Michigan_Man's Blog

Democrat Thieves



We have confirmed that the Democrat Campaign Center in Wyandotte has in FACT been stealing the signs from my campaign for State Representative.  Upon confrontation they claimed that the street belonged to them and if we put the sign back (that was in THEIR GARBAGE) then we shouldn't be surprised if all of our signs go missing.  This sort of petty thievery is uncalled for and should be stopped.  I don't steal, they shouldn't steal.  Stealing is wrong. 

Timothy Kachinski

13th District - Riverview, Southgate, Trenton, Wyandotte

Racism?  Ignorance?  Both?

Dynamics of the Bailout



Here's the Claim: The Bailout Bill will fix the credit crunch by loaning money.

Here's the Answer: The government has two options for raising this money.

1: Government borrows the money. However if the government borrows the money then that means that there are now fewer lenders for the existing borrowers. If there are fewer lenders but the same number of borrowers then the price of getting a loan (interest rates) will go up (supply and demand) therefore IT WILL BE HARDER TO GET A LOAN BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT IS CROWDING OUT ALL THE OTHER BORROWERS. Now if the government is going to borrow money so that it can loan it out (stupid) then there are two options:

A: The government loans the money out at a higher rate than it borrowed the money. If the government does this, then who will take the loan? If it was unprofitable at the previous interest rate that was lower, then how would a loan at a higher interest rate help?

B: The government loans the money out at a lower rate than it borrowed the money. If the government does this then not only is there a 100% chance that the government will lose money, but these loans to special people at lower than market rates will undermine the existing loan companies thus hurting the credit market.

2: Government prints the money. The government could simply print the money that it needs to loan out. However if the government simply prints the money then that causes inflation to heat up which forces interest rates because lenders need to hedge against the future declining value of the dollars that the loan will be paid back with thus freezing up the credit market even more.

Here's the Claim: Increasing FDIC insurance from $100,000 to $250,000 will help fix the credit crunch.

Here's the Answer: When FDIC insurance was increased from $40,000 to $100,000 two decades ago the result was the S & L Scandal. By insuring against risk the government increased risky behavior. The same would be true in this case only to a larger degree. Considering that the government's objective is to stop the risky behavior in the financial markets which is destabilizing the markets, perhaps insuring risky behavior is not the way to go considering that this same act has proven that it destabilizes markets.

Here's the Claim: People can't get loans! If "we" (government) don't act, people will not be able to get loans.

Here's the Answer: One thing nobody seems to say is that, "if we don't act, lenders won't be able to find borrowers." If one is true, the other is true. What does a business do if the demand for their product goes down? They lower the price. The same is true now as banks around the world are now lowering their interest rates in order to attract borrowers because a lender doesn't have much of a business if he/she can't lend out money. People can get credit and will always be able to get credit so long as the government DOESN'T ACT. If you think that people will not be able to get loans then that belief is premised upon the idea that lenders will not be able to find people to borrow money. Such views cannot be held together because their separate problems are also their mutual solutions.

Here's the Claim: The current problem was caused by ambiguous and undefined unregulated greedy people who are so greedy that they greeded themselves into not having money.

Here's the Answer:

LMDC and Ground Zero

 

What is going on here?  It is still what year?  Do you want to know why they’ve done nothing? 

Dirty politicians with high ambitions want to take credit for everything. 

It’s not because they’ve lied, not that they’ve not tried, mixed motives don’t achieve what they intend. 

Command economies with dichotomies between a selfish and popular end. 

An additional cost to what we have lost is tragic and petty exploitation. 

We mourn for those who’ve died, for a long time cried, but anger over this desecration. 

Two plain pools to reflect?  Have they no respect?  What about the fliers of the missing? 

The ground zero wreckage, the tearful carnage; these are things we should be remembering. 

Enough with the damn game, stop with all the blame, just build the memorial that we need. 

