The illegal immigration issue is getting worse

After all the stories about the recent protests in support of illegal immigration, a story today caught my eye (link here).

In a Phoenix-area high school, a bunch of students tried to raise the Mexican flag over the school. Some other students saw them doing it, yanked it down, and burned it.

To the students who burned the Mexican flag, I say thank you. I know you will probably be disciplined for it, but the statement you made is worth far more than any punishment a school can give you. If you were my children, I would be proudly applauding your actions.

To the students who tried to raise the Mexican flag, I say welcome to America. If you like Mexico better, feel free to go back. If you still think part of our country was wrongfully taken from you, I have two words for you: San Jacinto. We kicked your butts before, and we can do it again if you try to pull that crap here.

To our politicians in Washington, I say you better pay attention. This issue is starting to raise tensions on both sides of it. Americans are getting angry, and your precious jobs are in jeopardy, regardless of what the minority hispanic vote wants. Tread carefully, but tread quickly.

Quote of the day

"Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock." - Will Rogers

Will Rogers is one of those people, like Mark Twain, whose quotes still ring true after all this time.

Editorial of the day

What I said about culture yesterday was brought back to me today by Clarence Page's editorial "Weapons of 'Mass Self-Destruction'".

Specifically, Page talks about the issue of "hip-hop culture" among black youth, and how he disagrees with people who blame that for the problems of crime and unemployment among black youth.

I could not agree more. As I stated yesterday, individuals determine the culture. While it may be rare to see individuals reject the culture with which they grow up, that usually has more to do with limited/poor education and/or limited exposure to other cultures. If you never see other possibilities, how could you objectively look at what you know?

On the issue of hip-hop culture, let us take the chicken-or-the-egg approach to it. Which came first: hip-hop culture, or high rates of crime and unemployment among black youth? The high rates of crime and unemployment have been with us for many decades. Hip-hop culture is relatively new, going back roughly 10-20 years.

The problems came first. Hip-hop culture is just a new expression of black youth's discontent.

Page makes some good points about ways to solve the problems from the bottom-up. Page also makes one last, and very disturbing, point:

"I don't get why so many of America's children must live with the self-destructive residue not only of popular culture but also of Washington's political culture. If only they could afford lobbyists."

This is a separate issue, but no less valid. If there is a problem in the country, there better be some lobbyists working on it, otherwise Washington could care less.

Media bias

If you ever doubt that the Media is biased, here is a classic example of bias.

Evidence A is from the New York Times:

"Judges on Secretive Panel Speak Out on Spy Program

By ERIC LICHTBLAU

WASHINGTON, March 28 -- Five former judges on the nation's most secretive court, including one who resigned in apparent protest over President Bush's domestic eavesdropping, urged Congress on Tuesday to give the court a formal role in overseeing the surveillance program. In a rare glimpse into the inner workings of the secretive court, known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, several former judges who served on the panel also voiced skepticism at a Senate hearing about the president's constitutional authority to order wiretapping on Americans without a court order. They also suggested that the program could imperil criminal prosecutions that grew out of the wiretaps...

...[Judge Robertson] did not weigh in on the ultimate question of whether he considered the N.S.A. program illegal. The judges at the committee hearing avoided that politically charged issue despite persistent questioning from Democrats, even as the judges raised concerns about how the program was put into effect."

Evidence B is from the Washington Times:

"FISA judges say Bush within law

By Brian DeBose

March 29, 2006

A panel of former Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judges yesterday told members of the Senate Judiciary Committee that President Bush did not act illegally when he created by executive order a wiretapping program conducted by the National Security Agency (NSA).
The five judges testifying before the committee said they could not speak specifically to the NSA listening program without being briefed on it, but that a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act does not override the president's constitutional authority to spy on suspected international agents under executive order.
"If a court refuses a FISA application and there is not sufficient time for the president to go to the court of review, the president can under executive order act unilaterally, which he is doing now," said Judge Allan Kornblum, magistrate judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida and an author of the 1978 FISA Act. "I think that the president would be remiss exercising his constitutional authority by giving all of that power over to a statute."
The judges, however, said Mr. Bush's choice to ignore established law regarding foreign intelligence gathering was made "at his own peril," because ultimately he will have to answer to Congress and the Supreme Court if the surveillance was found not to be in the best interests of national security."

