There is a huge chunk of Independents who are personally conservative, but publicly liberal. For example, they would never think of having an abortion in their family, but they don’t care if someone else has one. They would not have extra-marital relations, but they do not judge others who do. Some of them are very religious, but are not offended by atheists and followers of other religions.

Most partisans (on either side) assume that people fall on 2 sides of the question. But there is a huge gray area where people support something that they would not accept in their own lives. There are many reasons why they think like that.

One is that unless someone’s behavior hurts them, these people don’t care what they do. Another is that it is possible that although a person may not want to do an abortion today and does not anticipate doing so, they want the choice to be available if they ever need to. A third is that many are unconcerned about these issues, since they never had to confront them.

So conservatives are arguing not only against liberals who personally support abortion, but also against other people who just want to keep the option open and don’t care about what other people do in their personal lives.

It is also not true that abortion was entirely off the table. Part of Sarah Palin’s selection was her appeal to social conservatives. The fact that she gave birth to Trig even though he had Down’s Syndrome was a courageous decision and emphasized her pro-life credentials. She also took on a working-mother persona to appeal to middle America. But this didn’t matter, because the subject of the day was not abortion or any other social issue.

It is unfair to blame the evangelical crowd entirely for this year’s loss. But they do share the blame. While Sarah Palin did excite the base, she drove away Independents and the Hillary voters who were supposed to be shifting their allegiance to another woman. Because the Republican base got fired up after the convention, the McCain campaign emphasized cultural issues heavily while not presenting a coherent economic plan that would appeal to the masses.

But back to abortion. Ross wants to have Roe v Wade overturned and then he says that we can work on all sorts of compromises. Unfortunately, when your ultimate vision is overthrowing the fundamentals of the other side, and your tactics are about chipping away at that fundamentals, then it makes you seem extreme and someone unwilling to be trusted in any negotiation. It reminds me about the Arab and his camel who starts with asking to put his head in the tent and then finally pushing the Arab out.

The pro-life movement has several core problems. The usual stated position of the pro-life movement is that they are saving the life of the unborn child, which, in itself, is a noble goal. If that were the only goal, there are, in fact, several means to achieve the goal. First and foremost, reduce unwanted pregnancies. Provide the necessary sex education to teenagers and educate them about the choices – both abstinence and contraceptives. Make contraceptives easily available to teenagers. Sex education could also explain the responsibilities and medical problems that come with unwanted pregnancies. Improve poor neighborhoods. Invest in education and crime prevention. 

But when you talk about these steps, the social conservatives have another agenda that they bring to the table. Education should be abstinence only, because extra-marital sex is a sin. Every aspect of the abortion debate is enveloped in a religious debate where there are some righteous people and there are others who are sinners. Using the term “abortion on demand” explains this all. It is as if women like getting abortions and killing their own babies. 

Treating abortion evil and making it scarce has the perverse effect of making things worse. Consider this: Almost 50% of women who had partial birth abortions did so because they had found it difficult to make arrangements for abortion earlier. So instead of aborting it when the fetus is in its initial stages, they are aborting it when there is a high likelihood of an actual live baby.

Those who wish to overturn Roe v Wade do not seem to consider the side effects of their proposal. Many states will still have legal abortion and those who have money will travel to those states. Or, if it is banned in the United States, they would go to other countries. The poor cannot afford to do so. So many of them will resort to illegal quacks or crude methods they obtain from the Internet. Others will give birth. These children may be discarded or grow up in sorry circumstances and turn to crime as they grow older.

Think about it – in almost all cases, a politician has to win at least 50% of the vote. This means getting votes from many people who are liars, selfish and unpleasant to deal with. Some of them (both on the far left and far right) are lunatics advocating communism, racism and all kinds of bad -ism’s.

Political gaffes and missteps are so popular because they are very rare. Most politicians seem to have different genes than us. They like everybody (except their opponent, of course). As long as your constituency is the one that gets them elected, they truly don’t care about other characteristics (wealth, beauty. etc.) you possess. The grittier, the better.

Politicians like holding babies. They like wearing hardhats. They (most of them, anyway) eat anything you offer them. (I wonder if the Secret Service has a food tester) They like waving, hugging, and smiling while they are on the trail.

But what do they really think about us? I mean, deep inside. Are they built that way or are they just amazing actors?

To understand what this means, read the current Visa bulletin issued by the State Department. The charts show how long people have to wait to get a permanent resident visa. The dates referred to are the application dates, when someone applied for a visa. So, someone from China who applied on or before February 1, 2002 is eligible to get a work-based visa, but not if they applied after that. Which means that a Chinese immigrant has been waiting for almost 7 years for a visa. Other categories are similar or even worse (as in the case of family members).