Politicians seek fame, they should feel some shame, we must stop them from trying to “lead.” 

Enough with “the leaders,” enough go-getters, get out of the way, stop trying to take credit. 

Relinquish the power to build the tower.  You don’t have to be the one who does it. 

Why can’t you take a clue?  It’s not about you!  Let us grieve, let us rebuild the business. 

You shouldn’t do it all, you can’t do it all, if you step back you will have forgiveness. 

Stop trying to fix it, don’t interpret it, it’s not something you are allowed to steal. 

Forget the posturing, forget crediting, just remember nine eleven was real. 

 

 

The year is 2008, why haven't the towers been rebuilt?  Why hasn't the memorial been built?  Why have politicians taken control of the project?  Why does the LMDC even need to exist?

 

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t64XxAxRJ-o&feature=re
lated

 

The Fallacy of Conventional Wisdom

    Conventional wisdom says that Huckabee is in the race only attacking Romney and not McCain for personal gain on a McCain ticket. The problem with this reasoning espoused by Sean Hannity and others is that they are taking two current issues that correlate and attributing them causation, in essence using the politics of the day to assign the characteristic of a “root cause” to Governor Huckabee’s behavior of attacking Romney and not McCain based on current events and ignoring the history. However, since Huckabee has the lowest numbers in the polls at this moment but still a significant portion of the voting bloc he has gained the title of a “spoiler” and therefore that title has become their premise for assigning root causes to his behavior based on current events rather than reality. The reality is that neither the feud between Romney and Huckabee nor the mutual respect between Huckabee and McCain have changed in the least ever since Iowa, but since other candidates have dropped out and given us only three choices our natural instincts lead us to see Huckabee as the “spoiler” and therefore attribute false motives to his behavior. This characterization of his position is a logical fallacy. Correlation does not equal causation.

    The bottom line is that Huckabee of the three candidates is the only one who advocates free speech, the second amendment, and the FairTax. He defends the War in Iraq, has pledged to appoint strict constructionist judges, and has been consistently pro-life. Governor Huckabee is the only real consistent conservative in this race. Is he electable? Anybody is electable if we elect them. Remember, George Allen was the most “electable” candidate, until he wasn’t. Governor Huckabee won’t seem electable, until he does. Vote your conscience, vote on principle, but don’t vote for the candidate that is least likely to lose because when you vote for the best loser, you are still voting for a loser.

Poll Tax?


    Tonight my school board in a 5-1 vote (one absent, I voted no) decided to spend $20,000 of the tax payers money on an opinion poll to better understand the language needed in order to manipulate a tax increase in a fashion that will have the highest probability of passing.  Other issues may also appear on the ballot.  So far two attempts at tax increases within a one year span have failed. 

    Do you think school boards, city councils, or any other form of government should spend tax dollars on opinion polls that will help them tailor a political issue they wish to pass?  Should such an act be considered corruption and illegal under the law?  Should such an act be legal, but still opposed and left to private fund raising so if a politician wants an opinion poll they have to use their own money or raise money independent of the taxes of the district/community?  Should such an act be legal and encouraged?  What is your opinion? 

Hillary Clinton: Whitehouse or Bighouse?

Does she belong in the Whitehouse or the Bighouse (prison)? Below is evidence of Hillary Clinton's criminal activities in the form of an electronic recording showing her violating federal campaign finance laws. In addition I have included various bits eluding to other violations. What do you think though, should she be elected president or should she be tried and sent to prison? I usually post exclusively on issues because frankly I don't care about the individual making the argument, only the argument itself. However here we are faced with an individual who wants to hold the most powerful office in the country in government. Perhaps we should know who we are voting for; champion of the people or felon not yet convicted.

 

 

Employer/Government Healthcare

I hear politicians tell us about the costs of employer healthcare (a product of wage controls) and how these costs are crippling business, but then I hear those politicians talk about government run healthcare as though such an act would be an effective solution. Why though, why would government healthcare stop employers from offering healthcare options? Why would unions suddenly allow all their benefits to be not just cut, but completely eliminated? The government cannot cancel the contract between unions and companies, just read the Constitution.

