Immigration, comprehensive reform

Obama is on Face the Nation right now.  He wants "immigration reform" and is saying that if Congress doesn't do it, he will do it by executive order.  He isn't saying what kind of reform he wants.  In fact there are a lot of angles to immigration, some of them acceptable to the voters and a lot of them not acceptable.   A whole bunch of voters see immigrants as competitors for jobs, education, and wages. They fear immigrants will work for less, and depress their wages.  Unions see things this way.  "Progressives" see immigrants as potential democratic voters. 
Angle 1.  Legalizing the 10 or 11 million illegals in the country right now.  Or legalizing some of them.  Or just letting them alone, give up trying to deport them.  Or legalizing the kids, or college graduates or veterans.
Angle 2.  Allowing more workers, farm workers, programmers and high tech workers in.  Industry and growers are all in favor of this.  There is a shortage of farm workers who will do the hard work for little money.  There is always a shortage high tech workers.
Angle 3.  Revise immigration policy to favor the young, the educated,  over family members.  Current policy favors the elderly parents of citizens over young workers who can man our industries.
Angle 4.  "Securing" the border.  Nobody has said just how secure they want.  Do they want to build something like the Berlin Wall across the Mexican border?  Me, I'd settle for a chain link fence, a perimeter road, and daily patrols.
Angle 5.  How many immigrants will we accept each year?  10,000? A million?  3 million?

A comprehensive immigration bill might say something about all the angles.  Which requires Congressmen to come to agreement as to what angles go into the "comprehensive" bill.  It might be easier to pass a "non comprehensive" bill which just addresses the few angles that we can get some agreement on.   

Farewell to Campaign Promises

Neither side made any promises this time.  They didn't promise the voters squat.  Modern politicians fear to say anything of substance, 'cause on any issue there are pros and antis.  For some reason, the antis remember and pros forget.  So politicians say nothing because saying ANYTHING just gains enemies, never friends or allies. 

Should TV stations air deceptive ads?

Down at the bottom, the local station owners can decide to air, or not to air, any ad.  Is it ethical for them to air ads that they know, and everyone knows, are deceptive?  Like half the political ads aired this last election (like just this week).   The ordinary voters get their info from the TV.  The "news" programs are complete pablum, with no context, no examples, not even speeches by the candidates.  And the ads.  Most of the ads accused the other side of illegal, improbable, and unprovable crimes. If you bothered to watch, most of 'em were so far out that anyone knew they were false. 
   Should TV station owners air this stuff?  Does the money they gain outweigh the pollution of the public airwaves? 

Snow in Franconia Notch

It stopped falling.  We got two inches on my deck.  I'd expect the summit of Cannon got a bit more.  Not enough to open Cannon, but it helps. 

If you have the votes, do it.

TV is full of happy talk about "bipartisanship" and "cooperation", and other psychobabble. Let's be real, the Republicans now have the votes in Congress to pass anything reasonable.  They ought to do it.  Some of it Obama will sign.  Some of it he will veto.  Make sure the issue is framed clearly so that you can bash Obama for the veto after he does it.  Might as well start off easy, with some medium duty issues that Obama might sign, just to get things warmed up.  Then press on with some heavy duty stuff, immigration, tax reform, EPA reform, budget, deficit, and other stuff. 
   What  John Boehner and Mitch McConnell (expected Congressional leaders next term) ought to be asking is "Do we have the votes to pass this bill?"  And by how solid a margin?  Passing a bill by a mere single vote looks flaky and can make you look dumb, when some other single vote turns against it unexpectedly.  If you don't have the votes, change the bill to attract more votes, or drop it.  Don't waste time on losers. 
   Don't waste time trying to be "bipartisan".  If you have the votes, pass it. If you don't, drop it.

Snow in Franconia Notch

It is coming down as I write this.  It's beginning to stick on the grass.   The ground has not frozen yet (we haven't had but one or two nights with frost to do the freezing) so the snow is melting on the road. No where near enough for skiing yet, but it is a good sign.

Names have been changed to protect the guilty

That Wallops Island rocket crash last week.  The one they are blaming on Russian built engines.  The company called itself "Orbital Sciences"  and the failed rocket they called "Antares".
   Funny, up until the disaster at Wallops Island, the company was known as "United Launch Association" or "ULA" and the vehicle was called "Atlas".   ULA was formed some years ago when Boeing and Lockheed decided to stop competing for NASA business, and spun off their space divisions.  The two spun off divisions promptly merged, creating ULA.  Their vehicle,Atlas, despite the Russian engines, has a pretty good record launching commercial comm sats, and military payloads (recon sats probably).
   Up until last week, Aviation Week worried about the Russian engines, and the possibility of the Russians cutting off the supply of engines in a tit for tat over Ukraine sanctions.  And they said, several times, that the cost of developing a US built engine would be prohibitive.  Well, last release to the popular (low information) press blamed the disaster on the Russian engines and announced that they would be replaced, with a yet to be named, US engine.  Nothing like an explosion filmed in full color to expedite the decision making process. 

Update:    Nov 7 20014.  Aviation Week came in this morning.  Apparently I am wrong, there ARE two US rocket operations, both using Russian built engines.  Aviation Week discusses both.  ULA and Atlas use a big Russian engine still in production, Orbital Science and Antares are using an old Russian engine, going back to the 1960's.  Sorry about the misinformation.