Aside from the offensiveness (to U.S. sensibilities, anyhow) of choosing May Day for the silly boycott/walkout, I don’t know that it’ll have a lot of effect on the economy.  There might be some spotty disruptions in some businesses if they rely heavily on illegals. 

As for the boycott, I just don’t see it having much effect.  At its core, it misfires by looking only at the numbers regarding the estimated purchasing power of illegals.  In order to have any effect whatsoever, it would pretty much require all the illegals to go home* (hmm…. maybe we can convince them it would be a form of protest ).  Consider the average household.  There are certain household expenses that you just can’t make go away.  Everyone has to eat (grocery expenses).  The ones who work have to get to and from work (transportation).  The kids need clothes, shoes, etc.  So even if the household makes a decision to purchase nothing on May 1st, it doesn’t change their overall consumption.  The effect of the boycott is simply to shift the spending to another day (heck, most people buy groceries at least weekly, rather than daily, so the only change that might happen is that they go to the store on Sunday or Tuesday instead of Monday). 

While some retailers might notice a slight hit in their daily numbers, the weekly sales are likely to be just the same as always, since the lack of sales on Monday will be offset on some other day.  This is the same reason why one-day boycotts of gas don’t work, either.  Unless you can convince the entire country to stay home for one day and not use any fuel, then the fuel purchase simply gets shifted from the day of the boycott to some other day.  The sellers end up with the same sales at the end of the week.

That said, should the work disruptions cause any sort of widespread problems, I would expect the whole thing to backfire on the organizers.  Instead of bringing the undecided over to their cause, the disruptions would only serve to foster a negative perception, which (even if not consciously) an undecided person will take with them from this point forward.

* It occurs to me that in some more insular communities that some people might choose to frequent only their local merchants on the idea that keeping it in “the community” will send a message.  The problem with this is that it’s not likely to be sustainable.  First, these local, small merchants typically have higher prices.  There is only so much economic sacrifice that the average family is going to put up with, especially if their income is low enough to be sensitive to small differences in price.  Eventually, these people will be back at Wal-Mart or whatever other big retailer has the best price.  Second, these small local merchants typically don’t have the selection of merchandise that people are seeking.  Once again, this will drive them back out to the Wal-Mart and back into the malls.

So I see that some pinhead (or pinheads, as may be) has decided to create a Spanish version of The Star Spangled Banner.  If there was one song that should not have ever been translated, that’s the one.  There is absolutely no way to do it justice in another language, as the idiom and feel would be lost.

However, that said, if these idiots had confined themselves to simply trying to translate the words into Spanish for the sake of helping those in other countries to understand it, I probably wouldn’t care much.  But no, they couldn’t contain themselves, and they just had to change the music to make it more “accessible” somehow.  Then you add in the fact they called it “Nuestro Himno” and I begin to see red.

What a load of bollocks!  In terms of offensiveness, this one comes in just behind flying the U.S. flag upside down and flying the damn Mexican flag in downtown Dallas.  If these people really wanted to be Americans they’d learn English and struggle to hit the notes with the rest of us.  In English!  Just as it was written.  This is just one more thing that confirms to me that these so-called “immigrants” really just want to bring their country here, rather than really becoming Americans (like real immigrants would).

Sometimes “gut” reactions may be unfair, but there’s no denying that they exist.  Something about the “thumbs-up” logo on the Vote Yes Committee website was bugging me.  I just figured it out.  The superposition of the bar code over the hand makes it look like the person has been branded with it.  That is a powerful and disturbing image for me because, unfortunately, it conjures up thoughts of RFID and privacy invasion.

It’s not rational or fair, but imagery is very important.  I’d advise losing the bar code.  I understand what they were trying to imply, but the actual impression that resonates with me is overwhelmingly negative.

Previous posts in this series:
Location O’ Doom
One Library Comment
So That’s How It’s Going To Be, Huh?
Democracy In Action
The Arrogance Is Mindboggling
Library ‘O Doom
The Library Thing

On Jim Carson’s site there’s an interesting comment from someone named Monty Snow about the argument for having a library in Town Center.

The Vote Yes Committee states categorically that libraries should be located in a retail environment. That’s debatable and there is a handy case in point. The Southlake library is located in Town Square, a lead-pipe cinch retail environment. Based on the Vote Yes Committee’s assertion, you would expect library attendance there to be higher per capita than Keller’s library located in a park next to a playground. Guess what? Based on the latest figures available from Texas Public Library Statistics, Southlake has 3 visits per capita. Keller has 6.98. So you can forget about the Town Center location increasing library attendance.