Article 1 Section 10 Clause 1 of the United States Constitution:

"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, expost facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility."

Why would a new government program suddenly eliminate every contract in America regarding employer offered health insurance? Are you going to say to your boss "that's okay, you can just pay me in cash now, I don't need any benefits anymore, Hillary Clinton is going to take care of me now" and drop all your benefits? No, of course not.

Forgive me for pointing out the not so obvious, but why is nobody asking "so why do you think employer offered healthcare is failing America?" Of course employer offered healthcare is failing America, but no Democrat is ever asked, "why?" The reason employer offered health insurance is failing is because of the disconnect between the consumer and the consuming. People are not looking at the price of services when they go to the doctor because the insurance company is paying for the service. Why would somebody shop around for the best service at the lower price if insurance pays for everything? The answer is, people don't. The consumers are so separated from the consuming that not even the typical doctor knows how much an office visit should cost.

Okay, so how could government healthcare fix this problem of people not having any reason whatsoever to ask "how much does this service cost?" Government run healthcare not only does not solve this problem, but government run healthcare actually makes the problem worse. With insurance companies you have options to pick the lowest price company and you can switch, but with government run healthcare not only are costs still driven up by consumers ignoring cost, but there is no choice between insurance companies because government becomes one large monopolistic insurance company ripe for big drug company and big labor lobbyists. Instead of being reckless with your spending on healthcare and costs being driven up for business, government solves the problem of increasing costs not by focusing on the problem of people not paying attention to cost, but through rationing of healthcare to contain costs while still managing to ignore the basic factors that are driving costs up.

Below is an eye opening report from 20/20 broken into six short video clips lasting approximately one hour combined together.

What we need in this country is consumer driven healthcare. Not employer based healthcare, not government run healthcare. The dollars should be attached to the person that way decisions on healthcare are being made by doctors and patients, not bureaucrats or insurance agents. Consumer driven healthcare will results in better care, happier people, and lower costs because people will choose what we want which is good service at a good price and in a competitive market businesses make money by giving us exactly what we want. When has government or our boss ever put us before themselves?

Granholm's Christmas Present

 

IT HAS BEEN 5 YEARS, AND I AM BLOWN AWAY. MORE TAXES FOR EVERYONE, WHAT A GIFT! YAY! NOW I GET TO PAY TAXES ON SERVICES JUST BEFORE CHRISTMAS AND I GET TO PAY HIGHER INCOME TAXES!

You see, government knows how to spend my money better than I do which is why these taxes are wicked awesome. To anyone who says they can't spend my money better than I can which can be evidenced by the one State recession Michigan is in and the looming 2 billion dollar budget deficit, you are just being silly.

Sure, when Granholm raised taxes when she came into office in a struggling economy tax revenue went down, but now with an economy struggling even more and even higher taxes being implemented tax revenue is sure to go up now! Yay! Sure, Granholm may have lied in the 2006 election, but she wouldn't have been re-elected if she hadn't! She needed to be re-elected because we are too stupid to spend our own money and she knew if she told us she was going to raise taxes we in our stupidity would have thought that she already tried to raise taxes in a struggling economy and of course just made the economy worse which then resulted in less tax revenue and we wouldn't have had the foresight to see how this tax increase which is even larger in an economy which is struggling even more just before Christmas would actually increase tax revenue by 2 billion dollars.

I am going to start a recall effort, who is with me? I don't have any money, but I doubt I'd be short on getting donations. Multiple ballot issues, multiple recall elections is what is needed for this State to get back on track.

P.S. I used some sarcasm here. I am not really excited about the tax increases just before Christmas.

State Shutdown Party!