One of these newspapers should be putting out an apology, although I doubt it will happen.

This is a good example of why you need to get news from more than one source.

(Hat tip to Kim Priestap over at Wizbang)

Happy birthday Alex!

Happy birthday Alex!

My son is 7 years old today. It is amazing how the time flies.

Quote of the day

"Study the past if you would define the future." - Confucius

One might look at this saying and think, "This is just another way of saying 'those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it'." That is not quite right.

I find the saying by Confucius to be a lot more all-encompassing than the "history" quote, which is strictly about not repeating the mistakes of the past. The Confucius quote is also about building upon what we already know.

Editorial of the day

cul·ture
n.

1.
a.The totality of socially transmitted behavior patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and all other products of human work and thought.
b.These patterns, traits, and products considered as the expression of a particular period, class, community, or population: Edwardian culture; Japanese culture; the culture of poverty.
c.These patterns, traits, and products considered with respect to a particular category, such as a field, subject, or mode of expression: religious culture in the Middle Ages; musical culture; oral culture.
d.The predominating attitudes and behavior that characterize the functioning of a group or organization.

(from dictionary.com)

How should we define culture? That is what I took from Jonathon Zimmerman's editorial today, "Culture wars: Beware of presuming sameness".

Zimmerman begins with an example:

"I don't remember her name. But I can still picture my sixth grade student's frightened expression when I asked her to give the first classroom presentation that morning.

"Where I come from," she said, in a quivering voice, "girls don't go first." She was an immigrant from a Muslim country in the Middle East whose family had moved to Baltimore a few years earlier. I was a young social studies teacher at her middle school, fired with passion and idealism. I believed in my heart that schools should respect national differences. But I also believed that we should treat boys and girls in an equal fashion.

So how should I have responded?"

I would have used it as an opportunity to explain culture to the class. How often in our classroom lives are we presented with such a stark cultural contrast? As he stated later:

"And that brings us back to my young student. I'm not proud of this, but I let her go second. Today, I'd turn her objection into a set of questions. When you say "girls don't go first" in your homeland, what do you mean? Who agrees with this idea? Who doesn't?"

I would have added the all-important question: Why?

One aspect of culture which is not addressed by Zimmerman is the individual. "These patterns, traits, and products considered as the expression of a particular period, class, community, or population" belong to a group of individuals. They are common "patterns, traits, and products" that are shared by a group of individuals. The individuals share these things willingly, and in many cases unquestioningly.

The world is filled with different cultures, just as it is filled with different individuals. But which is more important: culture or individual?

I could write a book about the interplay between culture, religion, and legal systems, but culture transcends the other two because of one factor: the individual acceptance of it. An individual can change religions. Laws change constantly (and can be broken by individuals). But it is truly rare to find the person who can throw off the shackles of the culture with which they were raised. They may deny parts of it, but the majority of it sticks with them.

On the other hand, the fact that individuals can determine how they deal with their cultural values shows where the true importance is. Inevitably, the individual can determine the culture. By the laws of evolution, the individual MUST determine the culture. If a cultural value does not enhance an individual's ability to survive, then the cultural value must be changed, or ignored.

My point is this: Our democratic culture is needed in the Middle East. Islamic culture has held back the people of the Middle East for far too long, by making them tolerant of totalitarian rule. I will not say that all aspects of Islamic culture are responsible for this. However, until we can change enough of it to make democracy palatable to the Muslims, they will remain in their static culture, continually resenting the West for it's successes, without ever seeing how Western Civilization got to where it is.

Quote of the day

"There is only one boss. The customer. And he can fire everybody in the company from the chairman on down, simply by spending his money somewhere else." - Sam Walton

For people who wonder how Walmart became successful, you only have to look at the life of Sam Walton to understand it.

