« December 2003 | Main | February 2004 »

"Global HMO"

From an Investor's Business Daily editorial:

For those who think that illegal aliens are a good deal because they will work for such low wages, consider this figure — $9 billion.

That rather large sum is Rep. Dana Rohrabacher's low-end estimate of how much is spent each year on health care for illegal immigrants, not by themselves but by others.

So while illegal alien labor might be cheap for businesses that employ undocumented workers, it isn't, as Rohrabacher points out, for taxpayers...

Rohrabacher's bill, should it become law, will have, at best, a modest impact on illegal immigration and the costs taxpayers bear for them. But if it stirs people to their senses and leads to an eventual — and rational — denial of health care and other government services to illegal immigrants, it would have a much larger effect.

Too bad the effect would be diminished, because the message of the president's de facto amnesty plan will still provide a strong incentive for more illegals to enter and wait until the next amnesty comes. As long as that's the case, the U.S. will continue to serve as HMO to Mexico, if not the world.

Posted to Immigration2003 at 10:57 PM | Comments (0)

"EU has no case against Zimbabwe: President"

Our leader speaks:

THE European Union has no case against Zimbabwe because Britain influences its decisions over Zimbabwe, President Mugabe said yesterday.

"There is no case that the European Union should go against us," he told the outgoing French Ambassador to Zimbabwe, Mr Didier Ferrand, at Zimbabwe House.

"That is the issue, but we notice of course that Britain is taking these issues to the European Union..."

The United States was also accused of influencing the EU decision by issuing a warning to its citizens last week to consider leaving Zimbabwe...

Mr Blair, President Mugabe said, admitted he was wrong on his treatment of Zimbabwe, but it was too late.

"They could not retract and redeem themselves because of too much publicity. We are more democratic here than most countries in Africa."

Posted to Miscellania at 10:38 PM | Comments (0)

"Earth to WSJ"

From Mark Krikorian:

Now, I like the Wall Street Journal. But its editorials on immigration always have a whiff of the Soviet about them. Like an apparatchik blaming the collapse of the USSR's agriculture on 75 straight years of bad weather, the Journal's writing on immigration has no connection to reality. Tuesday's lead editorial claims that the United States has tried in vain for two decades to enforce the immigration law, and now it's time to try something new (namely, the president's guestworker/amnesty proposal ). The piece is laced with the usual libertarian contempt for conservatives, with such leftist smears as "extreme," "restrictionist right," and "nativist wing of the GOP," and even refers to "undocumented," rather than illegal, aliens...

The problem is that the "new thinking" we need is a commitment to enforce the law. Over the past 20 years, we have done almost nothing to control immigration except beef up the Border Patrol...

What follows is a short list of some of the ways that enforcement attempts have been scuttled by politicians and industry. Send this article to anyone else who says "we tried and we failed."

I discussed the WSJ editorial here.

Posted to Immigration2003 at 09:34 PM | Comments (0)

'Illegal': Slur or accurate label?

This moderately balanced AJC article looks at both sides of the oldspeak/newspeak language wars: is it "illegal aliens" or "undocumented immigrants?"

Unfortunately, the author doesn't look at the law. The United States Code - the law of the land - uses the term "illegal aliens." For instance, see "Authorizing State and local law enforcement officials to arrest and detain certain illegal aliens"

It's interesting to analyze news reports' use of these terms. As I previously discussed, a San Jose Mercury News story got almost everything wrong.

And, here's a correction of an Arizona Republic story.

I think if you keep hammering this point about language home, and keep showing the statements of the "leaders" quoted in the article for what they are, eventually it will sink in.

Posted to Immigration2003 at 09:07 PM | Comments (1)

Bush to pander to arts community

Developing...

UPDATE: Whew! The increase is only $15 to $20 million!

This must be his cheapest least expensive pandering yet!

Posted to Politics at 07:40 PM | Comments (1)

The Letter to Bush and Hastert Warning about the President's Immigration Plan

From this:

Conservative Congressman Tom Tancredo (R.-Colo.) recently joined 22 fellow GOP Congressmen in a letter to the President and House Speakder Dennis Hastert detailing the public's negative reaction to the White House's immigration proposal...

Below is a copy of the original letter as sent by Rep. Tancredo's office:

---------------

Dear Mr. Speaker:

We have serious concerns regarding the immigration policy President Bush announced earlier this month. We collectively agree that the United States has a severe and undeniable immigration problem; however, the proposal articulated by the Administration does not address the problem appropriately. In fact, in our view, it will further exacerbate the problem and create discontent amongst the Republican Party.

Since the President’s speech, our offices have been inundated with calls from dismayed constituents expressing vehement opposition to the Administration’s proposal. It is a matter of great concern to us that these constituents – politically active American citizens – are so disillusioned by the proposal that many of them will become disenchanted with not only the Administration, but with Congress as well. If we do not listen to our constituents on this matter, our influence and effectiveness in Congress could be jeopardized. Simply put, we cannot continue to allow our immigration laws to be violated and ignored – and illegal aliens are by definition criminals.

We agree with the President’s sentiment that it is unfair to reward illegal immigrants. Although the President has argued that his proposal is not an amnesty, a careful reading of his proposal indicates otherwise. Amnesty pardons those who have broken a law. Ignoring the fact that illegal aliens are working in the United States illegally, and making them eligible for legal status and citizenship is de facto amnesty. And if past is prologue, it is clear that this amnesty proposal will encourage even greater numbers of aliens to enter our country illegally.

The contradictions within the Administration’s proposal, and what amounts to an offer of amnesty to law violators, have left many of our core supporters dismayed, angry, and confused. As patriotic Americans, our conservative base wants to see the laws of our nation upheld. We are a nation of immigrants, but we are also a nation of laws. Respect for the rule of law is a core conservative value.

Mr. Speaker, it is our hope that you will recognize the problems the Administration’s proposal has created for our constituents. We would be more than willing to work with you to craft a solution to America’s immigration crisis that is more in line with the principles of our Party and our national traditions.

Thank you for your continued leadership and sensitivity to the concerns of all Members of the Conference.

Sincerely,

C.L. "Butch" Otter, M.C.
Virginia Brown-Waite, M.C.
Virgil H. Goode, Jr., M.C.
Michael Simpson, M.C.
Jeff Miller, M.C.
Zach Wamp, M.C.
Todd Akin, M.C.
Lamar Smith, M.C.
Walter Jones, M.C.
Philip Crane, M.C.
Scott Garrett, M.C.
John J. Duncan, Jr., M.C.
Jim Ryun, M.C.
Ernest J. Istook, Jr., M.C.
Nathan Deal, M.C.
Steve King, M.C.
Thomas Tancredo, M.C.
Donald Manzullo, M.C.
Cliff Stearns, M.C.
Dana Rohrabacher, M.C.
Steven LaTourette, M.C.
Elton Gallegly, M.C.
Roscoe Bartlett, M.C.

Posted to Immigration2003 at 04:55 PM | Comments (0)

Bush "guest worker" program to be "open to any type of employee"

Mark Krikorian writes about a Cato Institute panel on the Bush/Fox Amnesty here. Of particular note are the remarks made by Margaret Spellings, "assistant to the president for domestic policy, and point person for the president's immigration proposal":

my director of research, Steven Camarota, briefly mentioned the alternative to the president's amnesty plan: using consistent, across-the-board enforcement of the immigration law to cause attrition of the illegal population over time. The White House response?

[Spellings]laughed...

Then she suggested, "You need to come visit Austin, Texas."

When a political aide cynically laughs about enforcing the law, you know it's time for a change. We didn't elect Bush to hire people who mock our laws.

You can see the entire 80 minute video here. Her laughter is around the 59 minute mark.

Here are two other statements Margaret Spellings made:

"We do envision that this would be open to any type of employee and any type of employer, such as nurses, teachers, high-tech workers, low-skilled workers. This is a concept that can apply broadly"

Asked "Will the children of "guest workers" automatically become citizens?", her response was: "Anyone who is born in the United States is presumed to be a citizen, and we do not support changing that. So I guess the answer is yes."

In other words, our "guest workers" will have children and will be here to stay.

And, those earning $40 or $60 or $100 or $200 per hour will be in for a rude awakening as a million people from China and India start bidding on their jobs.

Are you a teacher, a nurse, a high-tech worker, or another type of high-wage worker? I'd suggest contacting other members of your profession via online message boards and letting them know what Bush wants to do to you.

(It might not be all bad; maybe one day 'Cato Institute Analyst' might be one of those "jobs that Americans won't do")

Posted to Immigration2003 at 12:37 AM | Comments (1)

"Calif. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher Receives Death Threat Over Immigrant Bill"

From this:

HUNTINGTON BEACH, Calif. (AP) - The offices of Republican Congressman Dana Rohrabacher received dozens of threatening telephone calls Tuesday, including one death threat, after he authored a bill that would limit health care services for immigrants.
Information on the threats was turned over to police. "It will be forwarded to out detectives," said police Lt. Tom Donnelly.

The bill, introduced last week, would require hospitals to report a patient's immigration status before they could be reimbursed for treatment. Patients found to be in the United States illegally could be deported.

Threatening calls began after the bill was discussed on a New York radio station Tuesday. The office received so many calls they stopped answering the phone...

Relax, they're just here to make the threats Americans won't make.

Posted to Immigration2003 at 09:28 PM | Comments (0)

Edwards-Lieberman 2004

That's where I'm putting my money. Yes, they're currently in a three-way race (calpundit.com/archives/003142.html) for third, but, things change...

