There Will Be Blood

UFC 114 finally, and I do mean finally, pits Rampage Jackson against Rashad Evans. This fight has been built longer than the pyramids, so it is with great anticipation, and some relief, that we will finally see someone's mouth get (temporarily) shut. This card, however, isn't just about the main event. There are indeed some interesting fights and fighters on the rest of the card. Here's your Vegas betting info:

Non-PPV Fight to Watch

Cyrille "The Snake" Diabate v. Luiz "Bahna" Cain

Pride fans will remember The Snake well. Diabate is a versatile and dangerous striker. He is tall and lanky and is (overzealously) compared to Anderson Silva in terms of striking ability. While that comparison is a bit overblown, he is indeed a dangerous to throw hands with. There was a time, during his old Pride days, that The Snake was able to drive Shogun Rua to search for the takedown because of his striking ability. Of course once the fight hit the ground, Shogun stomped him into oblivion.

Before running into Lil' Nog in his last fight, Bahna Cain was rising fast up the UFC 205 lb rankings. His striking isn't nearly as polished or fluid as Diabate's, but he has more power and has UFC experience under his belt.

This fight has danger written all over it for The Snake. Former Pride fighters have struggled in their UFC debuts, and indeed Diabate lacks cage experience. I expect that to be enough for Bahna Cain to slide by The Snake if the fight goes past 1 round, but don't be surprised if Cain is looking up at the lights early on.

Main Card

Diego Sanchez v. John Hathaway

Diego Sanchez took a redneck wife beating from BJ Penn in his last fight. That beating, presumably, has caused him to rise back to 170 lbs for this fight. Because of his struggles against the very cream of the crop (losses to Koscheck, Penn, Fitch) people tend to discount "The Nightmare". But remember, his record is 23-3. He has been totally dominating in many fights. And even though BJ Penn crushed him, Sanchez showed heart by hanging in there and trying to keep fighting. He has always shown that heart.

Against that backdrop he fights undefeated John Hathaway. Although Hathaway isn't known to UFC fans well yet, he is 3-0 with the organization (including a win over tough Paul Taylor). He has shown the ability to fight the distance and outwork his opponent. He will need all of that in this fight.

The smart money here is on Sanchez. He will come out very aggressive and simply overwhelm Hathaway early in route to a 1st round TKO.

Lil' Nog v. Jason Brilz

Jason Brilz steps in as a last minute replacement for Forrest Griffin. As such, this fight has much more risk for Lil' Nog. In fighting Griffin, a win would have vaulted him into title contention for sure, while a loss would've been defensible and to a former champion. Now I'm not sure what a win does for Nog other than having the virtue of simply avoiding a bad loss.

Brilz is 3-1 in the UFC. He is a good wrestler and an all-around tough guy. He will need to get this fight to the ground, even though he is fighting a Nogueria brother, because he stands little chance of being able to out-box Nog. Nogueria showed his power in his UFC debut by knocking out up and comer Luiz Cain.

While I am a huge Nog fan, and believe that it is very likely he will win easily, be warned: Wrestlers do well in the UFC. If Brilz can avoid the submission, he could ride out a decision victory. Also, remember the case of Nogueria's fight against Sokoudjou in Pride. Soku came in a virtual unknown and stunned Nogueria with his considerable punching power.

Brilz hasn't shown that kind of power, however, so it says here that Lil' Nog will win by 2nd round TKO.

Todd Duffee v. Mike Russow

Last time Todd Duffee fought, had you gone to the bathroom, gotten something to eat, or even blinked you would've missed it. He KO'd Tim Hague in 7 sec. Therefore, we can only say this much for certain: Duffee is a great athlete with a lot of power. Considering that fight was actually last August, it's easy to see that we have more questions about Todd Duffee than answers.

Mike Russow is a tough guy. He also is 1-0 (albeit in far less spectacular fashion) in the UFC. Although he has long since lost the bodybuilding competition to Duffee, Russow may have some tricks up his sleeve. He is known for his cool-headedness and ability to slow the pace of a fight to what he wants. Think of a less skilled and experienced Roy Nelson.

Though I can see ways that Russow could survive an early onslaught and wear Duffee out, I believe the Todd Duffee coming out party is here. Beware landing an early shot that doesn't hurt Russow as much as it appears (and consequently Duffee wearing himself out), and Duffee takes a solid TKO win back to Indiana.