There is only a finite number of visas every year, which is why we have this problem. Since immigrants do not vote, this is not a high priority for any politician to fix. Assuming that illegal immigrants are going to be added to the back of this line, you can be sure that 7 years would become a decade or even longer.

That would not be too bad, but if you are a worker in the United States who has applied for a permanent residency courtesy a US company, your application could become ineligible if the current company changes its mind about hiring you and no one else is ready to hire you, a scenario more likely in a recession as we are having now.

So, if you are an illegal immigrant, what do you do? Do you decide to come clean and then place your fate in this decade-long process which has substantial risk of not going through completion, and that in addition, to paying fines and old taxes? 

If you want to give amnesty, you have to reform the existing legal immigration setup so that it is reasonable and does not ask people to put their lives on indefinite hold. Without that, any initiative to end illegal immigration will fail.

Now, if the “end of the line” means actually granting every illegal immigrant permanent residency and then the line is the line to citizenship, that is even more ridiculous. First, it would be amazingly unjust to the current people waiting in line who have been incredibly patient and following the rules. But more importantly, there is no real “line” for citizenship. Permanent residents qualify to become naturalized citizens within 5 years. So what kind of line are we talking about?

[This concludes immigration posts for now.]

People tend to forget that most cultural change comes from mass media – movies, music and TV. The younger generation always has a different culture. Places that have had little immigration (towards the North of the country) are also very different culturally than they are where a few decades before. So, there is a tendency to overestimate the immigration effect.

However, there is some effect and let us examine that. Most immigrants take a lot of time to assimilate into the culture. And this is caused by many factors. The language problem is one major reason. Even if the immigrant comes from a country that speaks English, they will have different accents, pronunciation, words & phraseology and, for a significant period of time, they find it difficult to communicate effectively. For example, highly educated immigrants from India speak faster than the average American and speak British English, which makes them stand out.

Now, when we come to immigrants from non-English countries like Mexico or Russia, the situation is even worse as they have to learn from the ground up. However much politicians like to rant against these outsiders, it is very difficult for adults to pick up a new language or accent, although you will see some improvements over a longer period of time.

It is obvious that many immigrants (from non-European countries) look different. They also behave differently because their culture makes them more docile or aggressive (or whatever trait is emphasized in their culture). Many immigrants also prefer their own cuisine, dress styles, etc. 

All these differences create a situation where citizens view immigrants as different and subtly/overtly show that in their interactions with them. Immigrants, therefore, always feel like outsiders and therefore become more inward-looking and seek out communities of similar immigrants. That doesn’t mean that they are in way disloyal to their adopted country. Quite the reverse, as can be seen from many volunteers for the US Army. But there is a greater tendency for them to shy away from places where they could stick out as different.

Now, here is where the equation changes – The children of these immigrants are much more assimilated into the culture than the immigrants themselves ever will be. The children go to school in the United States, they learn the language, their friends are also American-born. They have no foreign accent. They have the same dreams and aspirations as the children of non-immigrant parents. So, over a generation, you can see that these immigrant communities, instead of imposing their own culture, becoming part of the mainstream culture.

The mainstream culture does not change fundamentally, but it incorporates some of the new things that immigrants bring with them. Most commonly, music, cuisine, fashion, etc. blend in. But because the existing culture is so pre-dominant in the media, these are treated as new genres, with very few rising to a mass culture.

The main argument against illegal immigration is that it depresses wages and creates hardship for US citizens who are unable to get the same jobs or have to work at lower wages. Any solution (deportation or amnesty) would be able to solve this problem.

If you deport all the illegal immigrants, then you would have a labor shortage and that would increase the wages and benefits of the remaining workers. Contrary to what politicians say, you don’t have to actually round up immigrants and deport them, which could lead to a humanitarian crisis. An easier way is to enforce labor laws on businesses in places where illegal immigration is a problem. This will make businesses less likely to hire such workers, who finding no jobs, will return back to their country. A gradual increase in enforcement can reverse current trends and reduce illegal immigration substantially.

If you give amnesty to existing illegal immigrants, they can directly compete in the job market without fear of being caught. They can then demand the same market wages because they are not pressured into accepting a lower wage for a business that will hide the fact that they are employing illegal workers. They are also more likely to disperse across the country thus reducing regional wage effects.

An illegal immigrant usually treats his/her stay in the country as temporary. Regardless of actual law enforcement, they are always afraid of getting caught and sent back. Hence, they spend very little and save as much of what they can earn, and send that money back to their home country. By making them legal immigrants, this flow of money can be lessened, as they start spending more on their needs and saving money in American banks. Income and payroll taxes can be collected on their wages. The needs of legal immigrants also increase – they also want to buy cars, houses, furniture, etc. So their wage demands also increase. 

