Dog Gone at Penigma
Dog Gone at Penigma's JournalImmigrants are not a threat to Union Labor - that's propaganda
From Penigma.blog
Anti-Immigration Lies and the Fundamentals of Propaganda
Right wing social media has been promoting images that attack President Obama and Immigrants, claiming 1 in 4 Americans between the ages of 25 and 54 are out of work; and that Obama granting work permits to 5 million undocumented immigrants is wrong. Implied is that it is undocumented immigrants who are the source of low wages and unemployment.
The clear implication is that Obama is offering preferential treatment in employment, ahead of Americans, to undocumented immigrants, and that Obama is somehow responsible for anyone who is not employed. The far right, who have been anti-labor, are trying very hard by repeating the big lie often enough to convince their voting base to act (and vote) against the interests of labor. It is likely to be one of the key issues, the big wedge issue, of the 2016 election.
This is factually inaccurate -- the first criteria or characteristic of propaganda. Experts across the political spectrum insist that it is inaccurate. Studies indicate this is inaccurate.
So, who are those economists, those experts? What studies?
Nat Journal has some specifics, from 2013:
Left and Right Agree: Immigrants Don't Take American Jobs
March 22, 2013 As Congress considers immigration reform, experts across the political spectrum say American jobs are safe.
That immigrants take the jobs of American-born citizens is “something that virtually no learned person believes in,” Alex Nowrasteh, an immigration expert at the libertarian Cato Institute, said at a Thursday panel. “It’s sort of a silly thing.”
Most economists don’t find immigrants driving down wages or jobs, the Brookings Institution's Michael Greenstone and Adam Looney wrote in May. In fact, “on average, immigrant workers increase the opportunities and incomes of Americans,” they write. Foreign-born workers don’t affect the employment rate positively or negatively, according to a 2011 analysis from the conservative American Enterprise Institute. And a study released Wednesday by the liberal Center for American Progress suggests that granting legal status to undocumented workers might even create jobs.
The CAP study, led by the visiting head of the Washington College economics department, sought to predict what would happen under immigration reform. The researchers considered a handful of scenarios. In each, it was presumed that the nation’s 11 million undocumented immigrants would be immediately granted legal status. They then looked at the effect of those undocumented immigrants not being granted citizenship at all over a decade, getting it immediately, or getting it in five years.
Legal status alone would lead to the creation of 121,000 extra jobs annually over the next 10 years, they found. Getting citizenship within five years would increase that to 159,000 jobs per year. And receiving both legal status and citizenship this year would create an extra 203,000 jobs annually.
I personally dislike open or concealed carry
and I decline to give my business to places that allow it. With the exception of those who are either duly authorized security or law enforcement, such as bank guards or armored car employees, or law enforcement, I have seen far too many people carrying (with or without permits) who behave in an unsafe manner and who too often display a belligerent attitude that they do not attempt without a firearm. That suggests to me an attitude about guns that in equal parts unwise and unhealthy -- in some cases even unstable.
This is an observation borne out by the number of reported road rage incidents involving firearms, the number of bar incidents involving firearms, the number of public location accidents with firearms (notably the roughly 1+ a week at Walmarts) that simply do not occur in locations where there are not firearms carried by other customers.
An armed society is not a polite society, it is a society bent on violence, looking for violence, and likely to be involved in a violent self-fulfilling prophecy. Wearing guns, either overtly, or covertly (where people can tell anyway, most of the time) is inherently antagonistic. Guns have a place in our culture, our society; but it is not a public one.
In that vein, I post this:
The contrast between GOP and Tea Party, and the rest of the country, middle and left,
moderate, independent, and liberal.
Ted Nugent is the guest of a Republican member of congress tonight
while a number of other members are bringing the survivors of gun violence. I don't think the contrast could be more sharp as a political statement about the subject of gun control, regardless of how much time the President spends addressing it versus addressing jobs and other issues.
Men's World versus Women's World, in politics and in business leadership
As I was reading this morning, and writing my first blog post of the day, I came across two things that related to each other, our perceptions, and how we think.
One was this:
One of the economist sites that I follow is Project Syndicate.
The shift in how we operate, in terms of hierarchical structure, and methods of operation intrigue me, as does the issue of feminism and inequality in terms of power and in terms of compensation. The recent shift in the number of women in Congress is a case in point; we are still well shy of anything approaching parity of representation but it is better than it has been previously. IF - and of course it is a big 'If' - Hillary Clinton runs for the presidency, as things stand now, she is the odds on favorite to win overwhelmingly against any currently proposed candidate. But of course things will not remain as they stand now. But clearly, we are coming closer to having our first woman president.
We are also starting to see more women in the upper echelons of business, with more women influencing the economic sector, changing it. And with combat positions opening to women, we see the opportunity for more women to advance to the upper echelons of our military, a profoundly hierarchic entity.
The premise is that leadership is changing, and that women are changing it in a specific way which is influencing among other things, our economy. I'm not sure I quite buy into author Joseph Nye's assessments of how women operate, but Nye certainly brings an interesting background to this review:
Joseph S. Nye
Joseph S. Nye, a former US assistant secretary of defense and chairman of the US National Intelligence Council, is University Professor at Harvard University. His most recent book is The Future …
In that context, I share this from Project Syndicate, "When Women Lead":
Leaders should be viewed less in terms of heroic command than as encouraging participation throughout an organization, group, country, or network. Questions of appropriate style – when to use hard and soft skills – are equally relevant for men and women, and should not be clouded by traditional gender stereotypes. In some circumstances, men will need to act more “like women”; in others, women will need to be more “like men.”