Michael Bisping v. Dan Miller

Two fighters that are well rounded. Two fighters that aren't bad at anything, and aren't great at anything. Two fighters that are very similar. Miller may prefer the submission game, Bisping the striking game, but both guys can do their thing in either venue.

Problem for Miller is that he has lost 2 in a row (Chael Sonnen and Demian Maia) and isn't actually better at any aspect of the MMA than Bisping. Bisping will use movement, timely aggression, and striking accuracy to send Miller home with another unanimous decision loss.

Main Event: Rampage Jackson v. Rashad Evans

Two former champions, both in the UFC and shit-talking, will lace 'em up at UFC 114. There are several things to consider here.

Rashad Evans is no slouch however you'd like to cut it. He has a 19-1-1 record and has shown the ability to win a fight early, late, or by decision. He has the wrestling game to control almost any fighter, and has shown the speed and punching power to end a fight at any moment. Although he hasn't shown much of a submission game, he hasn't been submitted (or even been close) and I certainly don't expect Rampage to change that.

The first key difference I see between these two men is experience. Rashad Evans does hold wins over Michael Bisping, Forrest Griffin, Chuck Liddell's corpse, and Thiago Silva. In reality though, he beat a way-past-it Chuck Liddell, a middleweight in Bisping, a suddenly passive Silva, and a bit of a mystery in terms of real contender status in Griffin. His best test came against Lyoto Machida....he didn't win.

Rampage, on the other hand has fought Wanderlei Silva 3 times (losing to him twice in Wanderlei's prime) Shogun Rua, Forrest Griffin, Dan Henderson, Chuck Liddell (back when Chuck still looked invinciable), Ricardo Arona, Sakuraba, Minowa-man, and on and on. His list of opponents literally reads like a Hall-of-Fame program. While I have doubts about Rashad's ability to deal with Rampage's intensity, strength, and power, I have no doubts about Rampage's ability to deal with Rashad.

Rashad will win if:

Rashad Evans needs to use his superior quickness to get angles to land strikes. He must avoid extended exchanges with Rampage, as Rampage has a granite chin to Rashad's questionable one. He also must avoid coming straight in, even though he's quicker, because Rampage has gotten adept at slipping the first punch and countering very hard (see Rampage v. Wanderlei 3). Rampage has shown vulnerability to leg kicks (see Rampage v. Griffin), and can sometimes appear stubborn in the cage with an unwillingness to adapt. If Rashad can land a few leg kicks early, he should stick with it until Rampage adjusts. Rashad must also trust his wrestling. Rampage has no bottom-game to speak of, therefore any takedown Rashad can secure, count on it leading to damage from the top position. If Rashad feels like Rampage is beginning to load up and trade punches, he must shoot for the double at least to keep Rampage honest.

Rampage will win if:

Rampage must use careful pressure against Rashad. He is the more experienced and skillful striker. Rashad has a bad habit of picking his front foot up much too high when moving. Rampage can time that step and attack during the step. He must cut the cage off and get Rashad near the fence before exploding into a combination. A classic strategy of trying to make it a "fight in a phone booth" is needed here. Attacking too fast, too early, will result in a takedown. If taken down, Rampage must try to get up immediately, for he is at a big disadvantage when under Rashad Evans. Rampage must also respect Rashad enough to admit that Rashad is versatile and dangerous. He must be willing to adjust to what Rashad is doing and punish him for trying leg kicks or takedowns.

Prediction

Rashad Evans has a lot of tools. He also has the advantage of having fought twice since Rampage last fought (well over 14 months ago now). However, that will not be enough. Other than scoring multiple takedowns, there is no way for Rashad to win this fight. Rampage will shake off the rust early and land too many power shots for Rashad to handle. Rampage via 2nd rd TKO.

When We Have Too Much Power

Men, yes even the Pope, are inherently flawed. Imperfect. We have overseen grand displays of character such as the tsunami relief in Indonesia, or the existence and function of the Peace Corps and Red Cross. We have also been responsible for the holocaust, the inquisition, and the "Trail of Tears". This imperfection must be recognized. With that in mind, it is time to abolish the death penalty.