Editorial of the day

In "The Beginning of the Demonization of John McCain", John McIntyre makes some good points about John McCain. One thing I had not realized:

"The bottom line is that Mr. McCain isn't a moderate; he's a man of the hard right. How far right? A statistical analysis of Mr. McCain's recent voting record, available at www.voteview.com, ranks him as the Senate's third most conservative member. .....

He isn't a moderate. Mr. McCain's policy positions and Senate votes don't just place him at the right end of America's political spectrum; they place him in the right wing of the Republican Party."

The other point McIntyre makes is about how the Media are now starting to demonize McCain, which only stands to help him with the Republican base. The Media may be shooting themselves in the foot with this one. But this would NOT be the first time they did that.

Quote of the day

"Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light-years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty, and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual. The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both." - Carl Sagan

If anyone wants to know the main source of my religious views, Sagan describes it quite eloquently here.

How anyone can look at the universe and NOT see God is beyond me. I guess the ability of the human mind to deny something so glaringly obvious is another of the universe's wonders.

(Hat tip to planetary exploration.net)

Editorial of the day

I never thought I would be adding the writings of Arnold Schwarzenegger to an "Editorial of the day", but the "Governator" deserves this one.

In his LA Times editorial, "Next step for immigration", he shows a true understanding of the immigration issue.

He does not take it easy on illegals, while at the same time recognizing the value of immigration to this country.

Misconceptions about Reagan

Over at townhall.com, I read a post from Malia that completely stunned me with her ignorance regarding Ronald Reagan's presidency. How can someone claim to be a Republican first and still be so completely misinformed about the single greatest Republican president of our time?

Allow me to set the record straight. The following quotes are from her post. This is taken from what I posted over at townhall.com.

"First, please do your research Ed. I mean really do your research...not just read the hype of a has been speech writer."

Malia, I LIVED through the Reagan administration. Does experience count for anything?

"Reagan increased defense spending, not to fight the Soviets...in fact, Reagan was dog meat to the Hard Right because despite his rhetoric about the "evil empire" he befriended the Soviets...why? To bring the world together to fight...Space Invaders. That's right...he was certain that the Earth was going to be invaded any day."

One quote makes government policy? Let's take a look at the Reagan quote:

"With our obsession with antagonisms of the moment, we often forget how much unites all the members of humanity. I occasionally think how quickly our differences, worldwide, would vanish if we were facing an alien threat from outside this world."

Sounds like a reasonable speculation, not a call to arm our planet against space invaders.

As for Reagan's relationship with the Soviets, the only reason he got them to come to the table is because he confronted them directly. Remember his "evil empire" comment? Or how about the "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" comment? Reagan didn't pussyfoot around the Soviets.

You claim to be a political realist. How realistic is it to think a president as much beloved as Reagan was, increased defense spending in order to fight aliens from outer space?

"You talked about GW going after two banana republics? (earlier thread) Ever heard of Grenada? Yep that 2 month grand war with an off shoot colony aligned with Cuba. How about Somalia? Talk about "cut and run"... That was YOUR Reagan there, backing up Carter's "hit us hard enough and we're gone" plan to the pre-descendants of the terrorists we are fighting NOW."

Hmm...We were in Somalia in 1993. Last time I checked, Bill Clinton was the president then, NOT Reagan.

I know what happened: You were a liberal in 1993! You had that wonderfully selective memory thing that liberals seem to enjoy. Now that you are over on the Republican side, you may want to start remembering things as they actually were, instead of how you would have liked them to be.

"Oh and about Reagan's tax cuts...he came in with all these bright ideas and before the end of his regime, ended up having to reverse these cuts AND bail out some social programs, most notibly the Social Security program. GW, on the other hand kept his tax cuts despite the call from Democrats in Congress for reversing the "Tax Cuts for the Rich" to fund the war on Terrorism. Reagan never proved tax cuts worked; in fact he set up the first Bush with a deficient that doomed Bush Sr's presidency, DESPITE Bush's leadership in keeping Saddam from taking over Kuwait's oil and taking away the "pain" of Vietnam. I fail to comprehend why you excuse Reagan's reversal of his tax cuts (from an earlier thread) because of Congress' refusal to curb spending, but blame GW for not bringing smaller government in time of war...doesn't GW also have a Congress to deal with?"

