Claire and the Big Fence

Claire McCaskill is promoting the border fence, according to the San Antonio Express-News. I'm amazed that this insane solution is still carries weight.

Of course, immigration creates problems - mostly only in the minds of the citizens. It always has and the country has always wound up accepting the immigrants and, in the end, benefitting from their contributions.

But building a fence or a wall will never work. Throughout history nations have tried and failed to build fences on their artificial borders. Fences work for cattle and other animals. They do not work for people. The immigrants are intelligent, ambitious people that want to come to the US to make better lives for themselves and their families. A fence won't stop them.

If you want to address illegal aliens, penalize their employers. It's just that simple. Enforce the existing laws and the jobs that beckon the immigrants and illegal immigration will dry up. Without this incentive of immediate cash, the immigrants will soon learn that the only way to come to this country will be via legal channels. Save the money on the building of this insane fence and use it on a more efficient immigration process. And, I'm betting that the jobs currently filled with illegal labor will be taken by the same population once they've passed through immigration putting an end to that jingo-redneck argument, "Them illegals is stealing my job!"

Fences only build anger and resentment. Whether you're trying to split a population as Isreal is currently doing or you're trying to enforce political boundaries as the communist countries of eastern Europe did, you're bound to fail. The anger builds pressure behind the wall until it pops like a champagne cork. It's impossible to predict how this will happen but it will. A border fence will only prove to be an expensive failure - expensive in the building, yes, but even more costly in the ramifications later.

Obsessing on Stem Cells

The stated purpose of this blog these days is to keep an eye on my legislators. But given how the last election put Missouri in the spot light regarding the stem cell issue and its generally assumed importance in the election of McCaskill, I hope that you'll forgive a bit of a digression in that direction.

The Right hasn't gone nuts just yet over reports of possible baby-harvesting in the Ukraine. Nothing's really certain yet but there's a chance that live babies are being used as sources of stem cells. I'm not sure what they're waiting for but I'm sure this story will soon enough be seized upon by the right as evidence of where this whole issue can go.

I certainly hope that it turns out that this truly horrible possibility isn't proven. On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised. While we debate about the ethics - a debate forced on us by the anti-abortion crowd - of stem cell research, nefarious elements are going to exploit our self paralysis. We must move forward with this. Let the scientist research embryonic stem-cells from fertility clinics that would be destroyed anyway when the owners conceive or give up.

The idea that this is going to get out of control and lead to whole human cloning is just silly. This argument could be applied to anything. If we allow the legal ownership of handguns won't this lead to a population at war with itself? We have our share of gun related homicides in the US but there's nothing that could suggest it's out of control. Government regulated stem-cell research would be the same.

And as far as baby harvesting, this also would never happen. If scientist were allowed access to the embryonic stems cells that are currently available, the black market for stem-cells harvested from live babies wouldn't exist.

Squeezing MOHELA

I'm really not sure what to think of this issue. I've been watching it since it was a glint in Gov. Blunt's eye. There seems to be some sense to it. Cash in some of the assets in MOHELA and use the money on state colleges. "Assets," as I understand them, are the loans held by MOHELA. They would be, and have been at this point, sold to other loan companies for less than their yield over time for a quick payoff now. Though the assurances haven't been made in this particular article, I've read in the past that the politicians have promised that the purchasing companies wouldn't raise the rates once they own the loans. And if a politician promises it...

So, Blunt took his idea, established a board and they put it into motion. Now it has generated $17 million and colleges around Missouri are eagerly awaiting their piece. But Clint Zweifel, D-Florissant, says this isn't right. MOHELA's money should be used for MOHELA stuff, specifically lowering rates or forgiving loans. Blunt and our own Nathan Cooper, whose constituency is very interested in seeing the promised improvements on Southeast Missouri State University, say nonsense.

Here's what I keep wondering. What was that money supposed to do in the original plan? So MOHELA sold some "assets" and has more money than usual right now but what about later when these assets were supposed to be paying off? Will MOHELA have the cash to cover students' loan needs in 10 or 20 years?

B'bye Jim Talent

Here's the KC Star's report on Talent's farewell speach to the Senate. I agree with his position on health insurance for small businesses. But he can stick it on his attempts to blame any military shortfalls on Clinton, the obvious implication of his claim that changes "decisions over the last 15 years" have left the Army and Navy too small and outdated. We were doing fine until he backed Bush in an illegal invasion of Iraq.

But I won't spend too much time dwelling on Talent. He's out.

Here's an amusing look at this and other farewells.