Today is Cesar Chavez Day here in California. This is a holiday for schools and state and city workers, but not for federal government workers like myself.
You can read more about Cesar Chavez here.
I bring this up because Congress is currently considering two pieces of legislation that propose rather different methods of curbing illegal immigration. (No, Cesar Chavez was not an illegal immigrant. Go read the article already, I'll wait. Back? Great.) The House's version would make it a felony to be an illegal immigrant, which means that once caught, you could never become a legal immigrant. You're out, deported, and if you apply, you'll fail the application process.
In other words, your best bet at that point is to try to get in as an illegal immigrant.
Mind you, perhaps the House version is presented in the hopes that we'll jail illegal immigrants instead. In California, where the jails are already so full that we're releasing non-violent offenders early, that just doesn't seem likely.
Once you're back in as an illegal immigrant (and felon), the House version proposes mandating that employers check Social Security Numbers before hiring laborers. It strikes me that perhaps the members of the House have never actually seen illegal immigrants hired, especially for field work. In case you haven't, the way it typically works is that a bunch of people show up at a gas station or freeway underpass or park where they've heard that people hire day laborers; a guy pulls up with a pickup truck, and points to the number of people he needs. They hop in the back of the truck, and away they go. There's not a lot of checking of papers, and if there is, it's not in-depth. These people are not filling out W-2s. There's no phone number the employer can call to see if any given SSN is valid and actually for the person holding the papers. In other words, until the federales bust the crew and drag them downtown for processing, there is simply no accountability here.
The Senate version, which the President has thrown his support behind, seeks to formalize the process. It allows illegal immigrants to stay here as long as they turn themselves in, pay a fine, learn English, pay Social Security and back taxes, work, pay taxes and Social Security, commit no crimes, pay another fine, and wait ten years before being completely legalized. It also provides for a Guest Worker program so that people from other countries can come over, work, and then have to return to their countries of origin after a set period... unless they get a dispensation from their employer on the basis that their services are too valuable for them to be let go.
Supporters of immigration reform have thrown their support behind the Senate's version, but I would suggest that neither version offers a real solution to the issue. The House's version is relatively unenforceable, and the Senate's version, well....
The appeal of hiring illegal immigrants (or legal immigrants who are at mercy of their employers for their visas) is that they have no legal recourse if their employers abuse them. That's why Wal*Mart got away with paying its "undocumented" night crews $2 per day; that's why high-tech companies sponsoring H1B workers can get away with working them 60 hours per week. If the workers complain, threaten to turn them over to immigration or cancel their visas. That'll shut them up.
If you want to stop people from hiring illegal immigrants, give those self-same immigrants the right to complain without fear of reprisal; award whistle-blowers with honorary citizenship (or at least temporary visas). Appeal to the backstabbing instinct. If their employers realize that the staff they used to threaten with has become a dangerous serpent, they'll have to drop the staff. If they drop the staff, they'll have to offer more reasonable wages and work conditions, which means minimum wage; if they can hire legal, documented workers for the same price the undocumented workers are demanding, there will be no incentive to hire illegal labor. And if they stop hiring illegal labor, there will be less incentive for illegal immigrants to come here as illegal immigrants.
Make no mistake, this is a workers' rights issue. As long as we allow people to treat their labor force like second class citizens, we're going to continue to have problems. Since there's no way out of this without some pain, let's at least choose the moral high ground for once.
Cesar Chavez would have wanted it that way.
3.31.2006
3.29.2006
Luck and such
Scientific American has a fascinating article on luck and whether people who consider themselves lucky really are more gifted, statistically, than others, or whether the whole thing is in their heads. The answer, says skpetic Michael Shermer, is a bit of both: people who consider themselves lucky tend to be more outgoing and tend to view setbacks as opportunities, not outright routs.
As a person who considers himself luckier than most, I found myself nodding along as I read this. Throughout my life, I've had my fair share of things happen that might have simply meant the end of my dreams: as a child, I was diagnosed with a genetic condition that might have limited me to a life of inactivity; after High School, financial conditions precluded me going to UC Berkeley; following graduation from Cal, I quickly found out that my chosen profession, teaching High School, was anathema to me; after working for a year and a half at a website I adored, I was laid off (along with 70+ others, but still). At any of these points, I could have very easily thrown up my hands in despair and sunk into petulant self-pity.