No one's going to elect Howard Dean for anything, except appearances on Hollywood Squares a decade hence.

John Kerry's dirty little secret is going to come out:

Teresa Heinz thinks that Hillary Clinton should have shot her husband for being unfaithful, that plastic surgery is essential, and that rabbit meat provides the best diet for children...

Wesley Clark is going to either explode on national TV, or, due to lack of proper lubrication, he'll lock up.

Which leaves us with Edwards and Lieberman, the survivors who'll try to pick up the pieces. Extra extra bonus points if they come out in support of enforcing our immigration laws.

As of 1/20, oddsmakers America's Line had Edwards as 6/1 and Lieberman as 50/1.

Posted to Politics at 08:50 PM | Comments (0)

"Guest worker program offers lessons: Bush might profit by German experience"

From the AJC:

As the United States contemplates a proposal by President Bush to temporarily legalize some foreign workers with the expectation they will eventually return to the land of their birth, the German experience may provide a cautionary tale.

More than 40 years after the first Turkish guest workers arrived to help the country rebuild --- Germany had Marshall Plan funds and other post-World War II reconstruction money but was short of manpower --- a significant number are still here.

Many of the immigrants live in ghettos. Many, even children, do not speak German. Housing and education are substandard. Crime is high. Unemployment, 18 percent among Berliners, is 35 percent among the city's Turks.

About three of every four Turks in Germany are not citizens, even after decades in the country. Many play no role in the nation's political life. They feel the sting of bigotry and keep to themselves...

By 1970, 3 million foreign-born people lived in Germany, making up nearly 5 percent of the population. The program ended in 1973, when the worldwide oil crisis slowed the German economy.

But as relatives came to Germany to join the workers, the number swelled to 7.3 million by late 2001...

In addition, she said, it is difficult to enforce temporary programs when there is great economic disparity between the new country and the country of origin. While the program proposed by Bush is aimed primarily at workers already in the United States illegally, it would also apply to prospective workers abroad.

People familiar with the German experience say there are lessons for all concerned. Kangal, in addition to recommending that workers learn the language earlier than he did, said the host country should enter the arrangement with open eyes.

If a country needing cheap labor hires another country's least-qualified workers, it will get poorly educated and unsophisticated people ill-equipped to learn the language and assimilate...

The U.S. and Germany are, of course, quite different societies. However, there are many parallels between the German experience and what we've had to date. Assimilation was not pursued in Germany, and it is not pursued in the U.S. Thanks to multiculturalism, there is very little pressure in the U.S. for immigrants of any kind to assimilate and learn English.

Posted to Immigration2003 at 12:21 PM | Comments (0)

"Enforcement Blues"

From Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies comes this article:

A recent Cato Institute forum revealed the true attitude of many in the White House about immigration-law enforcement.

The forum (watch the Real Video file here) featured, among others, Margaret Spellings, assistant to the president for domestic policy, and point person for the president's immigration proposal. Everyone gave the speech he was expected to, but it was during the Q&A that things got interesting. One of the other panelists, my director of research, Steven Camarota, briefly mentioned the alternative to the president's amnesty plan: using consistent, across-the-board enforcement of the immigration law to cause attrition of the illegal population over time. The White House response?

Ms. Spellings laughed.

Then she suggested, "You need to come visit Austin, Texas."

...Spellings's dismissal of the very idea of immigration-law enforcement confirms the worst fears of observers inside and outside the immigration agencies: that the new laws envisioned by the president's proposal wouldn't be enforced any more vigorously than the old ones, leading to yet more illegal immigration and a need for further amnesties down the road...

...it's up to Republicans to adopt the immigration service and provide the political support necessary for any enforcement agency to do its work. If not, no immigration plan — whether it's the president's or anyone else's — is going to work.

At the risk of being churlish, I'd like to suggest that Margaret Spellings find a new job. I don't think she has a full grasp of what her job is all about.

UPDATE: There's much more on Margaret Spellings and the Bush/Fox amnesty here.

Posted to Immigration2003 at 11:30 PM | Comments (0)

Is the Wall Street Journal funded by the Ford Foundation?

No, but they are definitely part of the Open Borders Conspiracy.

Case in point: an editorial entitled "Our Border Brigades The nativist right is wrong."

You can leave comments at the page above, and read comments from other users. Here's my reply:

Your editorial reads like a left-wing screed, starting with the use of the word "nativists" in an attempt to smear your opponents and ending with the newspeak "undocumented immigrants."

While the chart is nice, it's also misleading. A better chart might include the money spent on interior enforcement, specifically workplace enforcement. How many employers have been fined or put in federal prison over the past few years? Perhaps you would care to tell your readers that instead of misleading them to believe that following our laws has failed. (See for instance this: "In San Diego County, only one owner, whose company hired workers for major hotels, has been prosecuted since 2000, and he was given probation. No business has been fined."

"Somehow draining the terror swamp in the Middle East seems a lot more vital to U.S. security than stopping busboys from crossing the Rio Grande."

A brief look at history will show you that any country that can't control its borders is in serious trouble.

"But there's no guarantee that even this--so insulting to American traditions--would work."

Illegal immigration is not an "American tradition." There are many other differences between current illegal immigration and that that occured in the 1800s and early 1900s. Most of those immigrants came through entry points, and were pre-selected by the shipping companies that brought them here. And, most people who came here did so for good and severed ties with the "old country."

"Or how about mass roundups and deportations?"

Why not get more hysterical, and suggest cattle cars and gulags?

"so if a policy keeps failing for nearly two decades maybe some new thinking is in order."

The policy of weak workplace enforcement has definitely failed. The policy of endless amnesties has also definitely failed. Remember how the 1986 Amnesty was supposed to be the last one? If the Bush/Fox Amnesty is passed, millions more illegal immigrants will come here in expectation of the next "last amnesty."

"immigrants today allow some industries to survive and expand"

Cheap serf labor does no one any good. If you care about American industry, encourage them to develop automation and improve productivity.

See, for instance "The Mirage of Mexican Guest Workers" from 80 Foreign Affairs No. 6: "...political leaders have often belatedly discovered that admitting temporary low-wage workers unnaturally sustains industries with low productivity and wages, such as garment manufacturing, labor-intensive agriculture, and domestic services. In consequence, the economy's overall productivity and growth suffer..."

The vast majority of Americans do not support the Bush/Fox Amnesty. Hopefully they'll make their voices heard in upcoming elections.

UPDATE: They didn't print my response, but several responses to this article are now available.

Almost all of the responses are negative:

-"The idea that we have tried to control our borders is absurd. We do not make the slightest attempt, and there are huge rewards from all directions for illegals."

- "The real story here, is how politicians have, for decades, ignored the clearly expressed will of the American people to stop illegal immigration and deport these law breakers."

- "I think you are wrong on just about every point you make in this editorial on border/immigration failures. Your name-calling of the majority of Americans who rightly want to control the influx of Illegal Immigrants, is repulsive."

- "Why not just declare open borders? After all, a few hundred million Chinese would help companies keep down wages marvelously. That way, U.S. citizens would be free to concentrate on high-value-added, knowledge-based jobs--at least those few not exported to India and China. The WSJ's disregard for the common American weal is disheartening."

Plus many more...

Posted to Immigration2003 at 10:37 PM | Comments (0)

"Mexican-illegals flow rises 66% in 12 years"

From this:

A report from a Mexican government agency released today says the number of Mexicans entering the U.S. illegally increased by 66 percent from 1990 to 2002.

According to the German news agency Deutsche Presse-Agentur, the study was conducted by the National Population Council, or Conapo. It found the number of illegals coming from Mexico each year now exceeds 1 million. The report says about one-third of those who enter illegally, 390,000 annually, achieve their goal of staying in the U.S.

Deutsche Presse-Agentur reports the number of Mexicans living in the United States went from 4.3 million in 1994 to 9.5 million in 2002, according to U.S. estimates.

It is estimated Mexicans in the U.S. sent approximately $12 billion back to Mexico last year...

Posted to Immigration2003 at 09:04 PM | Comments (0)

"Infinite Ingress"

The L.A. Times Magazine has a long article about immigration here.

"Wait!" you're thinking, "I don't want to read another Struthersian, lie-filled screed from the liberal hacks at the Times!"

You don't have to, because this article actually makes some sense for a change:

A human wave is breaking over California, flooding freeways and schools, bloating housing costs, disrupting power and water supplies. Ignoring it hasn't worked.

By birth, by foot, by automobile, from other states and other countries, legally and illegally, people have arrived in California for decades in unrelenting swells, human surf breaking steadily on a vast shore. Occasionally a big set rolls in and harasses state and local officials trying to determine how many new classrooms to build or where to bury the trash, but Californians take it in stride. You can complain, but what good would it do? You can complain about winter, too, but it comes anyway.

We tolerate endless strip malls, foul air, contaminated runoff, window-rattling boom boxes and the weekend crush at Costco and Home Depot. We remain composed in the face of runaway housing prices, electricity shortages, crowded schools and—well, maybe not crowded schools. That one rankles. But what we suffer even less well than crowded schools, the thing that makes even the most tolerant Californians notice that their cities have become overstuffed, is all the endless, miserable, stinking, standing traffic. In Los Angeles, in San Diego, in Sacramento, in the Bay Area, freeway traffic sits like an automotive still life, then inches along as we fume in the fumes. On a roadside in San Jose after a fender bender, a driver grabs another driver's small dog, Leo, and throws the helpless animal into oncoming traffic.

