March 2006 Archives

The Wall Street Journal's editorial page sets out a view of immigration that I'd share, in an ideal world. I'd be all in favor of open borders and a country available to anyone who wants to join, but alas, we don't live in such a world.

To wit, do Republicans want to continue in the Reagan tradition of American optimism and faith in assimilation that sends a message of inclusiveness to all races? Or will they take another one of their historical detours into a cramped, exclusionary policy that tells millions of new immigrants, and especially Hispanics, that they belong somewhere else? ...

But there have also been costs, and parts of America have borne more than have others. The border states in particular have experienced more crime and social disruption, as well as the cost to local taxpayers of "free" health care and education for illegal immigrants. To the extent they work and pay rent, illegals do pay for those government services. But we don't dismiss lightly the anxiety that many Americans feel at this rapid pace of demographic change. Well meaning politicians, such as Arizona Senator Jon Kyl, who feel obliged to respond to that anxiety in this election year are not part of the nativist brigades.

The problem isn't immigration. Immigration makes America strong. Open borders, as generally advocated by the WSJ, and unlimited immigration would be good for America except for three factors.

1. Our expensive welfare system, including public education and public health care, means that poor, unskilled immigrants cost much more than they produce. This means that, unfortunately, we have to limit immigration to skilled or wealthy people. If we eliminated all these "free" public services then immigration would be much more of a net benefit to our country (and fewer people would come, eager for a free ride).

2. The sheer number of immigrants makes it less necessary for them to assimilate. Populations of people who are able to survive in America without being legal, without learning English, and without being grafted into our American culture end up weakening the fabric of our society. Open borders and unrestricted immigration would make it easier for people to assimilate if they wanted to, but would lessen the pressure to assimilate due to the presence of so many other non-Americans.

3. Terrorists are always looking to sneak in and kill us. If we don't keep track of who comes in we won't be able to filter out the few terrorists among the throngs of immigrants.

So for these practical reasons it seems clear that we can't just open our borders to all comers. I'm very sympathetic to the position laid out in the WSJ, but I don't think it's realistic.

The little lady had a great time tonight listening to Hugh Hewitt speak at El Camino College. He spoke for almost exactly an hour and told a bunch of good stories all focusing on the "communication revolution" being led by blogs and the new media. From his speech I picked up three important points.

1. To paraphrase Blake, "Always Be Selling". If you don't talk about yourself and your accomplishments, no one else will. Humility is admirable, and self-deprication is endearing, but when it comes to your professional career you have to make sure that people know what you've accomplished and what you're working towards. Put your main point first. Mr. Hewitt said that when Mother Theresa was awared the Medal of Freedom by President Reagan and he invited her to say a few words in the Rose Garden she opened with "I need more money". Her cause was good, she knew what she needed, and she wasn't afraid to ask.

2. Two skills will virtually guarantee success in life: the ability to speak effectively in front of an audience, and the ability to write a one-page memo with a beginning, a middle, and an end. Mr. Hewitt told us that because of his skills as a communicator he is often invited to speak to important people, and he uses these opportunities to speak to win his listeners to his points of view. They invite him to teach them how to communicate, and he turns the situation to his own advantage by giving them what they want and pushing them in the direction he wants them to go.

3. Post facts. Everyone has an opinion, but a person who can aggregate facts and pare them down into useful, applicable nuggets will always have an audience.

I don't know what's more ridiculous: that the iZilla Media Monster exists or that it costs barely twice as much as an iPod.

Two terabytes of storage and the ability to rip vinyl records along with CDs and DVDs... plus an iPod docking station, surround sound, an LCD touch-screen, CD/DVD burner, wi-fi and Bluetooth, and so forth. Joey needs one of these.

Reader, commenter, and legal immigrant Manish offers her perspective on illegal immigration. I don't think she understands why illegal immigration is so harmful to our country.

Let me take on some of the meme's that have been going around about illegal immigrants.

They should get in line like the legal immigrants did - For the majority of these people, there is no line that they can get into.