You make a lot of bad points in a small amount of space, so let's take them one at a time.

First, when Reagan left office, taxes were still lower than when he came into office. I know the liberals love to point out his tax increases while conveniently ignoring this fact.

Second, Reagan bailed out Social Security. And Bush did what with Social Security? That's right: NOTHING!

Third, Reagan had to raise taxes because he could not get the Democratic Congress to cut spending. Bush kept the tax cuts while the Republican Congress kept raising spending to unheard-of levels.

Fourth, Reagan never proved tax cuts worked? Do you even have a remote clue about the state of the economy during the 80's? Or the 70's?

During the 70's, we had a bad problem with inflation. You might not be familiar with it, probably because it has never been a problem in your lifetime, thanks to Reagan's nomination of Alan Greenspan to the Federal Reserve in 1987. Fortunately, Paul Volcker (Greenspan's predecessor) got inflation under control, although it was as high as 13% in 1981. It was down to about 3% in 1983.

I guess you are probably not familiar with the stock market boom of the 80's? A lot of it was due to Reagan's tax cuts.

Fifth, the deficit doomed Bush Sr's presidency? No, a campaign lie doomed Bush Sr's presidency ("read my lips..."). When you raise taxes and the economy tanks, the public holds you accountable, especially when you promised NOT to raise taxes.

Sixth, you give Bush Sr. credit for taking away the "pain of Vietnam"? That little Grenada incident you mocked did more to heal the pain of Vietnam. What you fail to realize is that the U.S. was militarily impotent prior to Grenada. Remember Carter's failed attempt to rescue the Iranian hostages? We had absolutely no faith whatsoever in our military.

Granted, Grenada was a baby step. But it was a sorely needed one. Without Grenada, there would NOT have been a Kuwait, because the American public would have had no appetite for such a large military action. By the way, don't think Bush Sr. would have succeeded if Reagan's presidency had been a failure: Bush Sr. rode Reagan's coattails into the White House.

Seventh, one more time: Bush has a Republican Congress, Reagan had a Democratic Congress. The deficit was significantly lower under Reagan, even though Reagan had to deal with an unfriendly Congress. How can you justify the obscene amounts of pork under Bush, when he allegedly has a friendly congress?

"Ed, do you have any idea what Reagan's "big idea" for illegal immigration reform? It's that little piece of paper employees have to sign that promises that they are legally entitled to work in America. That's it. And well, you can see how great that has worked right?"

Illegal immigration was not the problem back then that it is today. We didn't have to worry about terrorists sneaking in with the illegal immigrants. We also didn't have the Mexican government openly encouraging it's citizens to cross the border illegally.

"Respect? Ed, please, please do your research. Go beyond the rewrite of history according to Peggy Noonan. The man talked about trees taking up all the oxygen...space invaders...he was known as the actor playing his greatest role. No one took him seriously until he was safely out of office and no longer able to scare the world with the knowledge that this man had his finger on the world's nukes."

That certainly explains why Reagan won a landslide re-election victory in '84. The only ones scared by Reagan were your liberal friends. The overwhelming majority of Americans loved Reagan.

The problem here is your vision of Reagan clearly was formed during your liberal years. The liberals despised him almost as much as they despise Bush now.

If it weren't for Reagan, we would probably be like France now, floundering from one failed socialist program to another, with no direction and no real hope.

"I truly did not want to go after this man. I honestly believe that the one great--and yes, I do believe it was great--thing this man did was give Americans the ability to dream again. He brought back the romance of America...where nothing was impossible for people who believed and who had the will. He was that generation's JFK.

And like JFK, it may take another 30 years before we strip all the hype and get back to reality. Only I do not think we can afford it. We ARE fighting real enemies here and an ideology that is trying to take out God out of our national conscience.

We don't need idols, we need leaders that will roll up their sleeves and do the real work."

Unlike JFK, Reagan was a man of great integrity. They both talked the talk, but only Reagan walked the walk.