But the heart-condition turned out to be an opportunity to learn about genetics and public speaking; my two years at a Junior College gave me the opportunity to study in London for a semester and rediscover my wanderlust and my inspiration; the teaching position provided an excellent background for going to teach in Japan for six years; and the death of Ask Jeeves for Kids led directly to my position at the City of Oakland, where I got to build eleven computer labs throughout the city, setting me up for the systems admin job I'm loving so much right now.
So, was I lucky? Yes! But did these opportunities have something to do with my aberrantly optimistic brain chemistry? Hell, yes!
I'm not naive, nor am I a blithe pollyanna, but man, I am just one fundamentally happy SOB. Yes, I get sad, heartbroken, even, and no, I'm not a bundle of laughs or the life of the party all the time, but on average? I'm definitely happier than I really have much right to be....
Or to put it another way, I'm as happy as the rest of you at the very least deserve to be. That's pretty damn lucky.
As Luck Would Have It
Are some people really luckier than others, or is it all in their heads? Both
By Michael Shermer
Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is a neuromuscular disease that attacks motor neurons until muscle weakness, atrophy and paralysis lead inexorably to death. Victims of this monstrous malady could be forgiven for feeling unlucky.
How, then, can we explain the attitude of the disease's namesake, baseball great Lou Gehrig? He told a sellout crowd at Yankee Stadium: "For the past two weeks you have been reading about the bad break I got. Today I consider myself the luckiest man on the face of this earth." The Iron Horse then recounted his many blessings and fortunes, a list twice punctuated with "I'm lucky" and "That's something."
Clearly, luck is a state of mind. Is it more than that? To explore this question scientifically, experimental psychologist Richard Wiseman created a "luck lab" at the University of Hertfordshire in England. Wiseman began by testing whether those who believe they are lucky are actually more likely to win the lottery. He recruited 700 subjects who had intended to purchase lottery tickets to complete his luck questionnaire, which is a self-report scale that measures whether people consider themselves to be lucky or unlucky. Although lucky people were twice as confident as the unlucky ones that they would win the lottery, there was no difference in winnings.
Wiseman then gave subjects a standardized "life satisfaction" scale, which asks individuals to rank themselves on how satisfied they are with their family life, personal life, financial situation, health and career. The results were striking. "Lucky people are far more satisfied with all areas of their lives than unlucky or neutral people," Wiseman reveals in his charming and insightful book, The Luck Factor (Miramax Books, 2003). Does this satisfied state of mind translate into actual life outcomes that someone might call lucky? It does. Here's how.
Lucky people expect good things to happen.
Wiseman gave subjects the "big five" personality scale, which measures "agreeableness," "conscientiousness," "extroversion," "neuroticism" and "openness." Although there were no differences between lucky and unlucky people on agreeableness and conscientiousness, Wiseman found significant differences for extroversion, neuroticism and openness.
Lucky people score significantly higher than unlucky people on extroversion. "There are three ways in which lucky people's extroversion significantly increases the likelihood of their having a lucky chance encounter," Wiseman explains: "meeting a large number of people, being a 'social magnet' and keeping in contact with people." Lucky people, for example, smile twice as often and engage in more eye contact than unlucky people do, which leads to more social encounters, which generates more opportunities.
The neuroticism dimension measures how anxious or relaxed someone is, and Wiseman found that the lucky ones were half as anxious as the unlucky ones--that is, "because lucky people tend to be more relaxed than most, they are more likely to notice chance opportunities, even when they are not expecting them." In one experiment, Wiseman had volunteers count the number of photographs in a newspaper. Lucky subjects were more likely to notice on page two the half-page ad with the message in large bold type: STOP COUNTING--THERE ARE 43 PHOTOGRAPHS IN THIS NEWSPAPER.
Wiseman discovered that lucky people also score significantly higher in openness than unlucky people do. "Lucky people are open to new experiences in their lives.... They don't tend to be bound by convention and they like the notion of unpredictability," he notes. As such, lucky people travel more, encounter novel prospects and welcome unique opportunities.