The key choices about war and peace in our future will depend not on gender, but on how leaders combine hard- and soft-power skills to produce smart strategies. Both men and women will make those decisions. But Pinker is probably correct when he notes that the parts of the world that lag in the decline of violence are also the parts that lag in the empowerment of women.
Read more at http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/when-women-lead#o7UFtVWq23hYgfV4.99
Disingenuous Argument (in more simple terms, FALSE argument)
The text which accompanied the photo I found salient to discussion of gun control restricting certain kinds of more damaging ammunition. I find myself rolling my eyes when someone makes the disingenuous argument postered below.
The .223 cartridge contains significantly more powder than the .22LR cartridge (maximum pressure 24,000 PSI for .22LR; maximum pressure 50,000 PSI for .223). The .223 bullet is a much heavier bullet, travelling at a higher velocity. This means that the .223 bullet has much more energy to deliver on its target.
Upon impact .223 bullets demonstrate a tendency to tumble, increasing the size of the wound channel. The .223 bullet also delivers additional damage due to hydrostatic shock. The .22LR bullet has neither of these qualities.
This pretty much sums up the difference:
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2011/05/03/guest-post-22-lr-vs-223-rem/
FactCheck.org busts false rumors about Feinstein weapons ban bill
The Tea Party is not known for being factually accurate about anything - and that includes the Feinstein bill.
http://factcheck.org/2013/02/proposed-weapons-ban-exempts-government-officials/
Proposed Weapons Ban Exempts Government Officials?
Posted on February 4, 2013
TheTeaParty.net falsely claims in an email that Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s proposed assault weapons ban would exempt “all government officials” from the ban. While the bill would exempt military and law enforcement officials, it would not exempt legislators or administrative staff.
The email further misrepresents the proposed bill, claiming that “she [Feinstein] wants to take your handguns, rifles and other weapons away from you.” In fact, the proposal would grandfather in all of the existing weapons owned by Americans, so no weapons will be “taken away” from anyone.
Feinstein, a Democratic from California, and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, a Democrat from New York, unveiled their proposed legislation at a press conference on Jan. 24. The bill, called the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013, seeks to reinstate and expand on the 1994 assault weapons ban, which was allowed to expire in 2004.
According to an email blast from TheTeaParty.net, under the Feinstein-McCarthy proposal, “We are not all equal under the law.”TheTeaParty.net email, Jan. 30: It is bad enough that Democrat Senator Diane Feinstein (CA) has proposed a national attack on our gun rights. Today, it has been revealed that although she wants to take your handguns, rifles and other weapons away from you, she wants to exempt all government officials from her proposed gun ban! If you needed any more evidence that in our government officials eyes we are beneath them in stature and should bow down before them in reverence, then this is it. Their message is ‘guns are bad for you, but they are good for us’. Their message is ‘we are entitled to protect ourselves and our families with firearms if necessary, but you cannot’.
The message that Senator Feinstein and all who support her bill are sending is that their lives, families, and property are valuable and worth defending; yours, however, is not.
and FactCheck.org goes on to elaborate on how and why this false information started circulating.
Facts and honesty about facts have to be the foundation of any gun control discussion
I would argue the position that the only representatives of those who oppose gun control with whom there can be substantive discussion and meeting of the minds in establishing reasonable and effective policies are those who are honest about facts relating to guns and gun violence. The rest, by their dishonest and factual inaccuracies exclude themselves from any serious discussion. This includes bogus claims about Gandhi, or Hitler.
https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSMFCtKX5X63TpsL-CUXGzR084CbAOsx6UGoG_TD15CUQnsW9lD4w
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQi5Gi5ND-AHkLcfTKI1BYKa62f58NaBPZ3fuDsHKvyP4ppatRcLbIBweA
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQrG0mxS6sNq25EHZzVIHymkK095BFWxIGSYDC3fl2Z01QFVB19
from Penigma
[bFact checking Gandhi on Guns: To Lie is to Lose]
I like to fact check. I fact check the right, the left, and the center; whenever I see a fact that looks questionable I check it.
The right is lying, again, still; this time about Gandhi and guns. We cannot have a productive, honest discussion when people on one side refuse to tell the truth as a foundational premise of such a discussion.
Gandhi = Guns? Gandhi advocating a 'lock and load' policy? Gandhi as Rambo? No, emphatically NO.
and further down the post:
...noted historian of non-violence Peter Brock wrote about these comments - the FULL comments:“[Gandhi] believed at that time (although he became more skeptical of this later on) that India could win equal partnership for itself within the British Empire if as large a number as possible of its able-bodied men volunteered to help the Empire, in one way or another, in times of need.”
But just in case there might still be any ambiguity in what Gandhi had to say about guns, in his autobiography, quoting a letter he wrote to the Viceroy of India during WW I:“I would make India offer all her able-bodied sons as a sacrifice to the Empire at its critical moment, and I know that India, by this very act, would become the most favoured partner in the Empire … I write this because I love the English nation, and I wish to evoke in every Indian the loyalty of Englishmen.”
And when it came to his own participation on the side of the English in WW I, Gandhi joined the ambulance corps in 1914, stating:“A rifle this hand will never fire.”
Profile Information
Member since: Sun Oct 14, 2012, 08:55 AMNumber of posts: 433