You forget why Reagan was able to bring "back the romance of America". If his policies had failed, there would be NOTHING he could have said to make things better. He would have been kicked out of office in '84.

In our current situation, if you don't think Reagan would have confronted our enemies abroad and at home, then you don't know Reagan.

Quote(s) of the day

"If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing." - Anatole France

Whenever you hear someone defend their beliefs/opinions by quoting polls, make sure to question the validity of it.

When I first read the above quote, another classic came to mind:

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Benjamin Disraeli

One of the most useless statistics is the presidential approval rating poll. The Democrats like to rattle off his approval numbers as if they mean the American public has turned liberal overnight. They are going to be really disappointed when they learn that half of those disapproval numbers come from conservatives.

But that is just one example of how statistics don't paint the whole picture sometimes.

Editorial of the week

In his editorial today, Robert Novak brings up an interesting way for President Bush to cut the pork spending:

"...Sen. Jim DeMint, a freshman Republican from South Carolina, had a better idea for the president: Why not instruct your department heads to ignore the earmarks Congress adds to your budget?

DeMint was not encouraging Bush to take the law into his own hands and defy statutes passed by Congress. A March 6 report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (CRS) said more than 95 percent of all earmarks were not written into law but were merely contained in the reports of congressional committees and legislative managers. "Earmarks that appear in committee reports and the statements of managers do not legally bind agencies," said the report."

Unfortunately, Novak also says the president seems opposed to the idea. It seems the president is afraid of getting into a war with Congressional committee chairmen.

Bush is the guy everyone in the world seems to think is a "cowboy"? When it comes to dealing with Congress, Bush is the biggest wimp that ever lived.

The cause of raucous conservative rhetoric

A lot of the raucous rhetoric among conservatives today has come about due to the actions of the Republicans in power. As long as I can remember, Republicans have been generally consistent in their actions matching their words. Republicans who have not met this standard generally have not lasted long in office (Bush Sr. comes to mind).

Bush Jr. presents us with an unfortunate dichotomy of truthfulness: With our enemies, he has been brutally honest and backed up his words with force. But with his friends, namely the Republican Congress, he makes idle threats consistently. This is the same Republican Congress which was paid for by Jack Abramoff and God knows who else. The Republican Congress reminds me of France right now: a friend in name only.

I know the Democrats have been corrupt for decades. When a Democrat does something dishonest, I am not surprised. When the Democratic Party does something dishonest, I can say "What did you expect?"

When an occasional Republican does something dishonest, I can look at it and say there's one in every group. But when the majority of Republicans in Congress do something dishonest, that shakes my faith. Sure, I can say some of them got campaign donations without knowing who Abramoff was. But there are too many involved not to think they were selling out the conservative cause for campaign donations.

It was NOT the "Indian affairs" Abramoff bought votes for that bothers me. It was the implication that our representatives would sell their votes. Maybe what they did was perfectly legal. But unlike Democrats who view the law as the ultimate standard of morality, I expect better from Republicans. Republicans have always had higher standards than the Democrats. They have always had to, because any time they slipped up, the Media was on them like white on rice.

What some of my conservative brethren around here view as "being reasonable" or "negotiating with the Democrats", I see as becoming LIKE the corrupt, would-sell-their-mothers-for-a-campaign-donation Democrats.

When I see the absurd amount of pork spending, I have to wonder how much of it was paid for with campaign donations.

When I hear the Republicans talk about resurrecting the "Contract with America", that tells me how far they have fallen since 1994. They should not have to resurrect it, because they should have been following it all along.

My issue is not with the conservatives. We all generally believe the same thing, with a few nuanced differences here and there. What I don't share with some of them is faith in the Republican Party. The GOP will have to earn my trust back.

Quote of the day

"You know the one thing that's wrong with this country? Everyone gets a chance to have their fair say." -Bill Clinton

In Clinton's defense, he did say this in response to a heckler. However, it does leave you wondering whether he really believes it.

I tend to think he does.