If we and our Congress haven't made a way for certain people to come here, then too bad. Tough luck for them. Perhaps we should change our laws and eliminate or modify the country-by-country quota system, but that's our business.

Illegal immigration is unfair to legal immigrants - I've heard this so many times that I could puke. Illegal immigrants aren't hurting me in any way shape or form. Illegal immigration is a victimless crime.

Nonsense. Illegal immigrants consume far more public services than they pay for in taxes. Sending a single illegal immigrant child to public school costs $8,000 per year in Los Angeles... are there any illegal aliens who pay that much in taxes? I doubt it. That doesn't even begin to cover healthcare costs as they clog up our emergency facilities because they can't afford non-emergency care, traffic on the roads, imprisonment for the thugs, and so forth.

We should just kick all of them out - There are over 10 million illegal immigrants in this country. Even if we could find them all and deport them, then what? Who would work on the farms, restaurants and hotels? The impact on the US economy would be devastating.

Probably more like 20 million, but who's counting? I agree that it's probably impossible to kick them all out. The key is to seal up the border to prevent wave after wave of additional illegals from coming in. Plus, we don't have to kick anyone out; the illegal immigrants will leave on their own if we begin denying them public services and vigorously prosecute the companies that employ them.

This isn't rocket science, and it shouldn't be even vaguely controversial for a sovereign nation to want to control who and what crosses its border. Every single country in the world does what it can to monitor and control border crossings, and every country in the world reserves its right to exercise that power as it sees fit. America isn't unique in this desire.

My wife shares an example of exactly who immigration should look like.

Todd Gitlin of Columbia University is right on the nose when he says that leftists look unpatriotic because they're dissociating from the majority of Americans.

Gitlin spoke to a group of approximately 20 students about his recently released book, "The Intellectuals and the Flag," which discusses what he characterized as the political left's strategic failure in addressing contemporary national issues. He elaborated on his feeling of frustration concerning what he views as liberals' voluntary estrangement from the rest of the nation, citing their alleged rejection of patriotism as an example of this alienation.

"I think that the upshot is that patriotism is experienced by many people on the left as something of an embarrassment," Gitlin said.

Gitlin said he thinks left-leaning individuals are now rejecting patriotism because they believe it forces them to identify with a larger group of Americans with whom they disagree and contradicts the spirit of cosmopolitanism that they espouse.

Leftists don't want to identify themselves as patriotic (except insofar as they're eager to change the definition of the word to fit their own behavior) because they don't want to be linked to American actions or beliefs that they don't like. They don't want to be grouped together with their political opponents under the label "Americans" because they feel there are more differences than similarities.

Such thinking certainly undermines the strength of our country and society, but that weakening alone doesn't mean the leftists are wrong (though I do think they're wrong for all sorts of reasons). Wrong or not, such diverging views coupled with an urge to dissociate will eventually fracture our nation.

(HT: James Taranto.)

Ah, memories! "Gigantor the Space-Age Robot is at your command! / Gigantor the Space-Age Robot, his power is in your hands!"

If I were creating a robot I'm not sure I would date it by putting a technology-level label in its name. Still, the theme song is pretty cool; local SoCal band "The Dickies" did punk rock version that's pretty awesome, good luck finding it.

Most people must be wondering why the minor labor reforms proposed in France have set off such a firestorm of protest, and David Rennie points to the answer: France is in denial about capitalism.

PIPA [Program on International Policy Attitudes], together with the polling form Globalscan, asked 20,791 people in 20 large countries about their attitudes to the free market, and globalization. The key question asked respondents if they agreed or disagreed with the statement that "the free enterprise system and free market economy is the best system on which to base the future of the world."

In 19 countries, a plurality said yes - with the Chinese beating even Americans in showing the greatest enthusiasm for the new economic benefits, comforts, opportunities and freedoms that capitalism has brought them.

Fully 74 per cent of Chinese urbanites (the poll did not question rural dwellers in China) placed their faith in free enterprise. Others that were nearly as enthusiastic were the Philippines (73 per cent), the US (71 per cent), India (70 per cent), and Britain (66 per cent).