I am sure that failing to give unions 30 days notice was an accident and in no way corruption. I am sure that the Democrats do not want to shut down, force a class action law suit from the unions against the State for contract breach in which some of that money would go to the unions in union dues as the money paid by the State would be in wages and reimbursement and then of course those union dues would be donated to the Democratic Party. I'm sure the Democrats do not want this type of thing to happen.

 

Legalized corruption.   

Where is the common sense? The governor raised taxes when she came into office and tax revenue went down. One does not need to be an economist to understand that higher tax ratesin Michigan in deja vu all over again fashion will only damage the economy further and like the first tax hike decrease tax revenue, one only needs to have played Sim City at some point in their life. The budget comes from the economy so the budget will never be fixed if the economy is not fixed. When the economy is down tax revenue will be down. When you raise taxes, the economy takes a hit. Understandingthat when the economy is down you shouldn't raise taxes is not brain surgery.

This State needs systemic reform including massive education reform, reforming how we build and repair our roads, lowering taxes to spur growth and increase tax revenue. The tax issue would best be solved though through the implementation of the Fair Tax. We should not be talking about increasing the income tax, we should be talking about eliminating the income tax.

Any politician who supports increasing tax rates is supporting decreased tax revenue and should be recalled. I could be critical of the State legislature and governor all night, but I have already posted on the reforms needed long ago on several occasions in threads such as "Reform" and "So How About That State Legislature" for some examples of how we can fix this State. This State shutdown should be celebrated as a wake up call for the people of Michigan...

WE NEED REFORM

A True Conservative

Often many politicians claim to be conservative, they claimed to be the new Ronald Reagan, but so few sound like Reagan ever sounded. Every once in a while we should remind ourselves what conservatism really is. The following is the clip that put Ronald Reagan on the national scene, a speech that raised more money and support than any other speech in the history of the Republican Party extended to today. We should listen to Ronald Reagan in his own words. Here it is, enjoy.

 

 

Reform

    Our two party system forces us to vote for one party or the other based on which party we agree on more than the other, but the problem is that neither party truly represents everything that each of us would like to see happen and a resulting effect is that issues that a clear majority of the country agree on are never brought up by either party because they get all the votes they need on other issues.  Two perfect examples are immigration reform and the Fair Tax, but there are countless other issues. 

    So, if a system existed in this country where political parties gained the number of seats in Congress not based on a winner-takes-all system, but they gained representation based on the percentage of the vote they received so that third party votes are no longer throw away votes, what would be your party?  Would they support unions, welfare, socialist healthcare, and protectionism but be pro-life, pro-gun, enforcement only immigration, and support the Fair Tax?  Would your party be for free trade, the Fair Tax, ending welfare and corporate welfare, but be pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, and pro-gun control?  What would your ideal party look like? 

I just made up my own party, I call it the Capitalist Party.  That's my party. 

