Republican Rundown: Top Ten Update

Post Third Debate Edition: Things have changed significantly since my 9/20 Quick Picks post.  Perhaps the biggest development is that Scott Walker dropped out (Hooray!  Is Bush next?).  Jindal, Graham, Santorum, and Pataki remain irrelevant and out of the top ten.  Here are my current thoughts.  Brief two-sentence notes (with ranking I gave them last time noted).  Note: The graphic I've used is once again the 15-day polling average from 2016.republican-candidates.org.

10th (previously 10th), Jeb Bush:  Turns out, it's not just that his last name makes him toxic.  He's actually a terrible candidate who has performed poorly at all three debates and looks completely lost, though he apparently is not lost in the world of Fantasy Football (maybe he should focus on that instead--he needs a better QB anyway).

9th (previously 5th), John Kasich: Bush may have made him look good by comparison, but Kasich had a disastrous (though loud) debate performance.  Also, this is probably an insensitive thing to say, but did anyone else notice that he has some of the mannerisms of Michael J. Fox?

8th (previously 4th), Rand Paul: Paul has continually looked less and less appealing as a candidate and has not performed well in the debates, though he has spouted some memorably questionable lines.  He seems more likely to try to shut down the government that Ted Cruz, and is, at this point, less likeable.

7th (previously 9th), Mike Huckabee: Huckabee has been about average in the debates, and hasn't done anything wildly ridiculous since the Kim Davis incident. But I still don't think he is electable.

6th (previously 6th), Carly Fiorina: I would rate Carly as average in the last debate, though I do agree that seeing her debate Clinton would be spectacular.  But can we do that without having her get the nomination, because our country is already in more trouble than HP under her leadership?

5th (previously 11th), Donald Trump: The prospect of a Trump presidency has become more palatable as many of the other candidates have shown their ineptitude (if you're not top six on my list here, you are one of the remaining eight who needs to drop out of the damn race already).  Trump is still polarizing, questionable morally (though not nearly as much as any of the candidates on the other side) and a loose cannon, but he speaks a lot of truth and conveys his views very clearly.

4th (previously 7th), Ted Cruz: I still think that he sounds like a holier-than-thou preacher much of the time when he talks, but he did well at the last debate.  And for his spectacular smackdown of the CNBC moderator ineptitude alone, I've allowed him a spot in my top four.

3rd (previously 3rd), Chris Christie: Either Cruz or Christie had the moment-of-the-night from the third debate.  Christie did well overall, but saying that the moderator's behavior was considered rude, even in New Jersey, was golden, as was his epic shutdown of the ridiculous Fantasy Football controversy (echoing Cruz's pleas to talk about the real issues!).

2nd (previously 2nd), Marco Rubio: Rubio has looked increasingly seasoned and eloquent as time has gone on.  He's given steadily good performances in the debates and on news programs, while running a positive campaign but still making Jeb Bush look like a complete fool.

1st (previously 1st), Ben Carson: After a less-than-stellar showing in the third debate, I think Rubio has closed the gap a bit in my mind, though having both on the ticket in either position would be fine by me.  The main knock on Carson from Republicans seems to be that he's just too nice, but I still think he could see a lot of success as president, and perhaps help to truly bring the country together again.

When Fantasy Becomes Reality

For those of you who are unaware, Fantasy Sports is when someone drafts a hypothetical team with real players on it and competes against others who do the same thing.  The person whose collection of players performs best in real life wins the Fantasy League they are in with the other competitors.  Prior to the easy-to-manage Fantasy sites online (Yahoo, ESPN, etc), people in Fantasy Leagues actually tracked the statistics using box scores in the newspaper each day.  This was a bit before my time, but I enjoy hearing stories about those good old days.  With the technological advances of the Internet, Fantasy Sports really started to rise to prominence just after the turn of the century, and for many years, groups of friends would create Fantasy Leagues online in which to play against each other.  Sometimes it was just for fun, but usually there would be some amount of money involved.  Congress even passed an exemption for Fantasy Sports to make sure that this sort of thing would not be considered illegal betting.