One country - France - disagreed strongly. Only 36 per cent of the French agreed that the free market economy is the best system, while 50 per cent disagreed.

French distrust of free enterprise far exceeded, by ten points or so, even such losers in the global capitalist rat-race as the Argentines and Russians.

Does anyone really doubt that President Chirac and Prime Minister de Villepin will eventually cave in and reject the proposed reforms? The Franch surrender, that's what they do.

(Here's more information about the survey of global attitudes towards capitalism.)

It's interesting to see that, in line with claims I've heard from knowledgable non-Muslims, Zacarias Moussaoui has testified that Muslims are allowed to lie to further their agenda of subjugating the world.

Zacarias Moussaoui testified in Federal District Court here today that he knew of Al Qaeda's plans to fly jetliners into the World Trade Center and that he was to have piloted an airliner into the White House on Sept. 11, 2001. ...

Mr. Moussaoui said there were times when a Muslim can lie without being immoral: to reconcile Muslims, to answer "yes" when a wife asks, "Am I beautiful?" and to carry out jihad.

Remember that the next time the Council on American-Islamic Relations or some other such group issues a press release that kinda-sorta condemns the actions of Islamofascist terrorists. Perhaps there are some Muslims who don't believe it's ok to lie for jihad, and if so I think those Muslims should speak up.

I have essentially no opinion on the matter, but are there any women who would find it strange to take birth control pills that eliminate menstruation altogether?

The new class of Pill that is being developed contains neither hormone but involves compounds called Progesterone Receptor Modulators (PRMs).

PRMs block the production of the progesterone hormone which prepares the body for conception and helps to maintain pregnancy. Because the compound does not contain oestrogen or progesterone and actually blocks the latter hormone, Dr Baird believes the risks of breast cancer and heart problems will be reduced.

The new Pill also stops periods altogether, in contrast to the current versions which mimic menstruation with bleeding each month.

Is this what women want?

After watching "Hotel Rwanda" (a truly haunting and humiliating film) it's hard not to feel uneasy when I read about Spanish-language DJs fomenting racial demonstrations and promoting criminal behavior.

The promoters included such on-air celebrities as KHJ's Humberto Luna, KBUE's Ricardo "El Mandril" (The Baboon) Sanchez, Renan "El Cucuy" (The Boogeyman) Almendarez Coello — whose often risque show has cast him as a sort of Latino version of Howard Stern — and Sotelo, better known to listeners as "El Piolin," or Tweety Bird. Coello's and Sotelo's morning talk shows are among the highest-rated programs in any language in Los Angeles.

"They were the key to getting so many people out," said Mike Garcia, president of Local 1877 of the Service Employees International Union. "If you listened to Spanish-language media, they were just pumping, pumping, pumping this up."

And the demonstrations were mostly peaceful, but with 500,000 angry people filling the streets and highways there's no way to have guaranteed that. We're not yet to the point where the radio DJs are advocating violence as was seen in Rwanda, but they're certainly pushing lawlessness.

"I told God that if he gave me an opportunity as a radio announcer, I was going to help my people," said Sotelo, who himself illegally crossed the border in the trunk of a car in 1986 and gained legal status a decade later. "I think we have to make sure the message went through to Washington, to let them know we're not criminals."

Except, of course, that illegal immigrants are criminals. If the majority of citizens wants to change the laws then let's have that debate, but those who are already here illegally shouldn't get a voice in the matter, any more than the burgler who breaks into your house should be arguing with you about interior design. I'm glad that the House and Senate have passed such widely divergent bills, and I'm eager to see how the debate plays out, but we as a society -- of every race -- shouldn't let our laws be dictated to us by a pack of criminals.

Stealing the headline from Joy Jones who quotes one of her black students: "Marriage is for white people".

I was pleasantly surprised when the boys in the class stated that being a good father was a very important goal to them, more meaningful than making money or having a fancy title.

"That's wonderful!" I told my class. "I think I'll invite some couples in to talk about being married and rearing children."

"Oh, no," objected one student. "We're not interested in the part about marriage. Only about how to be good fathers."