1:  Enact the Fair Tax.  Eliminate 16th Amendment. 
2:  Free trade spirit, benchmark system for trade automatically lowering our tariffs regardless of the foreign country's tariffs on us when they increase their economic and/or political freedom.  This policy hedges against possible loss (as countries become more socialist or totalitarian it becomes easier and more likely that they will "nationalize" American businesses located there and higher tariffs against those countries will reduce American investment there and thus hedge against and minimize possible losses) and rewards those who grant freedom to their people.  Alliances become stronger since we have more in common and are linked economically and enemies become weaker because they have less trade.  This policy will also minimize the need for military action. 
3:  Right to work.  Unions can exist, but a company isn't required to deal with the union and members are not forced to join the union. 
4:  End all subsidies and corporate welfare.
5:  Reform Medicare and Medicaid into "Basicare" in which nobody can be denied, it is not funded by tax dollars other than foundational endowment, funded through voluntary participation dues which are simply a percentage of your income, available to anyone of any income that is a citizen, unlimited preventative care (teeth cleaning every 6 months, annual physical, etc), limited non-emergency and emergency care, can be supplemented with private coverage, require participation in clinical trials (but all private companies carrying out these trials must pay for all treatment during the trials and that may result from the trials), private companies running trials can only do so if they pay dues that are a percentage of their net profits, no or limited patents for treatments but extended patents for cures and vaccines developed, minimum time commitment required to prevent exploitation, COMPLETELY VOLUNTARY AND CAN NEVER BE COMPULSORY OR FUNDED WITH TAX DOLLARS, initial percentage of annual income cannot change during membership, and a portion of dues paid are put into a Health Savings Account (HSA) which is the property of the member tax free which serves as the co-pay for services (co-pay equals annual contribution to HSA per year, but left over money gets rolled over year to year and belongs to the participant in the program) that way members have an incentive to use services responsibly, keep costs down, and keep the market competitive while providing universal healthcare to those who wish to participate in such a program without forcing it upon those who do not, but it is available to all citizen regardless of income or medical conditions.
6:  Privatization of social security.
7:  Right to bear arms.  No federal gun laws.
8:  Pro-life, but federal government should not play any role in abortion.  Intermediate program on State level until abortion can be outlawed by States which taxes abortions with a type of sales tax on each abortion and channels revenue directly into an agency that regulates abortion to provide pre-abortion and post-abortion counseling by independent therapists for every abortion in order to reduce the number of women being pressured by future deadbeat dads to get abortions, reduce post-abortion suicide rates, and provide help to potential rape victims who get abortions but no counseling because they are too ashamed to report it.  The tax in itself will increase the cost of abortions and therefore in itself reduce the number of abortions.  The revenue from the tax would be prohibited from making its way into the general budget and the agency cannot be funded by the general budget that way there are no other reasons to criminalize or not criminalize abortion in the future that may be disingenuous (keep abortion because it is something that can be taxed into the general budget). 
9:  Amend Constitution to prohibit federal government from requiring behavior from elected local and State governments as a condition of receiving federal funds.  How can the system truly be democratic if the federal government can trump the people through manipulation and coercion by the power of the purse?  A government can refuse federal dollars, but they are doomed to collapse directly from lack of funds because their tax base has been depleted by the federal government or indirectly through citizens fleeing to other cities and States that have federal funding.  These mandates are wrong and should be banned. 
10:  Set federal budget on a percentage system of funding (military gets 30% of revenue, social security 30%, etc.) to ensure that there is never another budget deficit.  Set your priorities and stick to them.  A mathematical formula is always more consistent then politicians just eye-balling the budget every year and hoping to provide enough money.  Eliminate the concept of a budget and simply have a system that directs revenue into agencies as it comes in. 
11:  Offer incentive for government agencies to become more efficient by offering a percentage of surpluses created by the agencies as a bonus (30% of revenue over costs is a bonus equally distributed to all employees, 20% automatically recycled back into the agency, 50% sent to Congress and the general budget).  I'd rather have 50% of a surplus then 100% of a deficit. 
12:  End all federal welfare programs. 
13:  Amend Constitution to add third house to Congress based on candidate lists determined by a primary election with a threshold of 2% with 100 members (50 elected every 2 years for four year terms that way half are elected with the president and half are elected at mid-term).  People will simple vote for the candidate list that appeal to them that way people are voting for the issues rather than the lesser of two evils.  A candidate list (political party) gets the number of seats in this "National Assembly" that reflects the percentage of the vote they received (Capitalist Party gets 20% of the popular vote, they get 20% of the available seats which are 10 seats since 50 are elected at a time, Republicans get 30% of the popular vote, they get 30% of the seats available which would be 15 seats, etc.).  Also reform the Senate so that the Governor and one member of the State Legislature from the upper house (the upper houses should be reformed on the State level to act similar to the "National Assembly") double as Senators and simple go to Washington once a month to cast a vote that is in the best interest of their State (one vote is the executive 'two party system' opinion, one vote is legislative multi-party opinion of what is best for the State). 
14:  Appoint textualist judges that read the Constitution for what it says, nothing more, nothing less.  The language is the only thing that was agreed upon, everyone who voted for it had their own reasons therefore the Constitution should never be a "living document" and "originalism" is garbage.  Trying to determine "original intent" is foolish because each person who voted for each Amendment and the Constitution as a whole had their own reasons for doing so, the language is all that was agreed to.  The Constitution is not a "living document," it was written on a dead tree.  Judges should read the text for what it says and be strict constructionists from there. 
15:  All future government contracts (bid or no-bid) are determined by a rule of 75% cost compensation and a fixed amount of money.  The more a business reduces its costs, the more of that fixed amount is profit.  Example, the government should offer the first company to explore Europa 75% cost compensation plus maybe a billion dollar (abstract random number) bonus.  To ensure the industry is competitive offer risk protection to any runner ups to Europa by offering 50% cost compensation plus maybe half a billion dollar bonus.  A space race such as this will not only reinvigerate the country, not only is it another step forward towards finding life on other planets and exploring the galaxy, but the technology that will be produced that will be capable of flying onto Europa, penetrating several miles of ice, and allowing a fully automated robot to explore and recognize potential life AND transmit that data back to Earth will serve humanity in countless applications.  Who would have thought going into space would have resulted in the invention of the microwave? 
16:  Heavy exploration into Nuclear Power, namely Nuclear Fusion.  #15 will help build an industry capable of mining Helium-3 from the moon (Helium-3 is rare on Earth, the moon is almost made of it and Helium-3 is to Nuclear Fusion as Uranium is to Nuclear Fission). 
17:  All military alliances should be formed with a mathematical formula requiring a percentage of military budget contributions from each country as a percentage of their national budget and a minimum troop contribution requiring each member nation to have a standing army that is at least equal to a given percentage of their population.  Each member nation can however increase their funding and decrease their troop contributions or vice versa.  Basically, no alliance should result in one member nation not contributing its fair share. 
18:  End all affirmative action programs. 