This is what it has come to in California. We live in the Age of Leo.

If projections through 2040 by demographers in the state Department of Finance prove accurate, conditions will only get worse. Much worse. New residents continue to wash over California's borders, but the state is neither attempting to restrain growth nor building adequate infrastructure to accommodate it. And the boat continues to fill...

Via John & Ken.

Posted to Immigration2003 at 04:56 PM | Comments (0)

The Lonewacko Review

The West Wing
Watching a Louis "Calypso Louie" Farrakhan speech would be horrifying, but also entertaining. I recently saw my first episode of The West Wing. It was a bit like a Farrakhan speech, only not so horrifying.

President Sheen (Joshua Bartlett) wanders from room to room and situation to situation, dispensing wisdom and humility to staffers, press, and the general public like a liberal Mike Brady.

Almost all the Democrats are young, attractive, sexy, vibrant, somewhat multicultural/multiracial/multigendered, caring, and, most of all, earnest. Even the older Democrats are vibrant. America is truly in good hands with this crew. They truly do know what's best. A featured Republican is a young blonde bimbo lawyer; the rest of the few other Republicans are Old White Oppressors.

One of President Sheen's advisors screems a gun-control rant into the screen, and the Republican answer is silenced by the pen of Aaron Sorkin.

First Lady Stockard Channing is upset that President Sheen didn't mention the Violence Against Women Act in his SOTU speech.

On the Sorkin Scale, The West Wing gets 3.5 rocks.

The Apprentice
Survivor sucks. Seriously, they're graded on how can shoot arrows into plates? The Wild Rules (ESPN) was a lot better, but most of what they did consisted of orienteering. It would have been better if they'd bagged a peak or two.

The Apprentice is something I can relate to a bit better than other reality shows. For instance, the contestants competed to see who could get various items for the greatest discount off of retail. As someone who frequently tries to negotiate various things, that's something I can understand.

In another competition, they had to dream up an advertising campaign for a new airline. They got the full use of an ad agency, and the only downside was that they might get fired by Trump.

The two episodes I've seen so far don't drag on unlike other reality shows. Two problems are running out of good ideas for competitions and people getting tired of Trump.

Another problem is that most of the contestants are neither street smart nor book smart. None of them are exactly self-starters.

On the Sorkin Scale, The Apprentice gets 4 rocks.

Posted to Celebrities at 09:25 PM | Comments (0)

"Film records effects of eating only McDonald's for a month"

From this:

NEW YORK - Normally sane actors have been known to gain or lose huge amounts of weight for their art. Think of Renee Zellweger in Bridget Jones's Diary. Directors, of course, never have to undergo such torture. Or so it used to be, until Morgan Spurlock had a bright idea for a film project.

The first clue to his particular misery comes in the title of his documentary, which has become the darling of this year's Sundance Film Festival. It is called Super Size Me: A Film of Epic Portions and it is a sometimes comic but serious look at America's addiction to fast food.

Spurlock, a tall New Yorker of usually cast-iron constitution, made himself the guinea pig in this dogged investigation into the effects of fast food on the body. He ate only at McDonald's for a month - three meals, every day - and took a camera crew along to record it. If a server offered to super-size his order, he was obliged to accept - and to ingest everything, gherkins and all...

[Spurlock] saw a news item about two teenage girls in New York suing McDonald's for making them obese. The company responded by saying their food was nutritious and good for people. Is that so, he wondered? To find out, he committed himself to his 30 days of Big Mac bingeing...

It sounds like a real scientifically-based film, except for the cheap effect of pigging out at McDonald's three times a day.

How many of their chicken salads did he eat? Aren't some McDonald's items healthier than others?

Add in the fact that his girlfriend is a vegan chef, and the picture of an elitist prat who brings to food what Michael Moore brings to politics is complete.

Posted to Privacy at 09:22 PM | Comments (0)

Comrades! Help show solidarity with the righteous struggle of the supermarket workers against their corporate overlords!

I received the following email regarding the L.A. supermarket workers' strike:

THIS SATURDAY, when we join the striking and locked out workers in their 15th week on the picket lines we are going to try to boost the miltancy by picketing all driveways, chanting and actively encouraging potential shoppers to go elsewhere.

To be effective in this we need at least 20 people to commit to be there from 12:30 to 2:30.
At 12:30 we'll begin with a 15 min. prep meeting so we can adopt some new tactics without slipping into civil disobedience and get some slogans and chants. Please don't park in the parking lot. There's plenty of street parking...

We have "adopted" the Vons on Los Feliz between San Fernando Rd. and Central Av. for strike support and solidarity. Neighbors (and shoppers) for Peace and Justice, who have refused to shop at VONS and ALBERTSONS during the strike come out to show our support for their struggle to protect employer paid health care and more.

Please make an effort to join us on their picket line this and every Saturday at 12:30 p.m. for a couple of hours to show our solidarity and support. Feel free to bring your own sign or carry signs we will have there. We'll have more signs this Sat. If able, bring water, snacks, or fruit for the picketers there. But most of all, put your body on the line.

We'll be joining the pickets every Saturday at 12:30 p.m. until the strike is settled.
Please join us and let your friends and neighbors know how they can support the strike.

You'll no doubt recall the Neighbors for Peace and Justice as the wackos who worked with L.A. City Councilman Eric Garcetti to get the L.A. anti-war resolution passed.

However: according to KFI's John and Ken, one or more Ralph's stores have notices indicating that they're changing their names. And, that store is also selling Kroger's brand rather than Ralph's brand generic products.

The supposition - not verified by this blogger - is that Ralph's stores would change their names and thus would be able to hire the scabs as their new permanent workers.

Posted to Los_Angeles at 12:21 AM | Comments (0)

"Walk Softly and Carry a Big Gun"

The L.A. Times has a guest comment advocating carrying guns when one goes into wild areas:

...I am puzzled now by the strange way people here are dealing with mountain lions — which is to say, letting them kill you...

I don't know much about big cats. We don't have them in Alaska, and the few I have encountered southward were pretty spooky. They are elegant creatures, and I do respect them. I do not go where they are without the means to protect myself. And I keep my eyes peeled. It is in my genes not to be eaten by bears, large cats or anything else.

Why would anyone go into mountain lion country without the means to protect themselves from attack? I notice the police are armed. The wardens and rangers are armed. Indeed, anyone with any clue where they are would be armed...

I've only seen mountain lions in zoos, and I don't know much about them either.

However, I do know that they're stalkers, and they prefer to strike from behind. They attempt to snap their victim's neck.

While I usually hike with my Uzi strapped to my pack (that's what that loop at the bottom of the pack is for, right?), in the case of a mountain lion attack it would seem to do little good. While I have no special knowledge, it would seem that protecting your back from an attack from above and behind would be the best defense from a mountain lion attack.

That would include things like making sure that your back is against a wall or a cliff if you're doing bike repairs, carrying a large backpack that covers your neck, and, most importantly of all, going out in large or medium-sized groups.

UPDATE: I started a thread about this here. I also changed the text above from "editorial" to "guest comment."

Posted to OutdoorSports at 01:15 PM | Comments (1)

New bloggers noted

The GOP's Ed Gillespie has a blog. I tried to leave a comment at it, but it never showed up. It was a polite comment with a few questions about the Bush/Fox Amnesty; well within the political discourse. Perhaps the GOP should consider letting everyone and not just sycophantic slags post comments.

Kent Schocknek of KCBS also has a blog. It's cutesy - by Gawd is it cutesy - and no commenting is available. If there were, I would let Kent know that ducking under his desk during an earthquake was the right thing to do. I know that's what I would have done. Taking a 100 pound light to the head is not the macho thing to do.

The horrible LA.com also has a horrible blog.

Latter via LAObserved.

Posted to Bloggage at 12:10 PM | Comments (2)

New space-age toilet will help show our love

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Following up on comments made in his State of the Union address, President Bush has announced a new $12 billion plan to help prevent drug abuse by students. "This plan will help Ashley Pearson and millions of other youngsters throughout America. It will help stamp out abuse of marijuana, harder drugs, and even steroids," Bush stated.

The plan calls for space-age toilets to be installed in public and private schools nationwide. Each toilet will come equipped with facial scanning technology, so individual users can be identified. The toilets will automatically perform urinalysis on each user's effluent. Users who are found to have trace amounts of various drugs in their urine will be asked to submit to a more thorough test.

"Not only will this help prevent drug abuse in the schools, it will help us spot impending medical conditions." Bush continued. "It's technological advances likes this that make America great!"

New York city mayor Mike Bloomberg has been tabbed to lead the DHS committee who will do a study of the new toilet.

Posted to WackyHumor at 12:01 PM | Comments (0)

President Felix Unger

Hey kids! Here's 17 fun facts about Howard Dean:

1. He calls his wife "sweetie"; she calls him "Howie."

2. He wore his prom tuxedo to one of President Clinton's White House state dinners to save money, but coughed and split his pants and had to be escorted home by state troopers covering his posterior.

3. His staff forced him to buy a new suit at Paul Stuart in New York for the campaign (it cost $800). "It nearly killed me."

4. He always turns off the lights when he walks out of a room. He used to get into fights with his wife about turning up the heat in the winter, so now she pays the bill so he doesn't have to see it.

5. When he's bored, he likes to count things. He occasionally relaxes by taking long walks and counting the cracks in the sidewalk, the number of street lights, and other things he sees on the way.

6. He is compulsive about recycling. Once he picked up every newspaper off an airplane at the end of a flight and hauled them to a recycling center. He also does recycling inspections of his staffer's bins.