And that's when the other boy chimed in, speaking as if the words left a nasty taste in his mouth: "Marriage is for white people."

He's right. At least statistically. The marriage rate for African Americans has been dropping since the 1960s, and today, we have the lowest marriage rate of any racial group in the United States. In 2001, according to the U.S. Census, 43.3 percent of black men and 41.9 percent of black women in America had never been married, in contrast to 27.4 percent and 20.7 percent respectively for whites. African American women are the least likely in our society to marry. In the period between 1970 and 2001, the overall marriage rate in the United States declined by 17 percent; but for blacks, it fell by 34 percent. Such statistics have caused Howard University relationship therapist Audrey Chapman to point out that African Americans are the most uncoupled people in the country.

She goes on to write that black women are the least-married group in America and explains that the others she knows have largely decided to avoid marriage because of all the baggage that men bring, with little apparent benefit.

Among African Americans, the desire for marriage seems to have a different trajectory for women and men. My observation is that black women in their twenties and early thirties want to marry and commit at a time when black men their age are more likely to enjoy playing the field. As the woman realizes that a good marriage may not be as possible or sustainable as she would like, her focus turns to having a baby, or possibly improving her job status, perhaps by returning to school or investing more energy in her career.

As men mature, and begin to recognize the benefits of having a roost and roots (and to feel the consequences of their risky bachelor behavior), they are more willing to marry and settle down. By this time, however, many of their female peers are satisfied with the lives they have constructed and are less likely to settle for marriage to a man who doesn't bring much to the table. Indeed, he may bring too much to the table: children and their mothers from previous relationships, limited earning power, and the fallout from years of drug use, poor health care, sexual promiscuity. In other words, for the circumspect black woman, marriage may not be a business deal that offers sufficient return on investment.

I agree that the decline of marriage in our country, among all races, is primarily a failure of men and only secondarily a failure of women. Men need to want marriage and need to make themselves worth marrying, and I suspect that then most women would be be eager to meet men's needs in return.

(HT: Paul Hsieh.)

I'm slightly encouraged to see that there were apparently plenty of American flags at the enormous pro-illegal-immigration rally in Los Angeles today.

I think Glenn Reynolds made a good point in saying that "Illegal immigrants as individuals just trying to make a better life are sympathetic. Illegal immigrants as a mass movement making demands on the polity are considerably less so."

I think people need to obey the law, but I can understand with the desire to be an American. In fact, I think the real problem is our expensive welfare state, not so much the illegal immigration. Illegal immigration could be a net gain for our society if not for the education, health care, and law enforcement costs that stem from our nanny state. I'm glad we're having the debate anyway, because we need to either legalize it and face the consequences or we need to enforce the law.

The death penalty case in Afghanistan against Muslim-turned-Christian Abdul Rahman has been dismissed, but for "lack of evidence" rather than because the "crime" shouldn't be a crime at all.

An Afghan court on Sunday dismissed a case against a man who converted from Islam to Christianity because of a lack of evidence and he will be released soon, officials said.

The announcement came as U.S.-backed President Hamid Karzai faced mounting foreign pressure to free Abdul Rahman, a move that risked angering Muslim clerics here who have called for him to be killed.

An official closely involved with the case told The Associated Press that it had been returned to the prosecutors for more investigation, but that in the meantime, Rahman would be released.

"The court dismissed today the case against Abdul Rahman for a lack of information and a lot of legal gaps in the case," the official said Sunday, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly on the matter.

So there's no problem with executing people who convert away from Islam, as long as you've got enough evidence. This could be a step in the right direction if the "lack of evidence" thing is just a cover for a lack of desire to prosecute.

Dean Esmay points out that at least some of the Afghan government is emerging from the dark ages.

Think on it: President Karzai of Afghanistan actually felt the need to take phone calls on this matter from the Canadian Prime Minister. And the American Secretary of State. And the German Prime Minster. And the leaders of many other democratic nations. And he felt the need to take their concerns seriously. And he felt the need to assure them all that this man would not be executed. All of which actually happened within the last 72 hours.