Time ran an article stating the Supreme Court is about to take up a case involving Hank Skinner. Mr. Skinner is on death row in Texas. He has been convicted of killing his girlfriend and her two "mentally challenged" sons. The crime was heinous. The victims were stabbed, strangled, and beaten to death. Mr. Skinner has claimed innocence throughout the process, but that isn't what is bothersome.

The problematic notion here is that Mr. Skinner's trial did not include DNA evidence. Mr. Skinner has long wanted DNA testing, which is apparently available in this case, because he believes it will show him as innocent. The prosecutor in the case has refused, so Mr. Skinner sued.

Now, before you get your panties all in a bunch about convicts claiming innocence, note the fact that 138 people have been released from death row since 1973 when their convictions were overturned. Also note that even though the south has executed 4 times as many people as the rest of the country combined since 1973, they still have by far the highest murder rate at 6.7 murders/100,000 people. No other region in the country has a rate above 5.5. While crime is a very complex issue, this certainly shoot a significant number of holes in the "death penalty prevents violent crime" argument. Or maybe it hangs, or injects, or electrocutes it...I digress.

Anyway, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled against Mr. Skinner's lawsuit. Let's enforce that point a bit. A man is set to be killed by the state when not all legal avenues have been explored to find out the truth about the case. The man is asking for a DNA test. Doesn't this man deserve to have evidence admitted on his behalf that may prove his innocence?Isn't it also true that if indeed the man committed the crime, the evidence will simply confirm this suspicion?

The check of the court system lies in the appeal process. But this check may not function well at all. Take for example the case of Troy Davis. Mr. Davis was convicted of shooting and killing a police officer in Georgia. Needless to say, the case was shaky at best. Congress, always appealing to populist bullshit, had passed a law called the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). This law attempted to allow only one set of appeals in federal court to people on death row. Mr. Davis had appealed, and lost in federal court. Fortunately for him, the Supreme Court bucked that law in his case, and heard an appeal. The obvious rationale here was that a substantial amount of evidence existed putting serious doubt in Mr. Davis' conviction. Justice Scalia disagreed with the decision of the Court to hear the case. In his dissent he wrote, "This court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent."

Stunning. Justice Scalia appears to be arguing that Constitution actually doesn't forbid killing a wrongly convicted person just because they can prove they are innocent. I say "just because" to highlight the absurdity of the claim. Really?????!!!!! The preamble talks about forming a Union that would "establish justice". I don't think killing an innocent man is very just. And even if the Constitution doesn't explicity say that men shouldn't be killed for a crime they didn't commit, I'm sure the founding fathers, albeit perhaps mistakingly, simply assumed that future Supreme Court justices wouldn't be complete morons devoid of common sense and a general feel for what "justice", "law", and, most importantly, "truth" really means.

In reality, this highlights what we all already know. Men are flawed. Giving them the power of finality that comes with a death sentence is a power too great for men to handle. In these cases, men are faced with great conflicts of interest. Many times, the defendant may be innocent of that crime, but guilty of many others. He is a menace. The prosecutorial staff is under tremendous pressure to convict and to be right. The concept of allowing evidence in the case that could show they are in fact wrong, while obviously just, can be at odds with career pursuits and politics.

Whether the death penalty is effective at its presumably intended goal of discouraging violent crime is a topic for another writer. But the argument over whether human beings can handle the responsibility of legally killing other human beings for wrong-doings seems to me to be settled. We can't.

The Red Pill or The Blue Pill

Lost somewhat in the recent national debates over health-care, financial reform and immigration, there are important environment issues to be dealt with. There is a great, if not infinitely frustrating, irony in the notion that we put seemingly everything in front of environmental issues, yet those issues are the ones that most directly effect our health.

Recently, President Obama's (creatively named) Cancer Panel (I know, I know, how many panels and committees are there in Washington?) released a paper that for the first time placed a significant emphasis on the role that our environment may play in the development of cancer. The paper stated that an astounding 80,000 chemicals are currently being used in the United States, while a paltry 200 have been assessed for safety. Previous cancer prevention initiatives had (rightly) focused on lifestyle choices and screening. Epidemiolgists had often put the figure for cancers caused by environmental reasons at 5%. However, the Cancer Panel's report said that figure might be "grossly underestimating" the truth.

