Wednesday, December 27, 2006

Virgil H. Goode is still on the hook

Virginia's Virgil H. Goode remains in the news. The Baltimore Sun has an excellent piece discussing Goode's shameful and ignorant hate speech during a season that is supposed to represent peace on earth. I've already posted my thoughts of Virgil Goode here.

Mac followed up with a nice piece on misconceptions about Islam.

All of Virginia's elected officials should be speaking out on this issue. Many Virginian bloggers are promoting that Goode's hate speech is not typical of Virginians. However, the silence of our elected officials on this issue sends a different message--agreement with the bigotry Goode is promoting.

We should not let our elected officials "off the hook" so easily. They should clear the air and have the courage to verbalize their positions on this crucial issue.


scottynx said...

A cost-benefit analysis, with lives being weighted the most, is a better way to approach Virgil Goode's sole policy proposal, which is a halt to muslim immigration (Good has specifically stated on the Rush Limbaugh show that he does not want a law barring Ellison from being sworn in with the koran), than simply calling him a bigot and leaving it at that.

The costs would be less international prestige throughout the world, especially the muslim world, and possibly a growth in the number of foriegn muslims who hate us, and thus more terrorists. But if muslims could be effectively barred from immigrating and visiting than those terrorists could not hurt us much in america. US muslims (whom Virgil Goode did not advocate be deported) might be driven to more terrorism by such an immigration halt. Also, the psychic loss that some americans will feel from no longer believing they live in a tolerant, diverse, multi-cultural society should be factored in. Also of course, the economic loss of less muslim immigrants should be factored in (most are very educated, an economic plus). The especially severe psychic loss for US muslims who will feel that they are hated should be factored in too.

The benefits would be less immigration of terrorists (even though the vast majority muslims are not terrorists), and a lower domestic population from which terrorists can hide in (the sea in which they swim) and recruit. Many americans will get a psychic gain from feeling safer, whether they are or not. The psychic gain of halting muslim immigration that people who think like Virgil Good should be factored in as well (this will include non-trivial numbers of recent non-muslim immigrants from majority muslim countries who often have bad memories of large muslim populations).

Whatever the outcome of a cost benefit analysis, it will only be valid if it is actually acknowledged that muslim immigration, student studying, and tourist visits has a cost in treasure and lives, which September 11th, the Los Angeles El Al ticket counter shooting, the first WTC bombing, the London bombing, the Madrid train bombing, and numerous averted terrorist attacks show. Nearly every ledger has two sides to be acknowledged, and this is no exception. The outcome doesn't have to be all or nothing either. I believe that the optimal policy is reduced muslim immigration from the current ~40,000 per year to something like ~10,000 per year. We'd keep most of our international prestige and the psychic gain which a non-discriminatory immigration policy gives us, but we'd have a far slower rate of growth in the sea in which terrorists swim and recruit. If we made sure that the reduced flow was more proportionately the cream of the crop than the current flow is, then we'd have less economic losses than pure reduced numbers of muslim immigrants alone would indicate. -pjgoober

Mosquito said...

Interesting it pjgoober or scottynz?

I realized to truly give it justice I would need to write at least a post entry to my blog...but this topic of yours really seems truly "booklength" to answer.
so it's up there in the "immigration" stream of thought. I do hope I get around to that topic with all the stuff that keeps breaking around us.

But I am disappointed with the current debate of immigration and terrorism. There is a root cause that "touches" both of these issues (that are in a sense actually created by the wealthiest percentile of our own country....)

The fact that we work through the WTO and IMF (and have plundered prior to the formation of the WTO and IMF) to plunder other countries resources and leave the general population there living on $2.00 per day. If we had more equitable streams of incomeand a structure of FAIR TRADE....we wouldn't be facing many of the problems we do....especially of violence both internal and external.