-----

Sounds good to me, that is my party. 

 

What is yours? 

Why Immigration Reform Doesn't Work

    Right now the Congress is attempting to find a complicated solution to a simple problem. This video is from a real law firm that knows these laws better than the politicians who wrote them finding loopholes in nonsense "guest worker" programs. We need more warm bodies on the border securing it, not more paperwork. How is Congress going to find the political fortitude to deport twice the number of illegal immigrants in 2 years after they've loopholed their way into the country if they don't have the courage to do it now? Tell the Congress to stop BSing us, that we are smart enough to realize if they won't enforce the laws now then they won't enforce the laws in two years when "guest workers" are "required" to go back to their countries.

UN Strikes Again

    We all knew it was coming sooner or later, it is the nature of the left.  If you are against global warming, you are a murderer.  First the left introduces an issue.  Then, they slowly build support for it as something that will require little effort and they will do it in the name of righteousness.  Next, they will upgrade the issue to a major political issue and will press the urgency.  After that they will begin attacking anyone who questions the basis for the argument saying that the foundation is solid and beyond anything that should be questioned because it was concluded upon by those smarter than "the masses."  Finally, when it is questioned openly the final cop-out must be used, to make the subject taboo, to make it alien. 

    Now, the final step for global warming has been completed.  If you don't not only agree with the faulty science behind man-made global warming but if you don't support taking measures, or rather, if you don't support increasing the power of centralized government to encompass the authority to regulate emissions and turn oil, coal, and gas into the social equivalent of Big Tobacco (permanent scapegoat who have no souls so it is okay to constantly raise taxes on them and regulate them) then...

YOU ARE A MURDERER!