7. He insists that paper in his office be printed on both sides.

8. When he closes a door, he makes sure it's locked by trying to turn the knob. Then he does that 10 more times "just to make sure."

9. He fixes the toilet at home; plumbing is his "therapy."

10. He never takes taxis or limos. In New York City he takes the subway.

11. Asked his favorite food indulgence, he responds: fish. (He later amends this to chocolate chip cookies.)

12. He drinks generic ginger ale and snacks to save money.

13. He saves his urine in glass jars.

14. Despite his reservations about cost, he was finally persuaded to take his shirts to the dry cleaner last year. He used to just throw them in the wash.

15. As the governor of Vermont, he drove himself and pumped his own gas.

16. He has been known to tape his shoes together.

17. He wears '70s-style gold-rimmed glasses that he won't update; his wife carries a purse covered in pen marks. They are both devoted discount shoppers ...

Now comes the hard part. Can you guess which fun facts were made even more fun by we at The Lonewacko Blog? Answer in the first comment.

UPDATE: Now available in quizilla form!

Posted to Politics at 12:33 PM | Comments (1)

"Jihad in California"

From Steven Emerson (producer of Jihad in America):

For years, the Democratic Party, in California and across America, stood for justice and decency and fairness and equality and peace. For years, the Democratic Party embodied principles and beliefs that define America, and led our nation to a better, stronger, freer day. Thus, it is deeply troubling to find that the leader of the Democratic Party in California, Art Torres, has chosen to engage in the most vicious form of demagoguery in his recent appearance before the annual convention of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) held in Long Beach, California on December 20-21, 2003...

See the page for Torres' speech, as well as various quotes from members of MPAC. Torres' quotes aren't that horribly damning, but those from MPAC are.

You'll recall Art Torres' comments on Prop. 187:

Art Torres, the Chairman of the California Democratic Party and the keynote speaker at the meeting, shouted to the audience "Power is not given to you. You have to take it...Remember 187 is the last gasp of White America in California!" [sound clip here] and "Que Viva La Causa!" (Long Live our Cause!) -- and then later exulted over how he could make such racist remarks with total impunity.

Now, the only problem is to get Democrats from other states to repudiate Torres. The problem after that is to make them look bad because they won't repudiate him. The problem after that is to get anyone in the media to pay any attention...

Posted to Immigration_terror at 09:49 PM | Comments (0)

"Bush plan may help drive for immigrant licenses"

From the San Jose Mercury News:

Proposed legislation that would allow undocumented immigrants to obtain driver's licenses in California may have received an unexpected political boost this week when President Bush announced a sweeping plan for immigration reform.

In the Bay Area and across the state, supporters of the driver's license effort believe that the president's plan will help their campaign to get a new bill introduced in California.

What about those who don't support this bill? Why is the only dissenting voice in this entire article saved until the very last paragraph, paragraph #17? Quotes from the supporters are featured in paragraphs 3, 6, 9, 13, and 15.

...Sen. Gilbert Cedillo, D-Los Angeles, said his plan to introduce a new version of the driver's license bill is on track to be introduced this month.

``It's very helpful for the president to go out there and acknowledge the contribution of immigrants,'' said Cedillo, who for the last five years has pushed for legislation that would allow undocumented immigrants in the state to drive legally.

We're a nation of immigrants, as they keep reminding us. How could we ever forget about the contribution of immigrants? Oh, wait, Cedillo meant the contribution of illegal immigrants. He just didn't say what he meant.

...``The federal proposal is more an explicit immigration policy. The California proposal is about highway safety,'' Cedillo said.

Why doesn't the reporter call Cedillo on his Big Lie? It's not about "highway safety." It's about votes and power for Cedillo. I mean, if you've got the guy on the line for a quote, you might as well ask him a tough question or two, right? Isn't that what reporters are supposed to do? Since when is reporting about parroting obvious lies?

Also, as in other stories about immigration matters, the reporter or editor misuses some terms.

Here's a handy chart showing the error on the left and the correct term on the right:

• title: "immigrant" -> "illegal immigrant"
• lede: "UNDOCUMENTED DRIVERS" -> "ILLEGAL ALIEN DRIVERS"
• para 1: "undocumented immigrants" -> "illegal aliens"
• para 6: "undocumented immigrants" -> "illegal aliens"
• para 10: "undocumented immigrants" -> "illegal aliens"
• para 11: "undocumented workers" -> "illegal alien workers"
• para 12: "undocumented immigrants" -> "illegal aliens"
• para 14: "undocumented immigrants" -> "illegal aliens"

Posted to Immigration_dls at 12:53 PM | Comments (0)

"W's Immigration Fallacy"

Heather MacDonald succintly shows the errors in Bush's thinking:

PRESIDENT Bush's proposal to legalize the country's 10 or so million illegal aliens rests on a fallacy: that immigration enforcement has failed to stem the tide of illegal aliens. Therefore, the argument goes, amnesty is the only solution to the illegal-alien crisis.
But immigration enforcement has not failed — it has never been tried. Amnesty, however, has been tried, and it was a clear failure that should not be repeated again.

For decades, the country's immigration enforcement has looked like this: a largish number of Border Patrol agents clustered at the border with Mexico, then a vast empty space beyond where illegal immigrants are home free — as if a football team had placed its entire defense on the line of scrimmage.

Roughly 2,000 immigration agents have been responsible for all interior enforcement, a massive portfolio which includes checking work sites, eradicating document fraud and alien smuggling, and apprehending criminal aliens. Their numbers are dwarfed by the millions of illegal aliens, the hundreds of thousands of employers who hire them, and the tens of thousands of counterfeiters and smugglers who facilitate their passage.

This dearth of enforcement resources has had the most dire consequences in the workplace. It is the lure of jobs that draws most aliens across the border illegally. The highest priority of immigration enforcement should be to disengage that jobs magnet by penalizing employers who hire illegals. The opposite is the case: A combination of inadequate manpower and weak laws has ensured that illegal aliens and their employers enjoy near immunity from detection and prosecution...

Posted to Immigration2003 at 12:29 PM | Comments (0)

"Bush's immigration plan hurts re-election war chest"

From this:

President Bush's immigration initiative has angered conservative Republicans so much that some are refusing to donate to his re-election campaign, according to a Bush fund-raiser in Georgia.

Phil Kent, a member of the host committee for a Bush fund-raiser in Atlanta yesterday, said he was told by several would-be donors that they would not attend the $2,000-per-person event because of the president's announcement last week on immigration reform.

"I was soliciting checks right after the announcement, and I lost two checks from people who had wanted to come, but wouldn't," Mr. Kent said. "They specifically said this is just rewarding lawbreakers.

"That was the constant theme," he added. "And even among some people who wrote the checks, there's grumbling..."

A little grumbling here, a few lost contributions there, and pretty soon the newly-unemployed Rove and Ridge might be blamed for what was previously known as the Bush/Fox Amnesty.

Posted to Immigration2003 at 01:04 AM | Comments (0)

"The strange case of immigration politics"

From Tony Blankley:

President Bush's recent, lamentable proposals on illegal immigrants highlight, yet again, that both the Republican and Democratic Parties heed neither public opinion nor their primary governing responsibility to defend and protect the United States, as it relates to illegal immigration...

I might agree with the president's proposals if they followed, rather than preceded, a failed Herculean, decades-long national effort to secure our borders. If, after such an effort, it was apparent that we simply could not control our borders, then, as a practical man I would try to make the best of a bad situation. But such an effort has not yet been made. And why it has not been made reveals a singular failing of the American political system...

Posted to Immigration2003 at 01:00 AM | Comments (2)

"Good Idea, Bad Plan: Why the president's immigration plan won't work."

From Fred Barnes:

...Consider how the proposed plan would be seen by a poor but ambitious young man in Mexico. He knows that getting in line for legal immigration would probably never get him to America and that staying in the United States on an illegal basis has its drawbacks. But now there's a legal alternative: Get across the border, find a job (a menial, entry level job will do), and sign up for a 3-year work permit that's renewable. This is quite an incentive. If the Bush plan passes, word will spread fast that now's the time to get to the United States any way you can.

AGAIN, let's applaud the thinking that underpins the Bush plan. And let's praise illegal immigrants for their moxie in getting here and making America a better country. But let's not have any illusions about the practical impact of the plan, which is that more will come and few will leave.

Posted to Immigration2003 at 12:57 AM | Comments (1)

"Bush gives country away"

From Joseph Farah:

President Bush's plan to legalize 8 million to 12 million illegal aliens – maybe considerably more – is one of the most irresponsible, dangerous, reckless proposals to come out of Washington in my lifetime.

And that's saying a lot...

...It's not strong enough to call Bush's proposal "irresponsible." It is borderline seditious. And there is a widespread perception he is making this move because he believes there is personal political gain in it.

That is hardly "compassion," Mr. President. That is the worst kind of cynicism. That is the worst kind of selfishness. That is the worst kind of example a leader could set for the nation.

Shame on Bush. Shame on his party for standing by quietly as he sets out to destroy the fabric of our nation...

Posted to Immigration2003 at 12:46 PM | Comments (0)

"Raids on illegal workers drop"

This article is from December 1, 2003, but it's still quite timely given the promises that after this amnesty we'll finally enforce the laws we should have been enforcing all along:

When federal agents swept into Wal-Marts across the country and arrested 245 floor cleaners they were reviving an increasingly rare practice.
Politics and economics weaned the federal government from workplace crackdowns of illegal employees years ago. The government has busted steadily fewer employers and arrested fewer illegal employees since the late 1990s, according to federal immigration data.