So it would appear, at least on a per capita comparison, that Southlake’s Town Square location is not driving increased usage.  Nor is it driving increased revenue, given the low utilization.  But that’s not exactly surprising, as this throwaway parenthetical bit from the same comment highlights:

You really should visit the Southlake library and see what can be done with 12000 square feet (if you can find a parking place, that is).  (Emphasis added)

That perfectly highlights my problem with Town Center.  I loathe it because it’s hard to get around.  It’s neither car-friendly nor pedestrian-friendly.  The drivers are maniacs, intersections have poor sightlines, and there is insufficient parking for the “strip” stores (i.e. everything besides Tom Thumb and Starbucks).  The only reason I go there is to visit the bank or for the occasional visit to Radio Shack.  And if I can find a reason to go elsewhere, I’ll do so (i.e. to the Chase branch on 377, since it has a drive-up ATM, which is more convenient than a walk-up ATM with only three regular parking spots out front). 

And then there’s Bear Creek raceway.  The speed limit may be 35MPH, but my visual speed comparator suggests that many drivers are moving in excess of 45MPH.  I’m given to understand that they’re hoping that existing parking near Town Hall will be sufficient for the new library.  Let’s hope they’re correct, as I’d hate to see someone killed trying to cross that street to get to the library.

Previous posts:
One Library Comment
So That’s How It’s Going To Be, Huh?
Democracy In Action
The Arrogance Is Mindboggling
Library ‘O Doom
The Library Thing

We keep hearing about the protests in favor of illegal immigration, but, as Kim notes, there are many more of us out here who are quietly stewing over the issue.  We’ve had about enough of it, and the protests are only serving to solidify our opposition to rewarding illegal immigrants.

I will refer back to something I wrote nearly two months ago about these so-called undocumented immigrants.

If one considers an “undocumented immigrant,” one is likely to conclude that this person somehow forgot to stop off at the office on the way into the country to pick up some papers.  It’s all just a formality.  It glosses over the fact that this person deliberately and knowlingly broke United States federal law by entering this country without permission.  It doesn’t matter now nice they are or how productive they are, they’re CRIMINALS.

Now, having said that, I understand that large parts of our economy rely on people willing to work for very low pay, and that most of these jobs are filled by illegals.  I’m not completely unsympathetic to people who are just seeking a better life for themselves and their families.  Regardless of that, though, we need to get a handle on this and establish a system that lets them come here to work while allowing us to control who crosses our border.  No one who breaks the law should be rewarded.  An “amnesty” program simply rewards people who have broken the law.

So, given that, here’s what I’d like to see:

• Real and meaningful fines/punishment for any employer who knowingly hires an illegal.
• Enforcement of the aforementioned fines.
• No amnesty.  Period.  End of frackin’ discussion.
• A well-documented guest worker program:
  • Issue an ID with real identifying information upon entry
  • Require periodic review of the guest credential (i.e. must have a job, no criminal activity, etc)
  • Require this ID for all “social services.”
• Immediate deportation of any illegal caught by law enforcement for any reason (none of this “sanctuary” crap).
• Anyone caught in the country illegally is put on a “do not enter” list, forbidden from ever participating in the guest worker program, and forbidden from becoming a legal citizen (except, perhaps, through the asylum process).

So, what do we do with all the illegal immigrants who are already here?  We learned in the 80’s that giving amnesty just encourages more illegal immigration.  But at the same time, it’s impractical to round up and deport 9 million people.  I think if we have a good guest worker program, combined with serious and meaningful enforcement of the law (i.e. permanent loss of guest worker privileges for illegals), we can make the climate such that being here legally is more rewarding that being here illegally.  It’s going to squeeze the current illegals at first, but if they are willing to go home and come right back, they’d be able to come in legally.  But frankly, it’s just intolerable that there is a whole class of people who think that it’s OK to break federal law.

Someone just reading the above would likely think me cruel.  They’d be wrong, but it’s easy to get that impression.  In actuality, if this was done right, it could improve the experience for many of the people who come here.  First, they’d have to be paid at least minimum wage.  Second, they would be full members of society, such that they wouldn’t have to be afraid to call the police when something happens to them.  In the end, their rights would be more protected than they are now.  And by showing themselves to be productive, law-abiding, members of society during their stay under the guest worker program, they would be better positioned to gain permanent citizenship should they desire to do so.