    Straight from the Washington Compost I give you the latest in breaking news from the Secretary General of the All Mighty Protectors of Freedom, Rights, and more importantly than those two, Entitlements and Government Sovereignty, the United Nations' most recent condemnation of their opposition which are the voices of reason. 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/art
icle/2007/06/15/AR2007061501857.html

A Climate Culprit In Darfur

By Ban Ki Moon Saturday, June 16, 2007; Page A15

Just over a week ago, leaders of the world's industrialized nations met in Heiligendamm, Germany, for their annual summit. Our modest goal: to win a breakthrough on climate change. And we got it -- an agreement to cut greenhouse gases by 50 percent before 2050. Especially gratifying for me is that the methods will be negotiated via the United Nations, better ensuring that our efforts will be mutually reinforcing.

This week, the global focus shifted. Tough but patient diplomacy produced another win, as yet modest in scope but large in humanitarian potential. Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir accepted a plan to deploy, at long last, a joint United Nations-African Union peacekeeping force in Darfur. This agreement, too, is personally gratifying. I have made Darfur a top priority and have invested considerable effort, often far from public view, toward this goal.

var technorati = new Technorati() ; technorati.setProperty('url','http://www.washingtonpost
.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/15/AR2007061501857_
Technorati.html') ; technorati.article = new item('A Climate Culprit In Darfur','http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/a
rticle/2007/06/15/AR2007061501857.html','The Darfur conflict began as an ecological crisis, arising at least in part from climate change. ','Ban Ki Moon') ; document.write( technorati.getDisplaySidebar() );

Clearly, uncertainties remain. This deal, like others before it, could yet come undone. It could be several months before the first new troops arrive and longer before the full 23,000-member contingent is in place. Meanwhile, the fighting will probably go on, even if less intensely and despite our many calls for a cease-fire. Still, in a conflict that has claimed more than 200,000 lives during four years of diplomatic inertia, this is significant progress, especially considering that it has come in only five months.

It would be natural to view these as distinct developments. In fact, they are linked. Almost invariably, we discuss Darfur in a convenient military and political shorthand -- an ethnic conflict pitting Arab militias against black rebels and farmers. Look to its roots, though, and you discover a more complex dynamic. Amid the diverse social and political causes, the Darfur conflict began as an ecological crisis, arising at least in part from climate change.

Two decades ago, the rains in southern Sudan began to fail. According to U.N. statistics, average precipitation has declined some 40 percent since the early 1980s. Scientists at first considered this to be an unfortunate quirk of nature. But subsequent investigation found that it coincided with a rise in temperatures of the Indian Ocean, disrupting seasonal monsoons. This suggests that the drying of sub-Saharan Africa derives, to some degree, from man-made global warming.

It is no accident that the violence in Darfur erupted during the drought. Until then, Arab nomadic herders had lived amicably with settled farmers. A recent Atlantic Monthly article by Stephan Faris describes how black farmers would welcome herders as they crisscrossed the land, grazing their camels and sharing wells. But once the rains stopped, farmers fenced their land for fear it would be ruined by the passing herds. For the first time in memory, there was no longer enough food and water for all. Fighting broke out. By 2003, it evolved into the full-fledged tragedy we witness today.

A U.N. peacekeeping force will help moderate the violence and keep humanitarian aid flowing, saving many lives. Yet that is only a first step, as I emphasized to my colleagues at the summit in Germany. Any peace in Darfur must be built on solutions that go to the root causes of the conflict. We can hope for the return of more than 2 million refugees. We can safeguard villages and help rebuild homes. But what to do about the essential dilemma -- the fact that there's no longer enough good land to go around?

A political solution is required. My special envoy for Darfur, Jan Eliasson, and his A.U. counterpart, Salim Ahmed Salim, have worked out a road map, beginning with a political dialogue between rebel leaders and the government and culminating in formal negotiations for peace. The initial steps could be taken by this summer.