Expectation also plays a role in luck. Lucky people expect good things to happen, and when they do they embrace them. But even in the face of adversity, lucky people turn bad breaks into good fortune. Consider the example set by one of the longest ALS sufferers in history, Stephen W. Hawking, who writes: "I was lucky to have chosen to work in theoretical physics, because that was one of the few areas in which my condition would not be a serious handicap." Unable to move and confined to a wheelchair, Hawking has capitalized on his fate by using it as a chance to transform our understanding of the universe, which he has. That's something.
As a person who considers himself luckier than most, I found myself nodding along as I read this. Throughout my life, I've had my fair share of things happen that might have simply meant the end of my dreams: as a child, I was diagnosed with a genetic condition that might have limited me to a life of inactivity; after High School, financial conditions precluded me going to UC Berkeley; following graduation from Cal, I quickly found out that my chosen profession, teaching High School, was anathema to me; after working for a year and a half at a website I adored, I was laid off (along with 70+ others, but still). At any of these points, I could have very easily thrown up my hands in despair and sunk into petulant self-pity.
But the heart-condition turned out to be an opportunity to learn about genetics and public speaking; my two years at a Junior College gave me the opportunity to study in London for a semester and rediscover my wanderlust and my inspiration; the teaching position provided an excellent background for going to teach in Japan for six years; and the death of Ask Jeeves for Kids led directly to my position at the City of Oakland, where I got to build eleven computer labs throughout the city, setting me up for the systems admin job I'm loving so much right now.
So, was I lucky? Yes! But did these opportunities have something to do with my aberrantly optimistic brain chemistry? Hell, yes!
I'm not naive, nor am I a blithe pollyanna, but man, I am just one fundamentally happy SOB. Yes, I get sad, heartbroken, even, and no, I'm not a bundle of laughs or the life of the party all the time, but on average? I'm definitely happier than I really have much right to be....
Or to put it another way, I'm as happy as the rest of you at the very least deserve to be. That's pretty damn lucky.
Are some people really luckier than others, or is it all in their heads? Both
By Michael Shermer
Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is a neuromuscular disease that attacks motor neurons until muscle weakness, atrophy and paralysis lead inexorably to death. Victims of this monstrous malady could be forgiven for feeling unlucky.
How, then, can we explain the attitude of the disease's namesake, baseball great Lou Gehrig? He told a sellout crowd at Yankee Stadium: "For the past two weeks you have been reading about the bad break I got. Today I consider myself the luckiest man on the face of this earth." The Iron Horse then recounted his many blessings and fortunes, a list twice punctuated with "I'm lucky" and "That's something."
Clearly, luck is a state of mind. Is it more than that? To explore this question scientifically, experimental psychologist Richard Wiseman created a "luck lab" at the University of Hertfordshire in England. Wiseman began by testing whether those who believe they are lucky are actually more likely to win the lottery. He recruited 700 subjects who had intended to purchase lottery tickets to complete his luck questionnaire, which is a self-report scale that measures whether people consider themselves to be lucky or unlucky. Although lucky people were twice as confident as the unlucky ones that they would win the lottery, there was no difference in winnings.
Wiseman then gave subjects a standardized "life satisfaction" scale, which asks individuals to rank themselves on how satisfied they are with their family life, personal life, financial situation, health and career. The results were striking. "Lucky people are far more satisfied with all areas of their lives than unlucky or neutral people," Wiseman reveals in his charming and insightful book, The Luck Factor (Miramax Books, 2003). Does this satisfied state of mind translate into actual life outcomes that someone might call lucky? It does. Here's how.
Lucky people expect good things to happen.
Wiseman gave subjects the "big five" personality scale, which measures "agreeableness," "conscientiousness," "extroversion," "neuroticism" and "openness." Although there were no differences between lucky and unlucky people on agreeableness and conscientiousness, Wiseman found significant differences for extroversion, neuroticism and openness.