Fast forward about a decade and suddenly whenever we are watching a sporting event, we are inundated with advertisements for these one-day Fantasy team sites, such as FanDuel and DraftKings.  Huge amounts of money are involved.  New millionaires are made every week.  Hundreds of millions are spent on advertising and endorsements.  And, predictably, there are those who are now calling for the whole operation to be shut down and classified as illegal gambling.  Welcome to America.

Who's trying to shut this down?  It looks to me like the people who aren't getting a slice of the pie.  Government, owners of gambling establishments that view this as competition, people who lost money trying it and are pissed off, and probably some number of people on the far right who believe the Fantasy Sports is immoral, against their religion, and thus should be illegal.

Several states have disallowed these one-day Fantasy Sports sites from operating there.  Not surprisingly, Nevada is one of them.  When people think of Nevada, they think of Las Vegas, and when people think of Vegas, they think of gambling.  I'm sure the gambling lobby is strong there, so why not snuff out any competition they can?  The Nevada Gaming Commission ruled that Daily Fantasy Sports is a form of gambling and would need a license to operate, though these sites have continued to insist that it is not gambling.  It seems to me that this is just the start of a long, large fight on a National level, because it won't surprise me if special interest lobby groups in Washington, D.C. line the pockets of Congressmen in order to get them to outlaw these sites.  Business as usual in the U.S.A.

Here are my problems with this.  Making Daily Fantasy Sports sites illegal would be both hypocritical and government overreaching.  The government is cool with state run lotteries, because they get a ton of money from that, and that is a crystal clear means of pure gambling, where no skill or knowledge is needed whatsoever.  Gambling in casinos is legal in some states if you get a license, and others if you're on an Indian Reservation.  In those cases, some number of influential and already-rich people are continuing to make even more money.  But DraftKings and FanDuel?  It's the startup owners of those sites making moneys, along with some number of regular sports fans every week, and it's become a wildly-popular multi-billion dollar industry.  So clearly, some number of influential and already-rich people want to put a stop to this.

The one thing I agree with in this whole thing is that there needs to be some sort of regulation on it, which would prevent employees of any of these sites from using information not available to the public to their advantage, increasing the chances that they will be able to make money that way.  This is akin to insider trading on the stock market and must not be allowed.  And while I think gambling in general should be legal, and Daily Fantasy Sports is a form of gambling, I DO NOT believe it should be classified as such.  The stock market is gambling too, and it's the closest comparison for Daily Fantasy Sports.  People aren't screaming that, because insider trading can happen, the stock market ought to be shut down.  That's no reason to shut down this industry either.  And the similarities go much deeper than that.  In stocks and Daily Fantasy Sports, you need some specific knowledge to do consistently well.  And that doesn't guarantee that you'll always do well either.  Sometimes someone with little to no knowledge will do better than you, but usually those with more knowledge will do better than those with less knowledge.

If I had my mom pick my Fantasy Football team for me, it probably wouldn't go too well.  If I had my friend's two-year-old pick stocks for me, that probably wouldn't go too well either.  But it might.  You never know.  In the Daily Fantasy Sports world, players ARE the stocks.  And the government needs to leave us, the lay-people, the fans alone.  Seriously, just stay out of it, unless it's to make a law that Daily Fantasy Sports can operate anywhere in this nation.  Because, you know, it's a free country.  At least it used to be.

In the mean time, maybe I'll get lucky and set an amazing lineup, or maybe I'll make some poor choices and lose the entirety of my small deposits, but I'll probably be roughly even.  I started playing several weeks ago and I'm up $13 on FanDuel and down $13 on DraftKings.  That's a difference of $0 to my net worth.  But it's fun.  Play responsibly.