To be honest, this does bother me a little.  I don’t like government messing around in employment, and I always worry about any kind of government program that tracks people (i.e. any sort of meaningful identification document will likely require some sort of biometrics, like fingerprints, and a database to check validity of IDs).  But on the other hand, government does have a responsibility to secure the border, and I can’t think of many other ways to accomplish it.

Will this completely secure the border?  Not likely, especially while we continue the foolish War on (some) Drugs.  There’s no way to be 100% secure, but that isn’t reason to at least take some action on the issue.  There are other reasons, beyond just securing the border, to make illegal immigration difficult.

I guess when you get down to it, there are millions of people like me, who try our best to follow the law, no matter how asinine, obtuse, or silly we think it to be.  It is enraging to watch millions of people flaunt the law with impunity, when we know that any sort of infraction on our part will be met with swift punishment (even if we didn’t know about a particular law).  Either we’re all under the law or we’re all above it.  “Some animals are more equal than others” won’t fly.

Previous entries on this topic:
Not Clear On The Concept
Los Ilegales
Un-PC Musings

Proponents of the new Keller public library have put together a slick marketing campaign under the name “Vote Yes Committee.” 

Their primary talking point is that no tax increase is necessary to build the library.  That’s true to some extent, but as with all such claims, one must look beneath the surface to see what the future effects will be.  Consider this tidbit from their FAQ:

1. How much will the new library cost and what effect will it have on my taxes?
   • The new library is projected to cost $7.6 million.
   • The tax rate will not increase by building the new library. The financial forecast model shows no increase will be required in the current tax rate of 0.4431 per $100 of valuation.
   • Depending on Council priorities after the May election (emphasis added), resources will be available for completion of Rufe Snow Drive and building a $2.5 Million fire station in Hidden Lakes (including a million dollar fire truck).

I emphasized what I consider the weaseally part.  It’s certainly truthful, but it’s phrased in such a way as to hide the fact that critical infrastructure items may require a tax increase if we spend bond money on the library now.  So, what I want is someone from the city to definitively cut through the obfuscatory language and tell us flat out whether we can fund infrastructure items without a tax increase should we approve this discretionary item now.  If the answer is “no,” then that will be my answer on the library.  If “yes,” then I might consider the library, but I also want to know why we’ve been overtaxed.

Previous posts:
So That’s How It’s Going To Be, Huh?
Democracy In Action
The Arrogance Is Mindboggling
Library ‘O Doom
The Library Thing

I see in our latest Keller Citizen (3/24/06) that a new group is going to ask the city to build a tennis park.  Like with the previously proposed (and hopefully, dead) skate park, I am opposed to this on the general principle that it’s not the business of the city to be funding non-infrastructure items.  More importantly, where does it stop?  The taxpayers are not an unlimited ATM.  At a time when household budgets are under strain with energy costs and increased (and likely to increase again) school taxes, it’s simply unacceptable to be trying to suck more money out of us.

If people really want a tennis park, or a skate park, then let them raise the funds and build one.  From what I saw in the article, there’s actually already a private club with tennis courts available, although it needs renovation (and the owner claims that his business has suffered from the opening of the new recreation center).  If Keller really has that much frustrated demand for tennis, then it will make business sense to build a tennis park, and someone will fund it.

I’m really going to have to stop watching things on ABC.  I was watching the local news this morning on WFAA, Channel 8, when they did their tie-in/promo for this week with George Stephanopoulos.  While their primary topic was going to be immigration reform, the other topic was going to be global warming.  It seems that the news media is working hard to promote the idea that “the debate is over” and that global warming is a reality. 

I remain skeptical about whether there is such a thing as global warming.  But even given rising mean temperatures, I am rather skeptical that man is the cause.  These days, though, taking such a position is akin to announcing that your’re in favor of roasting small children on spits, at least among certain of the PC orthodoxy.

It’s not that I remain unalterably opposed to the idea that the earth might be warming, or even that man could be causing it.  However, I want it to be proved.  Heck, I live in a metro area that’s a perfect example of the effects of man on the local environment (i.e. “heat island” effect), but it’s a long way from that observation to the idea that man is somehow affecting the entire friggin’ planet. 