Believe it or not, assessing chemicals (or really anything industry does or uses) is far more difficult than you might imagine. A Rolling Stone piece by Jeff Goodell brought the issue of coal ash regulation to the attention of the public--or at least (between bong rips) the Rolling Stone readership.

When coal is burned, there is a substance left over (think burning wood in your fireplace). That substance contains, among other things, some heavy metals. I'm not talking Pantera (R.I.P. Dimebag) heavy metal; I'm talking mercury, cadmium, arsenic. Each year 140 million tons of coal ash is produced. Some of the coal ash is used to make concrete, land filler, plastics, paints, and glass. Some is put into large, unlined ponds. Some people, like the aforementioned Jeff Goodell, believe that those heavy metals from the coal ash leaks into groundwater surrounding their unlined pools and make people living around the area sick.

Other people claim there is no evidence of toxicity to humans citing the Father of Toxicology, Paracelsus, and his claim that "The dose makes the poison." They say that the levels of heavy metals in the ash is low enough that it won't harm people. Paracelsus, though, was talking about acute poisons. In other words, hemlock will kill you, but at a low enough dose it won't. That isn't the same thing as saying constant, low-dose exposure to a poison won't hurt you.

Coal ash has also had some bad, albeit less publicized compared to oil, spills to deal with over the years. No matter how you cut it, this certainly appears to be an issue worth looking into. I contacted our state and federal politicians to see what they had to say about coal ash regulation.

Evan Bayh responded about a topic that was totally unrelated to my e-mail. Thanks for paying attention Senator Bayh.

Other than Senator "already checked-out" Bayh's incoherent response, other lawmakers offered vanilla opinions. State Representative Woody Burton responded, "My position is that technology today is proving scientifically that coal can be used as a clean and environmentally safe way to generate energy." He continued on the topic of regulation and alternative energy sources, "...but I also think that we need to use common sense in approaching the alternative energy issue by using the technology we have to keep clean coal as a source of energy." Senator Richard Lugar, who I'd like to point out responded quickly and with a scan of the actual letter he sent to the President (hear that Senator Bayh!!!!???), said in his letter that he is "hopeful that the EPA will carefully consider how any classification of coal ash as a hazardous material could create uncertainty about the beneficial uses of these products.."

Ok, ok, the point already! The point is this, the burden of proof for designating chemicals hazardous or not lies with the people. In other words, a chemical is automatically considered "safe" if industry deems it necessary for use until it is proven (i.e. people get sick and die) to be harmful to humans. This, as much as any other point, is the problem we face environmentally.

The recent, on-going and likely never-ending, health-care debate focused on many issues. One was cost cutting. Several people pointed out that if we focused more on prevention, we could save money. That theory is based on the idea that if Grandma doesn't get cancer, and no one has to pay for expensive cancer treatments, then paying for that mammogram or anti-smoking literature was well worth the money.

Looking at the quotes for Senator Lugar and Representative Burton highlights the backwards thinking that we have. The assumption is that someone has to prove that a substance containing several known poisons is dangerous to people before it is regulated at all. To suggest that the coal companies prove that it's safe before placing it in unlined beds that can leach those heavy metals into my damn water is considered blasphemous.

The President's Cancer Panel is, in effect, making that same argument. They aren't necessarily coming out and saying that all 80,000 of those chemicals in use cause harm, but they also aren't saying that we should simply assume they don't until people are losing years of their life to chemo. To continue with the coal ash example, it may be true that electric bills would rise if companies were forced to safely dispose of waste. But a couple of quick bullshit meter thoughts on that:

Many industries, from pharmaceuticals to meat packers have to deal with regulation and inspection. They howl and complain about it, but at the end of the quarter, they post big profits more often than not. The reality is, to their credit, they've discovered ways to make money even with regulation. The regulation forced innovation, and that innovation spawned both profit for them, and a better product for us. There is no reason to believe that electric companies too would innovate. That innovation might lead to more efficient recycling of coal ash. It might lead to improved methods of disposal that have high up-front costs, but long-term cost benefits. Those ideas may be shunned due to that high initial cost, but will be welcomed when the companies are faced with fines and the loss of their licenses. Indeed electric bills may rise some, but political pressure from a very unhappy electorate would hold them down. The companies would whine, adapt and overcome.