OK, that is it for today. Tomorrow, let us look at more aspects of the issue again.

Except, of course, with the President-Elect and the Democratic Congress leaders, who cannot seem to imagine an America without GM and Chrysler (Ford should survive for the immediate short-term even without any money). 

The financial rescue has a good “Plan B explanation”, in the event of a failure. It can be argued that in the absence of the bailout, the financial situation would have been even dire. But you cannot do that with the auto-makers. It is very likely that they will keep losing money heavily and any turnaround, if it ever comes, would take years. During that time, the supporters of the bailout will be sinking with them.

The United States has given birth to many industries and also terminated them, when they created inferior and expensive products compared to the products from other countries. So the argument for having a US auto industry does not pass the laugh test.

The continued support from the Democratic leaders shows how they are willfully ignoring the voice of the people. They don’t even have the courage to properly explain why only a bailout, and not some other measure, would work, or why they think that companies who have driven themselves to the verge of bankruptcy can now be managed successfully to produce world-beating vehicles. 

It is even stupider when you consider the entire Democratic agenda. How about keeping that money for some of the other big initiatives they have planned? Or is that going to come from savings in Iraq (oops, not until 2011 and then not so much, since we are just going to move the troops to Afghanistan)? Or maybe tax raises. Oh, that won’t happen until 2011 either, since no one wants to lose the mid-term elections.

It sure looks like the Democrats are going to spend all their money even before their President gets inaugurated!

You may also find a lot of couples not tying the knots because one partner (usually the male) is afraid of new commitments at a time of financial uncertainty. This is the same circumstance that prevents people from buying stocks and real estate even when they hit rock bottom prices, because people just want to keep the money close to their chest.

In general, of course, the number of marriages has been declining for various social and cultural reasons. The deep recession now may just accelerate that decline.

Take a look at Sri Lanka (LTTE), Spain (Basque), Palestine, Kashmir and other flashpoints across the world. Every time a cause takes up terrorism, their cause takes a setback for years and decades. The reasons are simple. Violence begets violence. No government could survive if it is shown to be weak in fighting back against those who are willing to kill innocent people. Whatever cause the killing is done in the name of, it is entirely discredited by the actions of the terrorists.

Terrorists brings more harm to the people for which they are supposedly fighting for. They (e.g.:- Muslims, Tamils, Irish, etc.) are then viewed with suspicion in the communities they live in, and, in some countries, the hostile atmosphere escalating to violent riots and murder, such as in the Gujarat riots of 2002. Governments could also enact legal measures to restrict their freedom, and engage in repressive measures against the community.

Every community should guard against such unwanted extremists who claim to be their activists. The prominent leaders should speak out and write against them. Quite often, though, the reverse happens. Fallen terrorists are honored as martyrs, even though they are shameless indiscriminate killers of innocent life, including children and the elderly. When that happens, it is a vicious cycle of violence all the way to the bottom.

For any religious person (especially for Christians, Jews and Muslims), homosexuality presents a real problem. Their religion explicitly forbids it and, by definition, that implies homosexuality is learned, not something one is born with. It is a sin, and one cannot support any official policy that gives legitimacy to sin.

The problem in a modern society is that the bus has already left a long time ago. Many practices that are abhorrent to religious persons are now commonplace. This include divorce, abortion, sexuality, pornography, etc., and while government has placed limits on many of these, they are regulated instead of being illegal.

Gay marriage is just another battle in the war against recognition of homosexuality, a war which the religious side has been consistently losing, despite minor victories. Part of this is a more secular society as well as a younger generation that is more diverse and hence increasingly tolerant of such differences. 

Religious leaders have to therefore resort to arguments that do not rely on religion, but are secular in nature, or arouse fear without explicitly stating the religious reason. And hence, we have the argument that gay marriage is a threat to traditional, a.k.a. heterosexual, marriage, something that does not make sense even logically, much less statistically.

I do not mean to demean the feelings of religious persons. Many of them are quite good-hearted and are being forced by religion to make a hard choice, while the world is fundamentally changing around them. And they don’t quite know how to handle it.

One final thing about gay marriage. There is a lot of debate about how this is comparable to civil rights. I think there is one fundamental difference. Racism had little basis in religion. In fact, many religious leaders opposed slavery and segregation. Opposition to gays and gay marriage, on the other hand, derives heavily from religious beliefs, which makes it a different creature in terms of support and opposition.