But I’ve seen repeatedly the perversion of science for political purposes.  If you’re a gun owner and have any interest whatsoever in your rights, it’s impossible to miss it, given the constant attacks by political hacks attempting to use “scientific methods” to ban guns and paint gun owners as on-edge-homicidal-maniacs (CDC anyone?).

Anyhow, this all comes down to the real root of the problem: I do not trust the scientists who are pushing the global warming theory.  I don’t have the time or energy to review all the studies.  In the past we placed our trust in our scientists.  But now we can’t trust them, and we can’t trust the media, as they don’t seem to know how to be skeptical of anything other than our military. 

That said, though, attempts to silence global warming proponents do not help the cause of science.  So, I guess we’re at an impass, given the government’s loss of credibility, and the bias of the environmentalists/scientists (many of whom I consider to be of the same ilk as Brady and VPC ).

Really, I suspect that there’s nothing to be done for it.  Someone once said never to debate religion, and environmentalism seems to have become a religion to some people. 

Perhaps, like with anti-gunners, the answer is ultimately political, in that keeping the hardcore believers away from the levers of power is the interim solution, while trying to reach out to those who might be amenable to science.  I shudder to think about the effects on our economy should the hardcore environmentalists get their way.

There’s going to be a library design charrette this Saturday (02/04/2006) at Keller Town Hall.  It claims to represent “stakeholders,” but citizens will NOT be allowed to provide input.  So it appears we are going to be given a choice in the election of a new library in Town Center or nothing. 

Last Friday’s Keller Citizen had a few choice comments on the subject from Mayor Julie Tandy.

If the bond fails, she said, “I think it would send a very strong message about what our community thinks about its future and how it much it believes in its citizens.”

She said a library is an important part of fostering a vibrant, well-read, articulate and educated population.

“My goal for the short-term is to get the information out,” she said, citing some complaints that it has not been available.  “We’re going to try to solve that.”

While the city cannot promote the bond election itself, she said officials’ responsibility is to provide that information.  It’s up to the citizens to read it.

“I am confident when they get the information, that they will vote in favor of it,” Tandy said.  “When it passes, I hope it will be accepted.”

Lovely.  So if you don’t support the bond package that they concoct you’re obviously against a “vibrant, well-read, articulate and educated population.”  Or perhaps you didn’t read the information.  Because obviously if you did you’d have voted for it.</sarcasm>

As for the information that has been available so far, I’m less than impressed.  I want access to source documents.  I want to see third-party, impartial studies that show actual economic impacts from where this has been done (the library update documents hint at this, but don’t show sources).

Whether this will be accepted, as Mayor Tandy hopes, will depend on whether they really listen to public feedback.  So far, I’m not getting that impression.  What I’ve seen so far has been a very grudging acknowledgement that they need to open up the process to the public, yet I’ve not seen any real openness.  I suppose I’ll wait and see what comes out of all this.

In the meantime, a couple of thoughts on the library issue:

• Costs.

  I can’t help but think that there’s a bit of public-service-itis here, as I’m not getting the feeling that the taxpayer is being respected.  I want to see serious consideration given to cost at every level of the design and planning.  And I can’t help but think that a Town Center location will drive up costs.

• Hasn’t this already been approved?

  I’ve heard a lot of talk about “consultation” with citizen groups after the failed 1999 bond issue.  Supposedly, these meetings allowed them to hear objections and address them in the new proposal.  However, it doesn’t take the place of an election.  It also doesn’t take into account the input of those who moved to Keller after 1999 and who pay taxes.

Previous posts:
The Arrogance Is Mindboggling
Library ‘O Doom
The Library Thing
Democracy In Action

I won’t be holding my breath for a reply, but I sent an email to the Carole Keeton Strayhorn campaign asking for information on her platform.  So far, I haven’t heard any concrete information about what she thinks, just the usual stuff about “putting aside partisan politics.”  That sort of talk can usually be interpreted as “get out of my way, you dunce, so we can do it my way.”  Her assurances that she’s a conservative also make me suspicious.  If she was truly conservative, people would know it from her positions. 

The fact that she was endorsed by the Texas State Teachers Association doesn’t help her with me.  The TSTA has ALWAYS endorsed Democrat party candidates in the past.  Their support for Strayhorn just reinforces the impression I get that she’s really a Democrat party candidate in disguise. 

I guess we’ll see.  If she ever makes a substantive statement about her positions, that is.