Quick Picks: Democratic Candidates

Well, we've had our first debate for the Democratic candidates, and I actually sat through a solid portion of it (do I get a cookie for that?).  In an effort to fill up the stage rather than just having Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton debate each other, CNN found three random white guys to participate in the debate.  A small percentage of Americans have heard of these other three men before tonight, and they will undoubtedly withdraw from the race soon, leaving the Liberals to choose between Larry David and Doctor Blight.  I mean Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton.  My bad there.  But if you fell asleep during the debate and had visions of Curb Your Enthusiasm combined with Captain Planet, that would have been perfectly normal.  As I did with the Republicans earlier, I will rank the candidates, from worst to best, in how good of a choice they would be to represent their party in the general election.  Since there are fewer candidates, I will allow myself a few more sentences for each candidate this time.

6th, Lincoln Chafee: The only thing I can see that qualifies this man to be president, apart from his first name, is that he actually kind of stood up against Hillary at one point during the debate.  He's got to be pretty close to pulling out.  I think the only reason he was in in the first place was because someone asked, "Is anyone here named Washington or Lincoln who wants to be a candidate for President?"

5th, Martin O'Malley: O'Malley actually made some strong statements and had stood up to Hillary at times.  He's also a distant third in the polls, a virtual unknown, and has no chance of getting his party's nomination, let alone beating the Republican nominee.  He also appears to be pretty far to the left and unwilling to compromise.

4th, Jim Webb: Webb sounded intelligent and thoughtful during the debate, and he's not afraid to stray from the mainstream Democratic views on several issues.  On some issues, I agree with Webb, and he appears strong and willing to speak out against what he believes is wrong.  He sounds like the only moderate Democratic candidate, which is why I have him ranked ahead of Chafee and O'Malley, since that may get him some Independent votes in the general election if he had any shot whatsoever of getting there, which he does not.

3rd, Hillary Clinton: Those who are offended that Donald Trump is the leading candidate for Republicans should be offended tenfold that Hillary Clinton is the leading candidate for Democrats.  Hillary is an embarrassment, a criminal, and a nasty person.  I'm not sure which of her many scandals is worse, but she belongs in prison, not in the White House.  Virtually any woman picked at random in America would do a better job than her as Commander-in-Chief, and I would feel more secure too.  The absurd funding from super PACs is sickening, the idea that the type of "change" she would bring would be any better than what Obama has brought does not make sense, and she simply modifies all her views to whatever is best for her politically.  An uneventful moment in the debate perfectly proved that point for me, as she was asked if she was ready to take a stance on whether or not marijuana should be legally nationally, and her response was that she was not yet ready to take a stance and that we need to do more research.  Of course, five minutes of research will paint a pretty clear picture of why marijuana should be legal, if not the results of weed having been legal for well over a year in several states already.  The real reason that Hillary won't take a stand here is the same reason that she opposed gay marriage for so long, and it's not because her views "evolved" like everyone's views evolve on something (heck, even mine have changed over the years on gay marriage).  Once public opinion clearly shows that the issue is trending further toward legalization and that it is no longer a divisive issue for the Left, Hillary's opinion will go the same way.  Oh, and the other candidates all missed a really easy point of attack here when she agreed with Bernie Sanders that people shouldn't be imprisoned for marijuana violations: An obvious solution to that problem is legalization.  I really strongly dislike Hillary, as you may have realized by now, but I also don't think she would do well in the general election, because she is a polarizing figure and a terrible, scandal-ridden candidate.

2nd, Bernie Sanders: I want to like Bernie.  I really do.  Bernie is the one candidate for the Democrats that truly would bring change.  His views on marijuana and super PACs are spot-on, and even a handful of his other economic views make sense.  But the problem is that he is, very literally, a Socialist.  The changes he would bring are Socialist changes.  Many of his views have been consistent though, even when they were unpopular.  Sanders supported gay marriage before I was born, and he's been speaking the same on economic issues for decades.  But there is one important exception here, and that's gun control.  Sanders, once endorsed by the NRA as a candidate for the Senate, pointed out in the debate several times that he now has a D- grade from them.  As he's gained popularity on the far left, Sanders has predictably become less gun-friendly, because pro-gun does not sit well with his far-left base.  But while other candidates are further to the left than Sanders on gun control, nominating him would be a giant lurch to the left, even for the Democratic party.  It would, however, energize the base.  Sanders is likable, and will garner some Independent votes, but he is a Socialist.