Editorial(s) of the day

With Congress and the President debating immigration, all eyes turned towards Senator Hillary Clinton, who objected to a bill which would make illegally entering this country a felony, instead of a misdemeanor. In Senator Clinton's words:

"It is certainly not in keeping with my understanding of the Scriptures," Clinton said, "because this bill would literally criminalize the Good Samaritan and probably even Jesus himself."

(Quote from newsday.com)

I was surprised to see nothing in the editorials about this. Last night, both Bill O'Reilly and Lou Dobbs led off their shows with this story. Considering it happened on Wednesday, you would think someone would have an opinion by Friday morning.

Thank god for Neal Boortz and the Confederate Yankee!

Boortz finishes his editorial on Hillary's immigration stand with this classic paragraph:

"We now see yet another example of a politician with no soul...someone who will grab power any way she can. And to think she could be our new commander in-chief. Come to think of it, that might help the illegal immigration problem...people will be heading for the border!"

Confederate Yankee has this scorching reply to Hillary's comment:

"Senator, I doubt you even know what the Good Book looks like, but please have your campaign researchers at least make a pass at reading the New Testament before you try to rewrite Luke 10:25-37.

The Good Samaritan, like the priest and the Levite, was an Israeli, and Samaritans exist to this day inside Holon, Israel, and Nablus in the West Bank. The proposed law would not criminalize the Good Samaritan, because he, too is a native citizen of Israel. Jesus Christ, like the Good Samaritan, is also a native son, and not an illegal immigrant.

Your comments, Senator Clinton, were not just calculated to be inflammatory, they were laughably ignorant. Perhaps the next time you are seen near a Bible for a photo-op, you should consider opening it."

On a completely unrelated note, there is a great joke over at Boortz's website, "How To Guarantee Yourself A Ticket".

Quote of the day

"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain

Learning is a lifelong pursuit. You don't have to be in a classroom to learn.

Pick up a book.

Do an internet search.

Talk with somebody who is knowledgeable in a field.

But do whatever it takes to sate your curiosity.

Editorial of the day

The Lord giveth, and the Lord taketh away.

Replace "Lord" with "government", and you have the topic of George Will's column today, "School Voucher Foolishness in Fla.".

We have a public school that is failing, by the state's own standards. The state enables students of that school to use vouchers to attend private schools. The students take advantage of the program. The teacher's union takes the state to court, trying to block the voucher program. The state's Supreme Court bans the voucher program based on one word of the state constitution: "uniform". The state is required to provide public school education which is "uniform".

No regard is given by the court to what the state should do when this fails to happen. The state just has to make it happen, like there is some educational magic wand at the governor's disposal.

States are fighting an uphill battle against the teacher's unions every step of the way, yet the states are expected to maintain a quality education system.

Until we take the teacher's unions out of politics (or out of existence), we will NEVER make any real progress in improving education in this country.

Illegal immigration vs. the nanny state

Of illegal immigration or the nanny state, which is the greater problem? Only within the context of terrorism can I say that illegal immigration might be the greater of the two problems. If a terrorist sneaks a nuclear bomb across the border, the possible damage negates comparisons to any damage a nanny state can do.

However, terrorists with nukes are the worst case scenario. Terrorism itself is the worst part of illegal immigration, but I would not call it the largest probable impact of it. As long as our military is in Iraq and Afghanistan, most terrorists will take the easy way out and try to hit our military.

Illegal immigration tends to bring higher crime rates with it. Also, there are too many places where the illegals are eligible for benefits, which leaves taxpayers paying for non-taxpayers. In addition, with the wealth flowing from this country back to the immigrant's home country, we are losing a lot of the economic benefit we could be getting from the wealth in the U.S.

The nanny state is a whole new level of problem. The more government does for the people, the more people expect from the government. We have seen the results of this in France and in New Orleans (during Katrina). This is a vicious cycle, where government is forced to raise taxes to pay for all of its' benefits, eventually stifling productivity and killing the golden goose of the private sector. The worst part is that it takes at least a generation to undo the damage, and that would probably come after a period of anarchy.

Illegal immigration is bad, but the far-reaching impact of the nanny state is much worse.