Immigration officials often attribute the marked decline in workplace enforcement to a new focus on national security, saying that agents who once raided restaurant kitchens and construction sites have been reassigned to airports and nuclear plants.

But, in fact, the decline began four years before Sept. 11, 2001, as the frenetic economy drew foreign nationals into bottom-rung jobs Americans wouldn't take, and as federal immigration policy-makers focused on deporting criminals and fortifying the U.S.-Mexico border.

On some occasions when agents did swoop in, lawmakers howled to protect important business constituencies...

Bush/Ridge/Rove/Fox promise that this time, after this one last final amnesty, they will finally enforce the laws. No, really.

Except, even if they mean it (which I doubt), the same howls will be heard from the same people, and the same lack of enforcement will ensue. We'll still have illegal aliens. In fact, we'll have even more as millions move to the U.S. in expectation of the next amnesty (otherwise known as the one last final amnesty).

Posted to Immigration2003 at 12:27 PM | Comments (0)

Scrappleface has audience with Pope

Quoth Instapundit: "HAD COFFEE WITH SCOTT OTT, of Scrappleface fame. (I told you everyone comes to Knoxville eventually)."

Scott is apparently a second-tier blogger.

Posted to Bloggage at 11:38 AM | Comments (0)

"Correcting the Record About President Bush's Immigration Proposal"

FAIR has released a rather scathing critique of the Bush/Fox Amnesty. Read it here. For instance:

Q. Is this amnesty?

A. You bet it is. Any program that allows millions of illegal aliens to receive legal status in this country is an amnesty. The difference between this amnesty and the one signed by President Reagan in 1986 is that this one includes an interim guestworker status for people transitioning from illegal alien status to legal permanent residency. Under the president's plan, current illegal aliens would be given guestworker status for up to six years and be eligible for Social Security numbers and driver's licenses. It is absolutely not credible to believe that under the circumstances any of these people will ever leave, or that they will not be granted permanent residence. In addition, because it allows them to bring family members to join them, amnesty will be extended to countless millions more.

President Bush also promises "enhanced workplace enforcement again those who violate the immigration laws." The obvious question is: Why has there been virtually no workplace enforcement over the past three years of his administration? Why should anyone believe, after years of empty promises by Republican and Democratic administrations, that this time they will keep their word? Why doesn't the president begin "enhanced work place enforcement" today? He does not need any additional legislation to do that. It is already the law.

Read the whole thing, and be sure to send it to anyone who supports Bush's plan.

Posted to Immigration2003 at 12:35 AM | Comments (1)

"Americans Worried About Immigration, Oppose Bush Plan"

The results of the recent CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll are available here.

74% of respondents answered "Should Not" to this question: "Do you think the United States should or should not make it easier for illegal immigrants to become citizens of the United States?"

Posted to Immigration2003 at 12:31 AM | Comments (0)

Has Prince Bandar been advising Bush on immigration?

From Mark Krikorian's article "Immigration, Saudi Style":

...one question has not been asked during the week the Bush proposal has been debated: What would America's labor market, and society and polity, look like if Bush's plan were actually implemented?

Some have suggested that immigration promotes the "Brazilianization" of our economy, as the rich benefit from the importation of servants while native-born blue-collar workers see their wages suffer.

This is certainly true with regard to mass immigration as a whole, but the president's specific proposals suggest a different country as a model: Saudi Arabia. That country, and its Gulf neighbors, are home to a permanent guestworker class, millions strong, lacking any real possibility of becoming full members of the host society. These foreign workers are very large in number, with the six million in Saudi Arabia accounting for about one-quarter of the kingdom's population. And they have virtually no chance of becoming citizens, even after living there for decades...

Terence P. Jeffrey makes similar points in "Just Enforce the Immigration Law":

If Congress enacts President Bush's immigration reform plan, liberals immediately will begin pushing to convert it into an unambiguous amnesty by asking questions the plan's Republican defenders will have a hard time answering: Can it be squared with our national ideals of meritocracy and equality before the law? Or will it create an unsustainable caste system in the American work force?

As President Bush explained it, the plan would transform "the millions of undocumented men and women now employed in the United States" and "those in foreign countries who seek to participate in the program and have been offered employment here" into a legally recognized population of "temporary workers." But, as Democrats will certainly point out, these millions will not be granted full political and economic participation in American society...

You'll note that the UCLA study from former MALDEF president Joaquin Avila called the current situation 'apartheid', suggesting that illegal aliens be allowed to vote. Under the Bush/Fox Amnesty, his plan would probably eventually be adopted.

Posted to Immigration2003 at 12:26 AM | Comments (0)

"Backers say Bush plan goes beyond immigration"

White House spinmeisters now assure us that the Bush/Fox Amnesty is not only not an amnesty, it's an economic and Homeland Security issue:

President Bush's political strategists, taking note of the unpopularity of his immigration initiative as reflected in public-opinion polls, expressed confidence yesterday that the proposal will gain support as it is recast as an economic and homeland security issue.
"Once people have had a chance to educate themselves about the proposal and what it does, support for it will grow," said Christine Iverson, spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee...

I think once people have educated themselves about what this proposal really does, they're going to either stay home or write in Tom Tancredo.

Posted to Immigration2003 at 12:15 AM | Comments (0)

Immigration Policy: Last Straw For Conservatives?

From Paul Weyrich:

...the President has come up with a policy decision that may cause enough of his coalition to vote for a third party or to stay at home. I believe his re-election is endangered if the race turns out to be close. I am referring to the immigration program that the President announced last week. I have received dozens of e-mails telling me that the President has crossed the line with them. Thursday, I did a drive-time radio show in San Antonio. Caller after caller, including one Hispanic, said they had voted for Bush but they could not do so again...

...Whatever [Bush's] motivation, he is making the oldest mistake in politics. He is abandoning his base. His father did that when he raised taxes after pledging not to. It cost him the election...

Posted to Immigration2003 at 05:04 PM | Comments (0)

I need to dumb-down my satires

On an infrequent visit to pandagon.net, I noticed they were complaining about how the winning MoveOn ad is "a bit too subtle for the TV crowd."

In response, I posted the following:

Most of the sheeple just won't get it. They're so dumb you practically need to lead them around by their nose rings. What MoveOn needs is an ad that lays it out on the line, explains all the big words for the dummies, and then includes a nifty graphic at the end, like "THINK."

I really wish they'd selected "Imagine." It even had a cavorting Orca!

No one commented on my comment. Maybe I'm just being ignored, or maybe it was a bit too subtle for the pandagon crowd.

Posted to WackyHumor at 04:44 PM | Comments (1)

Saluting Brasil

More: calpundit.com/archives/003036.html

Posted to WackyHumor at 04:36 PM | Comments (0)

"Job Creation in Mexico's Economy Is a Better Solution to the Migration Problem"

From the L.A. Times:

If Americans have misgivings this week about President Bush's plan to extend workers' rights to illegal immigrants from Mexico, they should look to the future, when many more migrant laborers will no doubt begin flowing across the border.

That's because the root cause of illegal immigration is the lack of employment opportunities in Mexico's poor economy. And that economy is getting worse, not better.

"We are in the fourth year of employment decline," says Mexico City-based economist Rogelio Ramirez de la O. The country needs to create 800,000 jobs a year just to keep up with new entrants to the labor force. Instead it has lost 1.2 million jobs in the last three years...

But a U.S. guest-worker program isn't the real answer. As Ramirez so rightfully points out: "Mexico cannot continue to pass on our responsibility for job creation to another government."

Posted to Immigration2003 at 12:41 PM | Comments (0)

"No incentive to immigrate the legal way: Workers, employers won't bother with Bush's temporary visa plan"

From Hal Netkin in the L.A. Daily News:

When my Mexican immigrant wife, Ines, and I visited her family in Mexico three years ago, one of my brothers-in-law, Alejandro, and his family thought that because my wife is a naturalized U.S. citizen, that she could petition for their swift legal immigration to the U.S.

U.S. citizens may petition for siblings of any age, but not for the siblings' spouses or children. We agreed to fill out the necessary paperwork to start the petition process for Alejandro (and three of Ines' other siblings) once we returned to California, and Alejandro could later legally petition for his family.

Two months after our return to Van Nuys, Ines was shocked to receive a telephone call from Alejandro in Oxnard, California, working as an ice cream vendor. Alejandro had illegally entered the U.S. for a job, which would allow him to send money home in support of his family. Alejandro's decision not to wait several years for a visa was based on most every Mexican's knowledge that once in the U.S., it is virtually legal to be illegal.

Within a year, two more of my brothers-in-law followed Alejandro's path of illegal entry...

Posted to Immigration2003 at 12:21 PM | Comments (0)

Price Signals and the True Cost of Illegal Immigration

From PrestoPundit:

Rich folks with illegal nannies and servants are getting services without paying the true cost of labor -- in other words, illegal immigration is providing a government subsidy for the pampered lifestyles of the well to do. It is doing the same for wealthy firms of all sorts -- from agribusiness to international hotels to Walmart. The market tells us that the value of this illegal foreign labor is no more than a pittance -- indeed at the margin a good deal of this labor would be replaced by improved capital goods or simple technological innovation, if our borders were secure .. and if the government subsidy for this labor didn't exist...

He also links to this report:

"Based on estimates developed by the National Academy of Sciences for immigrants by age and education at arrival, the lifetime fiscal impact (taxes paid minus services used) for the average adult Mexican immigrant is a negative $55,200...