Ultimately, however, any real solution to Darfur's troubles involves sustained economic development. Precisely what shape that might take is unclear. But we must begin thinking about it. New technologies can help, such as genetically modified grains that thrive in arid soils or new irrigation and water storage techniques. There must be money for new roads and communications infrastructure, not to mention health, education, sanitation and social reconstruction programs. The international community needs to help organize these efforts, teaming with the Sudanese government as well as the international aid agencies and nongovernmental organizations working so heroically on the ground.

The stakes go well beyond Darfur. Jeffrey Sachs, the Columbia University economist and one of my senior advisers, notes that the violence in Somalia grows from a similarly volatile mix of food and water insecurity. So do the troubles in Ivory Coast and Burkina Faso.

There are many other parts of the world where such problems will arise, for which any solutions we find in Darfur will be relevant. We have made slow but steady progress in recent weeks. The people of Darfur have suffered too much, for too long. Now the real work begins.

The writer is secretary general of the United Nations.

ILLEGAL LAWS

The Senate is of course now going to reconsider the immigration bill that was killed by an unlikely alliance of conservative and liberal Senators based on their mutual dislike of the bill with one group (the right one) saying that the bill goes too far and borders on amnesty while the other group is disgusted with the bill because it is not liberal enough.

The Senate bill is fundamentally flawed because it is predicated on enforcement but the nature of the bill is to avoid enforcement. The guest worker portion of the bill says that illegals (if they register) can stay in the country for two years, then they must return to their country for a year if they are to come back for another two years, but why should they? If the federal government is passing this law to avoid enforcement now, then why should we believe that they will enforce the law in two years? If all 20 million illegal immigrants register for the program then in 2 years when they don't go home and even more illegal immigrants or rather new "guest workers" come into this country then won't the argument be the same: There are too many to deport? If the federal government is unwilling to deport 20 million now, how will they deport 30 million in two years? The answer is that they won't and this bill is simply an attempt to pacify the people because they are so tied up with all their special interest groups that any move towards real enforcement will upset the balance of power and the balance of donors. Thankfully there are a few good men and women willing to stand against this bill.

The liberal argument is often that the twelve million illegal immigrants are already here, that there are two many to send back, that since there are so many it would be somehow immoral to send them back to the country they originated from. This is an argument for amnesty for several essential reasons.

The first reason is the illegitimacy of the argument. Twelve million are too many to send back says the liberals, so then what is a good number? What is the tipping point? What would be the number of illegal immigrants that would be small enough where it would be moral to send them back? Five million? Two million? A hundred thousand? A thousand? A hundred? One? Ask the liberal you know and if you don’t know one then the next one you come across, ask them if they knew that there was an illegal immigrant in their community would they call ICE or INS? Would they even approve of INS or ICE capturing a single illegal? There is no legitimate argument that states deporting illegal immigrants is wrong because of the numbers because one number is just as arbitrary as the next. If a liberal gives you a number then ask them if it is acceptable to deport one more? If they say yes then how about one more illegal immigrant? If they say no, ask why one more would make it immoral. Liberals will not have an answer because they don’t want you to realize that their reasoning is a smoke screen. Amnesty and open borders is the foundation of their argument, even if they don’t want to admit it to themselves.

The second reason can be uncovered with simple logic. If it is immoral to send illegal immigrants back to their country of origin then one can logically deduce that refusing immigrants from that country is equally immoral as there must be a fundamental defect with that country. It is the foundation for an open borders argument.

An argument of uprooting “migrant workers” doesn’t hold water either because is they are migrant workers then how did they take up root? If we are to understand that they are guest workers then they cannot by that definition be permanent therefore returning them to their home country is nothing more than advancing the time schedule of their ultimate goal.

The solution to this problem is simple, enforcement. Enforcement of the laws in New York under Guiliani resulted in reduced crime. Enforcing the law works, but only if you enforce it. A fence along the Mexican border would help. Good fences make good neighbors.

AMNESTY IS NOT THE ANSWER