Read that all as an indictment of the eville moooslims if you like. I read it as a country that is emerging at astonishing speed from the 12th century into the 21st.

No political issue other than abortion angers me as much as illegal immigration. That these criminals have the absolute gall to actually rally in favor of their law-breaking is disgusting to me. An illegal immigrant is no different than a person who trespasses in my backyard and sets up camp. I have a great deal of sympathy for the suffering of people in places like Mexico, but the solution is to fix Mexico, not for Mexico to export their problems over our border.

Possibly the most offensive part of it all is that these illegal immigrants have the nerve to lay claim to the greatness of America's immigrant history as if they're equal to the people who waited in line and came here legally. They're not. There's a world of difference between someone who works through the process and obeys the law, like all of my non-Indian ancestors did, and someone who sneaks over the border like a thief. That shouldn't be hard for anyone to understand. And then, after unjustly laying claim to America's generosity and taking advantage of our openness, do they stage these rallies and wave American flags?

No. They march through our streets waving Mexican flags. Their claims to want to be a part of America's rich history and unique diversity are completely disingenuous. They're liars as well as thieves.

Get out.

The RHex is possibly the most capable robot I've ever seen. The legs are brilliantly effective on just about every sort of terrain.

(HT: Reader BM.)

Superman's got nothing on the new DARPA Radar Scope that can detect movements through up to 12 inches of concrete.

The new "Radar Scope" will give warfighters searching a building the ability to tell within seconds if someone is in the next room, Edward Baranoski from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency's Special Projects Office, told the American Forces Press Service.

By simply holding the portable, handheld device up to a wall, users will be able to detect movements as small as breathing, he said.

No word on whether or not the device will be able to see through clothing, but there are certainly law enforcement applications.

Proposals are expected this week for the new "Visi Building" technology that's more than a motion detector. It will actually "see" through multiple walls, penetrating entire buildings to show floor plans, locations of occupants and placement of materials such as weapons caches, Baranoski said.

"It will give (troops) a lot of opportunity to stake out buildings and really see inside," he said. "It will go a long way in extending their surveillance capabilities."

The device is expected to take several years to develop. Ultimately, servicemembers will be able to use it simply by driving or flying by the structure under surveillance, Baranoski said.

The technology will probably run into the same legal hurdles as thermal imaging technology. Only lower courts have considered whether or not monitoring radiation emitted from a house constitutes an unreasonable search, and decisions have gone both ways. The Supreme Court has yet to consider it, but the conventional wisdom is that viewing such emissions isn't even a "search" per se, any more than is observing visible spectrum light from a house (i.e., using your eyes to look at it). In essence, allowing incriminating radiation to escape from your house may be legally the same as committing a crime in front of an open window.

The opposite view is that our law derives from common expectations, and that even though thermal radiation may be the same physical phenomena as visible light, people have different expectations regarding it. Someone expecting privacy will close their blinds, but should they be expected to wage an arms race against ever-improving law enforcement technology? That's a race that private citizens can never win, so if privacy is to be preserved at all then our laws need to track our expectations.

Reknowned political scientist and billionaire George Lucas has delivered an inspired plea that lesser Americans help keep the rest of the world in its place.

"As long as there has been a talking Hollywood, Hollywood has had a huge impact on the rest of the world," Lucas said as he discussed his films and enhancing education with computer technology.

"It shows all the morality we espouse in this country, good and bad. The French were the first to start yelling cultural imperialism." ...

People see shows such as "Dallas," about a wealthy Texas oil family, and decide they want the grand lifestyles portrayed, according to Lucas.

"They say that is what I want to be," Lucas said. "That destabilizes a lot of the world."

"There has been a conflict going on for thousands of years between the haves and the have-nots, and now we are in a position for the first time to show the have-nots what they do not have."

And it's clear that America should be focused on keeping the have-nots in ignorance rather than helping lift them up out of tyranny and poverty, which always go hand-in-hand.

Lucas endorsed US students studying abroad to help imbue them with more global perspectives.

"Study abroad is extremely important; just for kids to get outside this country and experience the fact there is a big world out there," Lucas said.