This reduction in wages for the unskilled has likely reduced prices for consumers by only an estimated .08 to .2 percent in the 1990s. The impact is so small because unskilled labor accounts for only a tiny fraction of total economic output."

See also his post about Immigration and class warfare:

If the American people are against massive illegal immigration why are politicians, academics and the media for it? Answer? This is class warfare folks, and the elite classes in America are after privileges and power they can't have without the moral power they gain from paternalistically "caring for" an ever growing poverty class -- and the material privileges they can enjoy from the dirt cheap labor immigrants can provide scrubbing the floors, cleaning the pools, raising the kids, building the second homes, clearing the tables and cleaning the toilets, etc.

(See the discussion of the Ford Foundation's ties with the UCLA voting-for-illegal-aliens study here.)

He has more on the Bush/Fox Amnesty here, here, here, here, and here. Scroll backwards for even more.

Posted to Immigration2003 at 11:08 PM | Comments (0)

Immigration: Impacts on Southern California

The blog "2Blowhards" has excerpts from several L.A. Times and WSJ articles about illegal immigration's impact on SoCal. The articles generally point out the problems with the immigration policies favored by those two papers. The comments at the post are pretty good, unlike those at, say, Hit & Run.

Posted to Immigration2003 at 10:56 PM | Comments (0)

"The Illegal-Alien Crime Wave"

From City Journal:

Some of the most violent criminals at large today are illegal aliens. Yet in cities where the crime these aliens commit is highest, the police cannot use the most obvious tool to apprehend them: their immigration status. In Los Angeles, for example, dozens of members of a ruthless Salvadoran prison gang have sneaked back into town after having been deported for such crimes as murder, assault with a deadly weapon, and drug trafficking. Police officers know who they are and know that their mere presence in the country is a felony. Yet should a cop arrest an illegal gangbanger for felonious reentry, it is he who will be treated as a criminal, for violating the LAPD’s rule against enforcing immigration law.

The LAPD’s ban on immigration enforcement mirrors bans in immigrant-saturated cities around the country, from New York and Chicago to San Diego, Austin, and Houston. These “sanctuary policies” generally prohibit city employees, including the cops, from reporting immigration violations to federal authorities...

...In Los Angeles, 95 percent of all outstanding warrants for homicide (which total 1,200 to 1,500) target illegal aliens. Up to two-thirds of all fugitive felony warrants (17,000) are for illegal aliens...

[much snipped for brevity]

Posted to Immigration2003 at 10:50 PM | Comments (1)

"55% oppose plan on immigrant jobs, poll shows"

From this:

More than half of Americans oppose [the Bush/Fox Amnesty] a poll indicates.

Just over half, 55 percent, said they oppose the plan, while 42 percent favor it, according to a CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll out Monday.

By a 2-1 margin, those in the poll said immigrants hurt the economy by driving wages down for many Americans rather than help the economy by providing low-cost labor. In 2000, people were split on that question.

When asked whether the United States should make it easier for illegal immigrants to become citizens, 74 percent said no -- up from 67 percent in August 2001 ("Americans Clearly Oppose Amnesty for Illegal Mexican Immigrants").

Posted to Immigration2003 at 03:53 PM | Comments (0)

3 Illegal Immigration Myths

From Right Wing News:

Myth #1) There's no way to get rid of the 8-12 illegal aliens who are already here so we might as well give them some sort of legal status: What a load of tommyrot that is. Getting rid of the majority of illegal aliens who are already here is actually fairly EASY.

Now, why do I say that? Because the illegals aren't coming here to see the Grand Canyon or because they like the climate, most of them want to get WORK. So, if we get serious about enforcing the law, lay down a few massive fines or better yet, put a few flagrant violators who knowingly hire large numbers of illegals in jail, and that's all it'll take to get the rest of the business owners in line. If you crack down on the people who are employing the illegals, the jobs will dry up, and most illegal aliens will self-deport. That's just common sense...

At the same time, we also need to limit social services to illegal aliens, otherwise those who aren't able to find work might consider staying here on the public dime.

Click the link for the other two myths.

His previous post has some shocking statistics on criminal aliens.

Posted to Immigration2003 at 12:44 AM | Comments (4)

"The Mirage of Mexican Guest Workers"

The highly recommended article "The Mirage of Mexican Guest Workers" from Foreign Affairs magazine (80 Foreign Affairs No. 6, November/December 2001) is required reading for anyone concerned about the Bush/Fox Amnesty. It was written in response to the amnesty Bush had proposed shortly before 9/11, however it's just as timely as if it was written last week. The authors are Philip L. Martin (UC Davis) and Michael S. Teitelbaum (Alfred P. Sloan Foundation).

Unfortunately, the full text is not available online. You can buy a copy here, or do as I did: go to your local library.

Here are some excerpts:

The only problem with this "win-win" scenario is that it will not work. Bush's proposal [the 2001 proposal --LW] ignores the fact that virtually no low-wage "temporary worker" program in a high-wage liberal democracy has ever turned out to be genuinely temporary. On the contrary, most initially small (and often "emergency") temporary worker programs have grown much larger, and lasted far longer, than originally promised.

...guest worker programs are virtual recipes for mutual dependence between employers and the migrants who work for them. Employers naturally grow to depend on the supply of low-wage and compliant labor, relaxing their domestic recruitment efforts and adjusting their production methods to take advantage of the cheap labor. History has shown that in agriculture (where many Mexican guest workers would be employed), a pool of cheap workers gives farm owners strong incentives to expand the planting of labor-intensive crops rather than invest in mechanized labor-saving equipment and the crops suitable for it...

...political leaders have often belatedly discovered that admitting temporary low-wage workers unnaturally sustains industries with low productivity and wages, such as garment manufacturing, labor-intensive agriculture, and domestic services. In consequence, the economy's overall productivity and growth suffer...

Proponents of a new Mexico-U.S. often portray it as a legal and humane alternative to what has become a huge problem - the unauthorized mass migration of Mexicans to the United States. Such advocates seem blind, however, to the unequivocal lessons of history. Far from mitigating illegal immigration, the two countries' last major temporary worker program actually initiated and accelerated its flow. During the so-called bracero ("strong-armed one") program from 1942 to 1964, the number of unauthorized Mexicans slipping across the border actually expanded in parallel with the number of authorized temporary workers; the illegal flows then continued to accelerate after the program's termination... Today, scholars largely agree that the 22 years of bracero employment created the conditions for the subsequent boom of unauthorized Mexican migration...

...California Farmer reported in 1963 that if the flow of braceros stopped, tomato growers and canners "agree the State will never [again be able to plant] the 100,000 to 175,000 acres planted when there was a guaranteed supplemental labor force in the form of the braceros..."

Reality, however, never confirmed these dire predictions. In 1960 some 45,000 farm workers (mostly braceros) had harvested 2.2 million tons of processing tomatoes. By 1999, it took only 5,000 workers to operate machinery that harvested some 12 million tons. Thanks to these efficiency gains from mechanization, the real price of processing tomatoes declined 54 percent while per capita consumption rose 23 percent...

Posted to Immigration2003 at 11:53 PM | Comments (0)

"What's Right on Immigration?"

Professor Stephen M. Bainbridge of UCLA has a Tech Central Station column about the Bush/Fox Amnesty. Due to time constraints, this will just be a brief Fisking:

If there are freeloading illegal immigrants sponging off the welfare state, as some of the more extreme voices on the right claim, this plan does nothing for such immigrants.

It does nothing against them, but anyway, "the devil is in the details."

Employers will benefit because they will be able to fill low-wage jobs without having to break the law or worry about the INS raiding them...

They don't worry now. Enforcement is way down from past years. Other than Wal*Mart, when's the last time you heard about an employer being raided?

Finally, creating a workable guest worker program is the humanitarian thing to do. The border crossing has become quite hazardous. Once they make it here, illegal immigrants are highly vulnerable to exploitation by unscrupulous employers.

Those illegal aliens who move in to replace the illegal aliens who've been bumped up a pay grade will face the same exploitation from the same employers.

In any event, what else would the critics have us do? There are somewhere between 8 and 12 million undocumented aliens in the U.S. At least three quarters of a million more arrive each year. Stepped up border enforcement hasn't stopped people from coming to this country.

How about, say, enforcing the current laws? If employers thought they might face large fines or even jail time, they would definitely think twice about hiring illegal aliens. The problem would eventually take care of itself. We can't complain that the system doesn't work when the problem is that we haven't been working the system.

Also, consider the quote from this post:

"[people like Gray Davis and President Bush] live in an echo chamber of elites, where the received wisdom on immigration is all the same..."

And, liberal blogger PG had an interesting suggestion:

the employers who hire illegals (and they are a minority; only 3% of all employers, by the GAO's count) calculate that they make more money by acting unethically. The monetary penalties for violating the law multiplied by the likelihood of getting caught equals a number much smaller than the profits of the behavior.

Those pansies at the AFL-CIO just want "enhanced penalties," but this form of white-collar crime should include criminal penalties. Those found responsible for knowingly or negligently engaging in violations of employment law (including hiring of illegal immigrants and any traffic in forged documents) should serve time in prison. The employer who has to factor possible prison time into her calculations of whether to permit undocumented workers to be hired is less likely to do so.

If prison is such a bloody good deterrent, we ought to use it more often to make people who are really freaked out at the thought of it behave properly. Jill from Human Resources is going to take the Big House more seriously than Leon from the Corner Crackhouse.