1st, Joe Biden: Biden would basically just continue to Obama administration, and is not a particularly strong candidate, or even a candidate at all at this point.  But if he declares his candidacy, it would not be difficult for him to get the nomination and compete in the general election, because, for some reason, people like him.  I don't like him, but I suspect that the reason people do is because he's not Hillary and he's not a Socialist.  The real winner of the debate wasn't even on the stage tonight.  Was it Joe Biden, or was it the Republicans?

Financial Reform Makes Cents

I don't have all the answers on economic policy, and I don't pretend to.  Thus, this is my first post on the subject, and the title even has a lazy pun in it.  But the truth is that something needs to be done about the absurd financial disparity in this country.  And I say that with a stark record of not being a socialist.

Under the Obama administration, the rich have gotten richer and the poor have gotten poorer, to the point of epic and disturbing proportions.  The very rich are richer than ever, while a large portion of Americans struggle to get by paycheck to paycheck.  There's no easy solution, but let's take a look at some of the ideas that are being floated around and think about whether or not they would have positive impact on the nation as a whole.

It doesn't seem right that folks making tens of millions of dollars per year pay less of a percentage to the government than folks making tens of thousands of dollars per year.  I can see a flat tax having positive impact.  We just need to figure out what that percentage number should be.  But I also believe that those below the poverty line should not have to pay this same tax percentage.  If a single mother of two is trying to make ends meet with two low-paying part-time jobs, she needs that little bit of money a lot more than the government does.  And while we're at it, there's a lot of talk about how social security is in trouble.  I know that a pretty high percentage of my check goes toward social security.  I also know that a very low percentage of the checks of the very rich go toward social security.  Take a higher percentage from them and put it in the social security pool.  If this sounds like a socialist idea, I don't care.  It makes sense.

A flat tax would simplify taxes and, quite honestly, I would be perfectly fine if the power of the IRS was diminished or the IRS was abolished altogether.  I don't trust the IRS, and the IRS has proven to be untrustworthy and partisan.  And most government organizations are really just terrible and inefficient anyway, and the thing they are best at is wasting taxpayer money.

The idea of raising minimum wage to $15 per hour across the board though is not a good one.  Perhaps that is an appropriate rate in New York City and San Francisco--that can be left up to local governments--but it is not an appropriate rate in most towns in America.  It would actually cause the number of jobs to decrease, or even more small businesses to close because they can't afford to pay that much.  And most of the folks in minimum wage jobs are young people, unskilled labor, etc.  A minimum wage job should not be a long-term life funding solution.  Not everyone deserves to be making $15 per hour.  Sorry.  And if the push for that sort of dramatic hike in minimum wage continues, I would expect to see even more jobs disappear.  Self checkout has been bad enough.  But when your job can be replaced by a computer, you shouldn't be making $15 per hour.

How does one get out of the rut of a minimum wage job?  College is one way, and there are cheaper college options, though the cost of tuition has continued to go up at obscene rates.  Interest rates are very low.  So should they be on student loans.  Student loans should not be predatory.  But they also should not be simply forgiven by the government in a redistribution of wealth.  If you've had a higher education, you should eventually be able to pay off those loans.  Subsidization programs are also often helpful and appropriate.

Finally, what do we do to help the poor?  The correct answer here is not nothing, or that it's their own fault that they are poor.  Do you honestly think that Jesus would have said that?  Obviously not.  We need to do what we can as a society to help feed, shelter, and clothe the poor.  The very rich have an obligation to help the very poor, from a moral standpoint anyway.  If you are a billionaire, and you give no money to charities, you need to do some real soul-searching...