"We are a provincial country. Our president has barely been out of the country."

It's too bad we aren't all billionaires who can jet around the world on a whim. Alas, some of us peasants have to work for a living. Even though Lucas apparently considers he and I to both be "haves", I suspect there's a lot more space between us than between myself an one of his "have-nots".

The real difference between cultures in the world isn't between those who do and don't have material wealth, but between those who have freedom and those who live in tyranny. Free poor people can always become more wealthy and gain all the benefits thereof, but oppressed poor people often need outside encouragement and aid to throw off their shackles. Perhaps that would be a worthy goal for Hollywood.

Galatians 6:7

Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows.

And children tend to reap whatever their parents sow, which can be either a curse or a blessing depending on the circumstances. It shouldn't be any surprise that children exposed to sex in the media are more sexually active. With parents increasingly disengaged from their kids -- and parents who allow their kids to "find their own way" without imposing restrictions -- it's only natural that kids pick up values from the sources that are available: television and their friends.

More than 1,000 American children aged between 12 and 15 were asked to identify from a huge list the kinds of media they were exposed to regularly.

They also answered questions about their health and levels of sexual activity, including whether they went on dates, kissed, had oral sex or full sex.

Researchers then examined the sexual content of 264 items on the list, which included teen magazines, teen movies and TV programmes.

They looked for examples of romantic relationships, nudity, sexual innuendo, touching, kissing, puberty and sexual intercourse.

The study, published in the Journal of Adolescent Health and in Elsevier, found that films, TV programmes, music and magazines usually portrayed sex as "risk-free".

Sex was usually between unmarried couples and examples of using condoms or other contraception were "extremely rare".

Like it or not, television is the common carrier of our culture, the way oral history, church teachings, books, and other forms each were in their respective times. Parents have a right and responsibility to control what their children learn, and society itself has a vested interest.

Here's a great poster you can print up with all the fundamental particles and interactions in the Standard Model of physics. Perfect for decorating any geek's office!

For non-geeks, learn about the Standard Model or read about the basics of quantum mechanics.

I heard from John Handel that the name-change becomes official today: Mount Vernon Middle School has been renamed after Johnnie Cochran. From the January 24t, 2006, press release:

The Los Angeles Board of Education today voted unanimously to approve a motion to change the name of Mount Vernon Middle School in the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) to Johnnie L. Cochran, Jr. Middle School in honor of the late Los Angeles civil rights attorney and community activist.

Cochran, who attended Mount Vernon Junior High School in the 1950s, died last year following a lengthy illness. He was known worldwide for his celebrity status and celebrity clients including singer Michael Jackson and former football legend O.J. Simpson, and for his pursuit of justice for behalf of every day men and women who often gave up hope of receiving justice from the legal system.

More like Johnnie Cochran forced society to give up hope of convicting guilty black celebrities of their heinous crimes.

I just passed a person in the hallway that smelled just like an airport -- not in a bad way, but in a way that made me want to fly somewhere. I'm not sure what the smell is, but now I've really got an itch to travel.

Despite my opposition to "gay marriage", it's pretty clear that dysfunctional heterosexual marriages damage the institution a great deal. And the more public the marriage, the more damage done.

WASHINGTON - After being surprised by her husband's role in the Dubai ports deal, Sen. Hillary Clinton has insisted that Bill Clinton give her "final say" over what he says and does, well-placed sources said.

The former President agreed to give his wife a veto to avoid his habit of making controversial headlines that could hurt her chances of returning to the White House, multiple sources told the Daily News. ...

Hillary Clinton's handlers are keeping a close rein on the former President's schedule to try to prevent another embarrassing screwup like their competing roles in the Dubai ports deal.

While she was blasting the Bush administration for allowing Dubai to run six of the country's ports, he was advising Dubai on how to sell the deal.

They sure must not talk much if they don't even know where the other stands on what was the major issue of the week. Didn't Hillary notice Bill flying to Dubai all those times? It's pretty absurd, and their disconnection from each other says a lot to me about their capability to lead others.