trump that he can't run again. 

But Desantis and McConnell and McCarthy and Murdoch are wrong on two fronts.  

First, The Donald will never quit, indictments or not, and second, his cult will never switch their allegiance to any of them. As my wife often says, Frankenstein has been loosed, and there is no bringing him back. It is only the grim reaper who will end Trump's assault on our democracy, and even then, those who have truly gone down the rabbit hole, will believe Trump is just biding his time somewhere on the sly waiting for the right moment to rise again.

They say that only death and taxes are certain. Well, he cheats on his taxes, and while, he won't cheat death, he will live on in the dark recesses of the internet for quite a while after he shuffles off this mortal coil.

No, I am not advocating for someone to take his life. At this point, I find myself toggling between sorrow and pity for the man. He is sick, perhaps not in the head, but certainly in the heart. He has tasted the power of the presidency, and the assumed power that Trump believes places him about the law, and is now obsessed with regaining it, through whatever means. 

But yes, I am also afraid of him and his hold on the millions of his followers. We know he is not opposed to calling for violence in his name, and we know, as he once proudly stated, the people with guns like him. Chaos is his biggest weapon, a chaos that strikes fear in those in the GOP that know better, but lack the courage to face his wrath. 

I titled this post, Accountability Finally?, not because I think it is imminent but because I don't actually think it is coming, hence the question mark. Donald Trump will never be held to account, not because I don't think he won't be indicted, but because he will simply never acknowledge it. 

He doesn't acknowledge his loss in the 2020 presidential election, he won't acknowledge the right for him to be put on trial, and he won't acknowledge his loss in the presidential election in 2024. And sadly, neither will the members of his MAGA cult.

Here are links to the 4 posts I read before posting today in chronological order of their posting.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2019/05/dear-president-trump.html

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2020/07/dear-mr-trump.html

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2021/01/fake-newsreal-facts.html

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2021/01/one-last-call-for-trump-to-resign.html