I guess when it comes to Economics, I don't fall neatly into either end of the conservative versus liberal spectrum, but I realize that something needs to change in this country.  The income disparity in this country is truly not a good thing.  I mean, really, some of these very rich celebrities spend more money on pampering their pets in a week than some families have to spend on food for the whole year.  Something is wrong with that picture.  I am in favor of Capitalism and not in favor of Socialism, but what we are doing now isn't fully working.  The middle class is suffering.  The policies under the Obama administration (as well as the Bush administration) have made this problem worse.  Many people believed that Bush was for the rich, but Obama was touted as a champion of the middle class, and he has proven to be very much the opposite of that.  That's part of the reason why Bernie Sanders, who is literally a Socialist, looks like a legitimate candidate for President of the United States.  Of course, the other part is how terrible of a candidate Hillary Clinton is and the apparent disarray of the Republican Party.  But that's an entirely different kind of flying altogether (it was time for an Airplane! reference).

To end, I realize that statistics can be manipulated to appear to show whatever you want them to show, but these graphs look pretty scary.  Partisan?  Perhaps.  But worthy of thought and discussion nonetheless: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-09-16/obamas-recovery-just-9-charts

Dissenting Opinions Matter

I couldn't help but comment on the most recent freedom of speech controversy at my alma mater and the newspaper I used to be editor-in-chief of.  So I had to submit my humble opinion, which is here: http://wesleyanargus.com/2015/09/23/dissenting-opinions-matter/

I've also pasted it below, as the Argus website appeared to have a few minor spacing glitches.  Also, the picture I put here is one that was taken during a party in the Argus office back in the day.  I found it in my archives.  And yes, I'm wearing an Argus headband.  Ballin.

SUBMITTED ARGUS "WESPEAK" FOLLOWS:

It was Fall 2003 and I was a freshman at Wesleyan. Having grown tired of seeing pro-choice posters plastered all over the place, I decided to put a pro-life sign on the door of my dorm room. I checked with my roommate first, of course, and he was pro-life and didn't really care what I put on the door. So I put it up. Later that night, I was sitting in the bathroom stall and I heard yelling from across the hall.
“Make him take it down!” said the girl who lived in the dorm room next to me. I immediately knew what the discussion was about.
“I can't make him take it down!” my RA responded back, trying to keep his composure. “I don't agree with it either, but he's entitled to his opinion.”
The girl was crying and screaming now, and neither person involved in the conversation had any idea that I heard the whole thing. Her reasoning became more and more absurd, at one point suggesting, I kid you not, that I didn't have a right to that opinion because I was a man. At that point, my RA was starting to raise his voice too, and soon the girl left his room and the conversation was over.
The sign didn't stay on my door for very long. I found it torn into pieces later that week. I don't know who did it, nor do I care. But it's a sad day when people try to silence the opinions of others because they disagree with them.
There are folks on the opposite side of the political spectrum who are guilty of doing this same thing. For example, I know of so-called Christian Universities where students are not allowed to publicly speak out against and question the administration. One of these universities didn't allow interracial dating until the year 2000. It's amazing what can happen if we stifle free speech and impede discourse.
I was the editor-in-chief at the Argus for a semester, and in other editorial positions during other semesters, and we came across a similar problem then. The Argus published some Wespeaks that contained unpopular views, and was called Islamophobic, among other things. We published it because our policy then was not to publish personal attacks or hate speech (i.e. Let's do this violent act to this particular group of people), but anything else was open to discuss. People outside of the Argus office didn't know that a copy editor, who happened to be a Muslim, had read through one of the more controversial pieces before we published it, and while neither she nor most people in that room agreed with what was said, no one in that room seriously considered the idea that we shouldn't publish it.
So, flash forward to 2015, and there is now a petition signed by around 150 people at Wesleyan at the time I'm writing this, to defund the Argus because someone wrote a controversial opinion piece about Black Lives Matter. And one student who signed the petition was quoted in the Argus as saying that “publication of this opinion is a silent agreement with its content, and a silent agreement to the all too prevalent belief that black [and] brown people do not deserve a voice, and that we are not worthy of respect.” Does this person understand what the opinion section of a newspaper is for? How could anything published in it, outside of a call to violence against a group of people, possibly be indicative of an entire staff having such terrible beliefs (in this case, I don't even think the person who wrote that piece has the beliefs assumed in that quote)? When I, a political moderate, was editor-in-chief of one of the most Liberal newspapers in the country, I published many things that I did not agree with. Do you know that I even penned some of them myself? A useful but rare exercise is to write something in favor of an opinion that you disagree with. And in a tradition that I hope continues to this day, which sometimes resulted in that exercise, an Argus Staff editorial was written by one member of the Staff for each issue, and it had to be reflective of the Staff discussion about the issue that preceded it.
Let's take a look at the list of demands for the Argus in that petition, fit to be published in the joke issue (which I hope still exists). Include a work study/course credit position? The Argus used to do that, and it was great (I took the course), but they would presumably need funding for that restored in order to have it again. A monthly report on allocation of funds and leadership structure? Yeah, it's pretty much on a volunteer basis. The only semester I got paid was when I was editor-in-chief, and that was $500 total, which worked out to about $1 per hour. A Social Justice/Diversity training for all student publications? Yes, Wesleyan students getting more of that, in a required setting no less, is going to somehow make the Argus better. Excuse me while I go preach the Gospel to my Pastor. Active recruitment and advertisement? I'm pretty sure they do that. That's how you get on the Argus staff. The makeup of that staff is entirely dependent on who volunteers for it. And open space on the front page dedicated to marginalized groups/voice? I think they're probably still trying to run a legitimate newspaper there. You know, one where top news stories are on the front page and the opinions section is somewhere inside, though marginalized groups and voices are more than welcome to participate.
Or perhaps you can find a paragraph like this one in that section, where I can state some of my personal beliefs, which are bound to offend people. I agree with the Supreme Court's decision on Gay Marriage, and I disagree with the refusal of Kim Davis to step down from her position, despite the fact that I am a Christian who believes that Gay Marriage is against the Bible. We need separation of church and state, but we also need to allow those who dissent to voice their opinions, whether they are on the opposite side of the divisive (outside the Wesleyan bubble) issue of gay marriage, or against something, such as interracial marriage, that nearly everyone agrees with, as they should. We've come a long way as a nation, but we have a long way to go. I understand and agree with what many participants of Black Lives Matter are trying to accomplish, and I see why it upsets some folks when someone suggests replacing “Black” with “All” but I stand with Ben Carson, who instead suggests adding “All” in front of “Black” to include black lives snuffed out by abortion, as well as violence of any kind. And while we're defending marginalized groups, why not defend one group that is utterly voiceless and stand with “Roe” from Roe v. Wade, who now wants that landmark decision overturned? Instead of fighting to defund the Argus, let's fight to defund Planned Parenthood!
Let discourse ensue.

Quick Picks: Republican Candidates

The Top 11 candidates in the race for the Republican nomination and, in order from worst to best, how good of a choice each candidate would be to take on whoever the Democrats nominate (I'll do this for the Democrats after they have a debate, though that field is much less crowded and will make for a shorter post).  Brief two-sentence notes (with 15-day polling average from 2016.republican-candidates.org)...

11th (polling 1st), Donald Trump: To understate it, this would be a nightmare for Republicans.  He's a straight talker, and a lot of intelligent things come out of his mouth, but so do many, many terrible things that make most folks cringe.

10th (polling 3rd), Jeb Bush: His last name is Bush.  That is all.

9th (polling 7th), Mike Huckabee: Standing next to Kim Davis is not a good political move.  Or a good move in general, for any reason really.

8th (polling 8th), Scott Walker: A lot of people in Wisconsin don't like him very much, which is why he nearly got recalled.  It's hard to see a reason why he would do a better job in Washington, D.C.

7th (polling 6th), Ted Cruz: Conservative for sure, but to the point of extreme absurdity.  Polarizing and kind of creepy.

6th (polling 5th), Carly Fiorina: An intelligent and strong woman with strong views for sure, some of which I agree with, and others which I definitely do not.  She has little political experience, which would be fine if not for her checkered past in the careers she has chosen to pursue instead.

