Tuesday, February 25, 2003

Now that Osama bin Laden has been caught and put to justice, arms issues in Iraq and North Korea are resolved, and our country has extra resources to go around, the U.S. government has gone on a crusade to rid the country of the biggest existing threat to our country: bongs. Combined with their manic persecution of terminally ill pot users in California, the country can be relieved that the war on drugs is in full swing and attacking a dangerous drug that kills no one and renders it's users too lazy and hungry to commit any crimes other than its indulgence. What a relief! Those old days of terrorism alerts and mass-stockpiling of canned goods and bottled water must be over! Ok, I can only sustain this level of sarcasm for so long so here are the articles to read for yourself: NY Times article and Salon article.

What's interesting, and not completely unrelated, is that there are other articles in the Times today discussing governors' budget concerns to which Bush answered that the federal government has its own budget problems so too bad and an article that explains that the report Bush uses to argue his new tax cut proposal will help the economy states that it will harm the economy in the long run. I'm afraid that connecting the dots explicitly here will insult readers' intelligence but I'm dense so here goes: Dammit Bush, you fucking moron! You are mandating first responders to upgrade their defenses against terrorism but haven't given them any money, you've made federal education mandates but haven't provided adequate funding, and your response to Medicaid budget problems has been to help states deny coverage to people. But you're spending money and resources to bust people for selling bongs!?! Are you insane? What the fuck could you be thinking in that tiny little head of yours?

Ok. I'm done with that. New topic: immigration policy. I really hope that someone can explain this to me because I'm a little confused. I read that there is a mass exodus of non-citizen Pakistanis to Canada--actually more than they can handle. One family was apparently told to come back in two weeks and when they turned back, the male members of the family were arrested leaving the female members stranded along the Vermont-Canada border in the middle of winter. They had lived and worked in the United States for a long time and expressed a deep appreciation and love for the country but with the new crack-down on non-criminal illegal aliens (because the criminal ones won't bother to turn themselves in to register themselves, duh) they are fleeing to Canada seeking asylum rather than facing the prospect of deportation back to Pakistan. What I can't understand is why we can't let them stay? Aren't these people just the sort of hardworking, patriotic people that we want in this country? Wasn't the intention of this country supposed to be a refuge for the oppressed? Are there qualifications for this status like, well, we don't take brown oppressed people? Only Europeans are true American-types? If you weren't here to kick out the Native Americans, you aren't a real American? I don't know. I can't see what the justification could be for having such a conservative immigration policy. Our economy basically depends on illegal alien immigrant labor to fill a lot of the low-paying but necessary jobs that "real" Americans are too proud to take. And then, instead of thinking that these people have done us a great service, that they have proven themselves to be worthy and law-abiding and patriotic Americans and that we should really beg them stay, we deport them back to the oppressive regimes they fled from. It really defies logic to me. Anyway, maybe someone can clear that up for me and explain what the justification for this policy is.


Post a Comment

<< Home