UPDATE: This article discusses the lack of enforcement: "In San Diego County, only one owner, whose company hired workers for major hotels, has been prosecuted since 2000, and he was given probation. No business has been fined." Once again, we can't say the system doesn't work if we're just ignoring the laws currently on the books.

Posted to Immigration2003 at 02:55 PM | Comments (1)

"Americans oppose increase in immigration"

Discussing a recent Gallup poll and a 2002 Zogby poll:

Most Americans adamantly oppose both increasing the amount of legal immigration to the United States and legalizing those immigrants now here illegally, the two key elements in President Bush's immigration overhaul proposal.

On no other foreign policy issue do average Americans disagree more with government and business leaders and other "elites" than on immigration.

"The number of people who want immigration increased is very small," said Steven A. Camarota, research director for the Center for Immigration Studies. "If 55 or 60 percent of the public wants less immigration, a third wants it the same and 7 percent wants it more — [Mr. Bush] is going for that 7 percent..."

But a Gallup poll from June found only 13 percent of Americans thought immigration should be increased, while 47 percent said it should be reduced and 37 percent said it should be kept at its present level.

Opposition has remained high for several years. A Zogby poll from 2002 found that 58 percent of Americans wanted to reduce immigration, 65 percent disagreed with amnesty and 68 percent felt the United States should deploy military troops to the border to curb illegal immigration.

Meanwhile, 60 percent of Americans believe present immigration levels are a "critical threat to the vital interests of the United States." But when the poll asked the same question of government officials, business leaders and journalists, only 14 percent thought so.

An exit poll... [in the California recall election] showed that 30 percent of California voters said they were somewhat or much more likely to vote against [California governor Gray] Davis because he signed the law [to give driver's licenses to illegal aliens]. Only 8 percent of voters were somewhat or much more likely to support him because of it.

"How did Davis get it so wrong?" Mr. Camarota said. "The reason is, he and people like George Bush live in an echo chamber of elites, where the received wisdom on immigration is all the same..."

Posted to Immigration2003 at 02:18 PM | Comments (1)

"Real Cost of Bush's Immigration Plan Staggering"

From Capitol Hill Blue:

The U.S. General Accounting Office released findings Thursday that show the federal agency that oversees immigration applications has a massive backlog and is inadequately funded to meet existing, much less increased demand...

It remains unclear how the massive costs of implementation and monitoring will be paid for as the federal budget deficit promises to reach a record of more than half a trillion dollars in 2004.

In a Jan. 5 letter to the top members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, GAO reports that from fiscal 2001 through 2003, the agency's operating costs exceeded the fees collected from applicants by almost $460 million.

The GAO review of immigration application fees and processing was required by law under the Homeland Security Act of 2002.

The audit agency also reports that CIA has not met the goal, set in March 2002, of a 6-month processing time for immigration applications and that the agency has no system to track the status of individual applications as they move through the process...

But most important is the fact that despite a funding increase of $80 million annually starting in 2002, the number of pending applications had increased by 59 percent, or more than more than 2.3 million to around 6.2 million by Sept. 30, 2003, the end of the fiscal year...

Maybe we could hire some illegal aliens to do the work for us.

Posted to Immigration2003 at 02:06 PM | Comments (0)

"Six Reasons Amnesty Is a Bad Idea"

I've listed Allen Wall's six reasons below, but reading the whole article is highly recommended:

1. AN AMNESTY ENCOURAGES MORE ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION
2. AN AMNESTY IS A SLAP IN THE FACE TO LEGAL IMMIGRANTS WHO PLAY BY THE RULES
3. IN CASE YOU HADN�T NOTICED, THE INS HAS ENOUGH PROBLEMS WITHOUT AN AMNESTY
4. AMNESTY IS A SECURITY BREACH
5. NO AMNESTY SHOULD PRECEDE OUR DEALING WITH MORE BASIC QUESTIONS
6. AMNESTY, AND EMIGRATION IN GENERAL, DOESN�T REALLY HELP MEXICO ANYWAY

For those who don't know, Allen Wall is an American who lives and works in Mexico, and most of his articles are quite good.

While you're still at FrontPage Magazine, you might want to read the article "A Rebuttal of Paul Gigot on Alien Amnesty" by Robert Locke. It was published on September 10, 2001.

Posted to Immigration2003 at 11:03 PM | Comments (2)

NoAmnesty.com

NoAmnesty.com is a new website sponsored by the National Border Patrol Council:

The National Border Patrol Council is the labor organization that represents all 10,000 non-supervisory U.S. Border Patrol employees...

On January 7, 2004, President George Bush outlined his proposals for immigration law reform. The National Border Patrol Council finds his proposal to be a slap in the face to each and every man and woman who has ever worn the Border Patrol uniform. Border Patrol Agents risk their lives on a daily basis protecting the citizens of the United States, and many have lost their lives doing so. The President has apparently decided that cheap labor and votes outweigh obedience to laws and the sacrifices of dedicated law enforcement officers...

Their website contains CapWiz links so you can easily tell President Bush and your Representatives what you think of the Bush Amnesty.

Posted to Immigration2003 at 10:13 PM | Comments (0)

"How the Ford Foundation Created Multiculturalism"

FrontPage Magazine is starting a series on the Ford Foundation. I previously discussed the Ford Foundation's links with a UCLA report proposing voting rights for illegal aliens.

The first episode in their series is an older article from Heterodoxy magazine:

In an afternoon session entitled "Restructuring the University," spokespersons summarized the thinking of the workshops that had taken place earlier that morning. Robert Steele, a Professor of Psychology at Wesleyan, noted that his group was aware that coercion would be required to change the university: "People will not be quietly assimilated to multiculturalism by truth through dialogue." They will have to be bought off as well as brought along. Steele described the terms of the deal: "You get research assistants, you give mentoring." In other words, using the largesse of Ford and other philanthropic institutions, advocates of multiculturalism convince the hesitant to join up by paying for research assistants. These assistants — mentors of multiculturalism — must be women or people of color...

"The Foundation is a creature of capitalism," Henry Ford II said when he resigned in disgust from the foundation that bears his family name in 1977, adding that it was hard to discern any trace of capitalism "in anything the foundation does. It is even more difficult to find an understanding of this in many of the institutions particularly the universities that are the beneficiaries of the Foundation's grant program." The foundation, lamented Hank the Deuce, was ignoring the very economic system whose abundance made it and all other philanthropic foundations possible.

In talking to Henry II, former Treasury Secretary William Simon noted that by the late 1960s Ford was "engaged in a radical assault on traditional culture, under the rubric of the 'public interest' and 'systematic social change'.-Simon asked Henry Ford II how such a thing could have happened. "I tried for 30 years to change it from within to no avail," said Ford...

The ultimate target of all this energetic social transformation, however, is America's educational system, particularly its system of higher education. By the early 80s, Ford, whose activist staff was networked not just into the nerve centers of "progressive" politics but into the ganglia as well, saw that the university would be (that is, could be made to be) the battleground for an apocalyptic effort to force multiculturalism into the intellectual life of this country...

Posted to MultiCultiCult at 09:47 PM | Comments (0)

Al Sharpton, idiot and race pimp

Gosh, I hate to defend Howie Dean, but:

Under fire in a campaign debate, Howard Dean conceded grudgingly Sunday night that he never named a black or Latino to his cabinet during nearly 12 years as governor of Vermont.

"If you want to lecture people on race, you ought to have the background and track record to do that," Al Sharpton snapped at the Democratic presidential front-runner in an emotionally charged exchange in the final debate before next week's kick-off Iowa caucuses.

Gosh, why could that be? Has Al Sharpton ever been to Vermont?

I mean, as the article later makes clear:

...[Vermont has] a population that is nearly 98 percent white.

Former Sen. Carol Moseley Braun, who is African-American as is Sharpton, defended Dean. "Rev. Sharpton, the fact of the matter is we can always blow up a racial debate and make people mad at each other."

This is not in any way damning (against Dean that is), despite Drudge's attempts to make it so.

Posted to Politics at 09:06 PM | Comments (2)

"Immigrants blamed for crime"

From the Arizona Republic:

Ads blaming illegal immigration for higher crime rates began airing this week in the Valley in an effort to sway public opinion before Arizona's Feb. 3 Democratic presidential primary. [MP3 available here --LW]

Some Hispanic leaders call the ads racist and are considering some kind of counterattack, while conservative groups believe the media spots are needed to decrease immigration and therefore reduce crime and an influx of immigrant labor.

One ad began airing on television and radio stations in the Phoenix market on Monday and will continue through the month. It cites an increase in homicide and home invasion rates and states, "Police say it's caused by illegal immigration."

Edmundo Hidalgo, chief operating officer for Valley-based Chicanos por la Causa, said his organization is discussing waging a campaign to counter the anti-immigration message...

...The Phoenix ad is part of a national media campaign to galvanize public support against any program that would make it easier for immigrants to work in the United States and any form of amnesty for undocumented immigrants already living here, said Roy Beck, a spokesman for the Washington, D.C.-based Coalition United for a Secure America...

..."In my eyes, it's real tunnel vision on those people's part," said Maricopa County Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox (email: mrwilcox@mail.maricopa.gov), whose district includes central and southwest Phoenix. "We have a president bringing immigration out of the dark. . . . I think they're very racist."