However, even if that entire paragraph is complete and utter crap, what sort of defense is it to say, "Well, you may die from cancer because of this waste, but we don't want to lose jobs or pay more for electricity. Good luck." What the hell? This is America. We put a man on the moon. We have been a social, scientific, and political beacon for over 200 years. You are seriously telling me that we can't reconcile the need to safely dispose of coal ash, or safely use industrial chemicals, with the need to make money. It's really ok that our lawmakers say vague things like, "common sense approach to climate change", or "that's not what the American people want, they want a bi-partisan solution" instead of offering up real ideas.

People are opposed to cap-and-trade. Fine. Without using the dumbass phrase, "common sense", or blathering on about the will of the American people (which is a topic for a whole other post. To assume that ANYONE can surmise the wishes of 300 million people from different regions, ethnicities, religions, races, and socio-economic backgrounds is patently absurd), state an idea to deal with greenhouse gases.

How about a truly novel idea, our lawmakers care first and foremost about our health, and second about whose donating to their campaign? Or at least, pretend to.

The Immigrant Song

Much has been written, and much more will be said, about Arizona's new immigration law. You can find the riveting *cough* text here. A quick synopsis of what this bill does:

1) Prevents any town, city, or local division (i.e. a county) from making a law that restricts enforcement of federal immigration laws.

2) The bill spends several pages talking about what can be done to prevent businesses from hiring illegal immigrants. This includes revoking licenses, fines, and filing a lot of paperwork.

3) For the first two...I doubt you'll find much controversy. But the "meat and potatoes" of this bill is:

B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

This section, minus the relatively light legalese, simply says that a police officer must check the immigration status of someone who is suspected of being an illegal immigrant. Let's start by tackling that bolded term, "lawful contact".

I did a google search for "lawful contact" and found nothing concrete. I consulted a legal dictionary, and no term was found. In truth, there is no actual legal definition for "lawful contact". I was listening to Sean Hannity the other day when he discusses this bill. He claimed that he didn't see the problem with this because, "if I get pulled over for speeding, the first thing the cop does is check my driver's license." He seemed to be implying that this situation would be the same. But the gray area in defining "lawful contact" concerns many that it made lead to harassment of Latinos. Remember that there are many American citizens of Latino descent. They certainly shouldn't have to "prove" their citizenship anymore than white folks do. I highly doubt, however, than there will be much checking of citizenship papers for the white people living in Arizona.

But, for the sake of argument, let's try the highly questionable exercise of assuming that Sean Hannity is right and this law is nothing more than a reaffirmation of existing law. First, this begs the question, why pass this law at all? If a law needs to be passed in Arizona requiring police officers to check identification during situations such as traffic stops and routine police calls, I'd say the problem is more with the policing in Arizona than the influx of immigrants. This, though, isn't what this bill is about.

The reality here is that "lawful contact" will mean stopping Latinos and checking their identification anytime a police officer wants. Someone close to me, arguing for the bill, said, "it's ok to look white in America." I'm sure that person was saying something out of emotion in a debate and not actual belief, but he hit it right on the head. This bill obviously amounts to racial profiling. But the real purpose of this post is to explore the why behind this bill.

Immigration will be the ultimate test for our politicians over the next couple of years. This debate has layers upon layers, and, honestly, both sides have many salient points to make. It is true that the United States is made up of immigrants and there is some hypocrisy behind making entry into the US very difficult for new immigrants. However, there are real issues to consider here. First, border states do have serious safety and legal difficulties to deal with. The Mexican Drug War has been well publicized here, and most people seem to realize that major veins in the drug trade start on the south side of the Rio Grande and move northward through our border states. This trafficking brings potential violence and some obvious sociological problems that accompany hard drug use.

There is also no doubt that for drug, or other, reasons that potential violence has come to fruition in some capacity. Furthermore, with unemployment at 10% (higher in many places), there is a sense, whether it is real or not is debatable, that Americans are being shoved out of the jobs market both here and abroad. And even if you don't believe that there are groups of Americans clamoring to pick tomatoes; from a human-rights perspective it sure would be nice to see these immigrants earn citizenship so they are privy to minimum wage and labor laws.