5th (polling 11th), John Kasich: I don't mind Kasich so much, and I like that he's not afraid to disagree with fellow Republicans on some issues, but I have a hard time seeing him having any chance of getting the nomination.  And his chances in the general election would be poor.

4th (polling 9th), Rand Paul: Paul is another one who's not afraid to disagree with others in his party on some issues, and he often seems to lean Libertarian.  Unfortunately, he has the feel of a failed Independent candidate.

3rd (polling 10th), Chris Christie: He's running despite a scandal that nearly derailed his campaign before in started.  But he's saying the right things, he's likable, and being a successful Republican in New Jersey has to count for something.

2nd (polling 4th), Marco Rubio: He's intelligent, he's done well in the debates, and many of his views make a great deal of sense.  But he's a bit awkward.

1st (polling 2nd), Ben Carson: Frankly, finding the best candidate for this job is not even close.  Ben Carson projects wisdom as well as love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control (see what I did there?).

Because of the voter laws in Connecticut, as a registered Independent, I can't vote in the primaries, and I'm actually considering registering as a Republican just so I can vote for Ben Carson.

Off-fence-ive Walls

Liberals seem to hate walls.  When I was a student at Wesleyan, there was one area of campus in which the majority of laptop thefts occurred.  This area happened to be student housing that bordered low-income housing projects.  That's not to suggest that the residents in that area were responsible for all (or any) of the thefts (there was poor lighting there and easy escape routes), but when someone suggested building a wall between the two areas, all hell broke loose.  You see, the wall would represent something that was more than a wall.  It would represent class separation or a "stay out of OUR area" mentality.  It didn't matter that there were students at the University tutoring children in that bordering community.  All that mattered was that wall and its perceived symbolism.  And the thefts?  Those were an afterthought.  Surely a wall couldn't fix that problem.  Logical arguments have little value to people whose arguments are based almost entirely in emotion.

Roughly ten years later, here we are on a National scale trying to fix our illegal immigration problem, and Donald Trump's idea of immigration reform is building a wall along the entire southern border and deporting all of the illegal immigrants.  So in this case, the wall would not be merely be symbolic, but would be an actual way to keep "those people" out of "our area."  Really, it's not the wall part that's such a bad idea.  It's the part about deporting everyone who is here illegally.  That is an expensive and sometimes heartbreaking task, but it is also an unfruitful one because, as Ben Carson pointed out, unless we secure our borders first, it accomplishes nothing.

Carson's views on immigration may not be popular, inside or outside of the Republican party, but they make an awful lot of sense.  I would expect that coming from an intelligent, thoughtful, and humble candidate like himself.  We're not ignoring the fact that these illegal immigrants are breaking the law by being here, or by not paying taxes.  And we are not ignoring the fact that some (though not a majority, Mr. Trump) of them break other laws by acting violently and selling drugs (and those people need to be prosecuted and not allowed to live free in our land).  But we need to find some way to deal with those people who are here to work and make better lives for them and their families.  While I don't believe full amnesty is the answer, certainly finding ways for those who are here for the right reasons to be here legally is a good way to go.  Work visas, pathways to citizenship... These are some good ideas that need to be considered.  After all, we are a nation of immigrants.  But immigrants needs to come here legally and be subject to the same laws and taxes (and, once legal, benefits) as everyone else, just like my grandmother, when she came here from Italy in 1947, as well as now.

A related topic is that of refugees.  The United States is a nation that accepts refugees, but it is also a nation that needs to be sure that we are not letting murderous Islamic extremists into our borders.  That's the age we live in today.  That's how our greatest enemy operates.  This is not a discriminatory statement, but a fact.  Folks on the left and right need to sit down with each other and have a sensible discussion about immigration reform and stop pointing accusatory fingers at each other.  We need to come up with some real solutions.  The walls we've built between ourselves need to come down.  After all, Conservatives don't like all walls.  It was the greatest President of my lifetime who famously told Mr. Gorbachev to "Tear down this wall!"  And paraphrasing thoughts from Darrell Hammond's autobiography, when Ronald Reagan spoke those words, he spoke them from his balls.