Lucky people score significantly higher than unlucky people on extroversion. "There are three ways in which lucky people's extroversion significantly increases the likelihood of their having a lucky chance encounter," Wiseman explains: "meeting a large number of people, being a 'social magnet' and keeping in contact with people." Lucky people, for example, smile twice as often and engage in more eye contact than unlucky people do, which leads to more social encounters, which generates more opportunities.
The neuroticism dimension measures how anxious or relaxed someone is, and Wiseman found that the lucky ones were half as anxious as the unlucky ones--that is, "because lucky people tend to be more relaxed than most, they are more likely to notice chance opportunities, even when they are not expecting them." In one experiment, Wiseman had volunteers count the number of photographs in a newspaper. Lucky subjects were more likely to notice on page two the half-page ad with the message in large bold type: STOP COUNTING--THERE ARE 43 PHOTOGRAPHS IN THIS NEWSPAPER.
Wiseman discovered that lucky people also score significantly higher in openness than unlucky people do. "Lucky people are open to new experiences in their lives.... They don't tend to be bound by convention and they like the notion of unpredictability," he notes. As such, lucky people travel more, encounter novel prospects and welcome unique opportunities.
Expectation also plays a role in luck. Lucky people expect good things to happen, and when they do they embrace them. But even in the face of adversity, lucky people turn bad breaks into good fortune. Consider the example set by one of the longest ALS sufferers in history, Stephen W. Hawking, who writes: "I was lucky to have chosen to work in theoretical physics, because that was one of the few areas in which my condition would not be a serious handicap." Unable to move and confined to a wheelchair, Hawking has capitalized on his fate by using it as a chance to transform our understanding of the universe, which he has. That's something.
3.26.2006
Inside Man (No Spoilers)
Just got back from watching Inside Man, starring, in order of appearance, Clive Owen, Denzel Washington, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Christopher Plummer, Jodie Foster, and Willem Dafoe, produced by Brian Grazer, and directed by Spike Lee.
With credentials like that, you would be justified in having high expectations from this movie. And you would probably be wondering what these people would be doing coming together for a heist/hostage situation movie.
(Well, maybe not Jodie Foster, since she was in that Panic Room movie, and Christopher Plummer has made a tradition of appearing in all kinds of bad things, and, well, Denzel did that underwhelming thriller Out of Time, and Chiwetel Ejiofor was channelling some sort of Dennis Hopper in Four Brothers, and Willem Dafoe seems to be mighty unchoosy in his roles, and Clive Owen is frankly never going to live down King Arthur, and Brian Grazer gave us The Cat in the Hat, and Spike Lee, well, not everyone gets Spike... but still!)
Inside Man delivers the thrills, the plotting, the twists, and the conflicts you would expect from a heist film. While not perfect, it hits the numbers and entertains. The bad guys are not what they seem, the good guys don't make the classic good guy blunders, and not everyone gets away with everything.
At heart, though, this is another in Spike Lee's series of sonnets to the love of his life, New York City. The people, the tensions, the attitudes of New York-- these are the unsung extras in this film, warts and all. And what a strange and intriguing mess they are.
Thumbs up.
With credentials like that, you would be justified in having high expectations from this movie. And you would probably be wondering what these people would be doing coming together for a heist/hostage situation movie.
(Well, maybe not Jodie Foster, since she was in that Panic Room movie, and Christopher Plummer has made a tradition of appearing in all kinds of bad things, and, well, Denzel did that underwhelming thriller Out of Time, and Chiwetel Ejiofor was channelling some sort of Dennis Hopper in Four Brothers, and Willem Dafoe seems to be mighty unchoosy in his roles, and Clive Owen is frankly never going to live down King Arthur, and Brian Grazer gave us The Cat in the Hat, and Spike Lee, well, not everyone gets Spike... but still!)
Inside Man delivers the thrills, the plotting, the twists, and the conflicts you would expect from a heist film. While not perfect, it hits the numbers and entertains. The bad guys are not what they seem, the good guys don't make the classic good guy blunders, and not everyone gets away with everything.
At heart, though, this is another in Spike Lee's series of sonnets to the love of his life, New York City. The people, the tensions, the attitudes of New York-- these are the unsung extras in this film, warts and all. And what a strange and intriguing mess they are.
Thumbs up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)