Oh, and don't forget the argument about services like emergency rooms, use of highways, use of government services such as fire departments and law enforcement, and the extreme fear Americans have that illegal immigrants will be enrolled in Medicare, Medicaid, or other social welfare programs. Furthermore, some programs like Social Security, (at least in theory) work based on the fact that we pay in over the course of our employed lives, and then get a check that is essentially our own money paid when we turn 65. Even if immigrants gained citizenship at age 50, they won't have paid in nearly as much as you or I.

All of those arguments are real, but mostly just a smokescreen for the real reason behind Arizona's bill. There is a growing sense among white males that they are losing their grip on power in this country. According to the Census Bureau white people will be the minority in this country somewhere around 2050. We see a black man, with a foreign sounding name, as President. He nominated a Latino woman to the Supreme Court. The Speaker of the House, who has garnered a huge amount of attention in the media, is a female. The Secretary of State also sports two X chromosomes. The concept of old, male, protestant, and white being in power is not as much a foregone conclusion as it used to be (although the vast majority of those in power still fit that description).

Even if you agree with my conclusion, beware of dismissing those people as racist and ignorant. It isn't so simple. Remember that change is difficult for everyone. Also remember that there were no doubt tribesmen who suggested kindness and acceptance to their Native American brethren regarding the new white settlers in America. Oops! Even fear in reference to taboo topics such as racism can be real fear.

This fear can lead to very poorly conceived laws such as the one just passed in Arizona. But it isn't enough to whine about the law, we must try and take some action to satisfy those very real concerns of Arizonians and all Americans.

The real weakness (other than the vitriol of racial profiling) of Arizona's bill is that it is much too heavy on enforcement. We have seen over the many many years of America "War on Drugs" that focusing on enforcement is a band-aid strategy that doesn't actually solve a problem. It is very successful, however, at wasting resources and turning an entire group of people against law enforcement and government in general. Here are my thoughts:

1) The first step to solving this problem has to be increasing border security. The only near-term way to alleviate the safety concerns of border state citizens is to work to close down the border more effectively. In addition, there is no way to make a real immigration plan if large numbers of new illegal immigrants enter the country every day. My suggestion is to build military bases along the border. We can fill those bases with troops from the wastelands of Afghanistan and Iraq as they are pulled out of there. I'm quite sure they'd much rather defend their country than someone else's. I'm also sure that life on a Texas or Arizona base with their families near is a big step up over Iraqi barracks.

2) Provide a path to citizenship that is reasonable for both sides. I outlined earlier the financial concerns people have over immigration. The reality is, illegal immigrants are breaking the law. To become a citizen they should have to pay a fine for breaking the law (payment of that fine would end all legal proceedings), take an English class and obtain a certificate, and agree to take some form of G.E.D. type education. If you have a college degree, permanent status should be automatically granted. Though I don't want to get fully into it here, there is a real concern with allowing totally untrained and uneducated people to flood the system. Doing so, especially if they are already past high school age where it is unlikely they have the opportunity for upward mobility, would increase the size of the poorest class in society. That would strain our social safety net even further. Those individuals must show a willingness to catch up to educational standards in this country so they may increase a robust middle class and not a weak lower class.

3) Legalize pot. Budget concerns in the country are abound. Taxing marijuana is good for that, but its also good to undercut Mexican suppliers. Allow American farmers to grow, cut demand for Mexican grass, and that may alleviate the drug wars on our side of the border to some extent. Furthermore, police waste a huge amount of resources pursuing pot dealer and growers. Who cares? Relax people!

4) Pound employers who hire illegal immigrants. A word of caution: doing this without doing at least steps 1 and 2 will result in a large jobless class that will still be here, will still need to eat, and will likely get it by breaking into your house. Poverty is a major driver of crime, especially when those in poverty are living near those with wealth. That said, employers do more to hide illegal immigrants than people realize. Even the small area I'm from (Henry County, IN) has many illegal immigrants working. Everyone knows the farmers there employ Mexicans with, ahem, questionable citizenship status. But nothing is done.

This topic is complex enough for books, let along blog posts. At any rate, read the bill, see for yourself, then smack anyone in the balls who says its a good bill. Now you know better!

***A quick follow-up note: "Lawful contact" was revised to say "lawful stop, detention, or arrest" in an attempt to relieve concerns over racial profiling. This provision doesn't actually mean anything though, because the revision also states that an arrest is not required to question immigration status. I'd be very careful about jay-walking and forgetting to use my turn signal if I were Latino.