I listened to the radio ad, and I don't know what Supervisor Wilcox is talking about. The ads discuss illegal immigrants committing crimes. Perhaps the facts and figures in the ads are wrong, however I didn't hear anything racist in the ad. Unless, simply discussing one of the many downsides of massive illegal immigration is considered racist in and of itself. She seems to think bringing the subject of immigration out of the shadows is a good thing, why doesn't she want to discuss all sides of the issue?

I've sent her an email asking her to say specifically what is racist about the ads. If I receive a reply, I'll print it in a future post.

I also note that the Arizona Republic reporters or their editors have made some errors in the story that might lead some people to misunderstand this issue. I've emboldened the mistakes above.

For instance, the article uses the phrase "immigrant labor" three times, yet in fact what is being referred to is not laborers who are in general immigrants, but laborers who are illegal immigrants. A story that is factually correct would make that distinction.

Other phrases are used incorrectly as well:

• "decrease immigration"
• "immigrant labor" (three times)
• "anti-immigration message"
• "immigration issue"
• "undocumented immigrants" (twice)

And, of course, the title of the story is inaccurate and prejudicial. "Immigrants" aren't being blamed for crime, "illegal immigrants" are.

Further, I doubt whether Roy Beck is opposed to programs "that would make it easier for immigrants to work in the United States." I suspect he said that he was opposed to programs that would make it easier for illegal immigrants to work in the United States.

There is a big difference between those two statements; leaving out the word "illegal" in this case tends to prejudice the reader against Mr. Beck.

I also sent an email to editors at the Arizona Republic (Ward Bushee ward.bushee@arizonarepublic.com, Jeff Dozbaba jeff.dozbaba@arizonarepublic.com, Randy Lovely randy.lovely@arizonarepublic.com) suggesting they review this article, especially the supposed quote from Roy Beck, printing an update as necessary.

Posted to Immigration2003 at 10:49 PM | Comments (1)

Bush admits: "I was wrong about amnesty."

In a shock admission just released by the White House, President Bush announced that he had changed his mind completely on his recent proposal that would give amnesty to millions of illegal aliens.

"After much deliberation, I've decided to change my mind about my recent proposal," Bush stated. "I realize that the United States is a country of laws, and I refuse to support and encourage law-breaking. Furthermore, any form of amnesty will act to the detriment of the millions of people around the world who have been patiently waiting for legal immigration for many years. Line-jumping is a fundamentally un-American idea."

"The very fact that we have millions of illegal immigrants in the U.S. - and the fact that it would be almost impossible to deport them - indicates an extremely dangerous problem for this nation. The solution to this problem is not to encourage further illegal immigration, but to make illegal immigration an unprofitable endeavor," he continued.

"I am calling for a full enforcement of our immigration laws both at the border and in the interior. Any companies that employ illegal aliens will face the strictest possible penalties. I realize this may not be very popular with certain labor-intensive industries. However, it is in their best interest. We cannot allow our industries to be dependent on near-serf labor. Instead they must modernize like other industries have. Progress and modernization are the American way."

"Further, proposed legislation such as the DREAM Act makes no sense, and is fundamentally un-American. Why should illegal aliens pay lower tuition than U.S. citizens?

"I realize now that any form of amnesty - whether called an amnesty or not - will simply lead to more and more illegal immigration. The seven amnesties in recent history brought us to the current situation, as did lax border and interior enforcement and other factors. We cannot repeat the same mistakes and expect a different result."

"It is untenable that we should have millions of citizens of other countries in the U.S. It is quite an unsafe situation, and leads to America being forced to bend to the will of other countries. That I will not stand."

"We will continue to be a nation of immigrants and we will accept hundreds of thousands of legal immigrants each year. However, as president I will not allow, support, or condone law-breaking and line-jumping."

"Karl Rove has just entered my office and handed me a card," Bush continued. "Let's see what's written on it. 'April Fool's, America!'"

Posted to Immigration2003 at 10:15 AM | Comments (1)

"The criminal raid on Social Security"

Michelle Malkin:

My 8-week-old son's Social Security card recently arrived in the mail. On the back, there's a stern warning: "Improper use of this card or number by anyone is punishable by fine, imprisonment or both."

Welcome to the world of government theft and selective enforcement, my boy.

While innocent babes who have yet to earn a penny are threatened with jail time for misusing Social Security cards, the Bush administration appears set this week to turn the ailing government pension program into an international relief fund for illegal alien workers who used counterfeit Social Security cards and stolen numbers to secure illegal jobs.

Unlike the bedtime stories I tell at night, I am not making this up...

Posted to Immigration2003 at 12:43 AM | Comments (1)

Morris Dees, racist and FBI informant

The article "Declassified FBI memo
reveals twists in probe" about the Oklahoma City bombing contains the following information relating to Morris Dees of the Southern Poverty Law Center:

"(Name redacted) telephone call from (name redacted) on or about 4/17/95, two days prior to the OKBOMB attack, when (name redacted) of the SPLC, was in the white supremacist compound at (redacted), Oklahoma, notes the director."

The Daily Gazette reports, "References to an informant working for the SPLC at Elohim City on the eve of the Oklahoma City bombing raises serious questions as to what the SPLC might know about McVeigh's activities during the final hours before the fuse was lit in Oklahoma City – but which the SPLC has failed to disclose publicly."

Dees confirmed the presence of an informant at Elohim City at a recent press conference, the paper reported.

"If I told you what we were doing there, I would have to kill you," Dees replied when asked to explain.

Dees has been critical of the so-called right-wing militia movement in the U.S., having written books and articles about the subject. His critics believe the attacks have been exploitive and designed to raise donations for his tax-exempt foundation.

"A lot of hate groups don't like me," Dees said. "I'll tell you … when you put them out of business and take their double-wides (mobile homes), they don't like it. We've sued a lot of these vicious hate groups over the years."

Let's just file away for future reference that the SPLC has worked as an informant for the FBI.

What about the bit about the "double wides?" Isn't that a bit of a racist remark?

Posted to MultiCultiCult at 12:38 AM | Comments (1)

Ranking the MoveOn 'Bush in 30 Seconds' finalists

I just viewed the finalists in MoveOn's 'Bush in 30 Seconds' contest. Here are my summaries. Please add your own notes in the comments.

It would take too much time to delve into these in much depth. A couple of them are downright offensive (using dead soldiers for political purposes).

#7 is bad enough and stupid enough to be really funny (the picture is taken from a between-morph frame of #7). This commerical even includes - wait for it - a shot of a cavorting killer whale. I guess the message is that that's one of the last remaining Orcas that haven't yet been slaughtered by $hrubCo.

#12 is so stupid and the voice-over is so poor it's pretty funny too.

#13 has all the wit of this guy.

#14 has bad actors, including a "billionaire" who looks more like a cleaned-up "liberal" and a young girl who looks right into the camera when she shouldn't.

#15 is a pretty violent commercial for peace-loving "liberals." Note that the guy who wrecks the car is named "Dick." Cute, huh?

#17 is so boring I can't imagine it being watched for more than 3 seconds.

And, of course, the commercials talk down to people. And, why not? If they were going to vote against Bush, they wouldn't need talking down to, now would they? Commercial #7 commands that we "THINK." Thanks, I'm already doing that. Commercial #9 suggests that I wake up. Thanks, I've got that covered too.

Here are the summaries:

1. Shots of kids working factory jobs, followed by a graphic saying "Guess who's going to pay off President Bush's $1 trillion deficit?"

2. There is not, strangely enough, a #2. Perhaps this is the explanation. There isn't a #16 either. I wonder why.

3. A guy with an Indian/Pakistani accent speaks into the camera: "In my country, a group of religious extremists are reshaping the government to promote their own agenda and morality... The government can keep a list of everyone I call and they do not need a judge's permission... [gong sounds]... Our citizens are seized and held in prison without being charged of a crime... without the right to a trial and without a lawyer... why should you care about what is happening to my country?... [shot widens to reveal New York skyline in background]... because my country is the United States of America." End graphic: "George Bush is Changing Our Country"

4. Shot of a lie detector, with a Bush speech playing. After various statements, the pen of the lie detector oscillates wildly. The statements are: "Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program," "Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa," "Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda." End graphic: "Americans are dying... for the truth."

5. Bush speaks: "The security of the world requires disarming Saddam Hussein now... 500 tons of Sarin, mustard, and VX nerve agents... significant quantities of uranium from Africa... mobile biologic weapons labs... Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda... there are some who feel like the conditions are such they can attack us there, my answer is bring 'em off [?]" graphic is originally 'He Lied', changing into 'He Lied, They Died' near the end. While Bush's speech plays, a slideshow with pictures of U.S. servicemen and women killed in Iraq plays to the right of the screen in a small window.

6. Kids on a stage behind a podium saying "The Next President." They make statements followed by shocked looks from those in the audience (presumably their parents). "If elected, I'll lie about WMD as a pretext to invade another country." "I'll call myself an environmentalist, and gut clean air standards." "Our allies will go from respecting us to hating us, and I don't care." "I'll leave no child behind, unless they can't afford it." "I promise to keep you in a state of fear and anxiety, so you never question what we're doing." "And if you do, we'll call you unpatriotic." Graphic "What are we teaching our children" followed by one of the kids saying "Bring 'em on."

7. And here we thought morphing was so 90s. A series of likely Democratic voters morphs one into the next, saying the following: "Imagine a world where corporations choose leaders, put them in power and have them rewrite laws to increase profit. Imagine a world where corporations start wars to create and increase demand for their products. Imagine a world where the news media - owned by these corporations - only tells the public what they want them to know. Imagine a president who sells out his people and their environment to boost the wealth of a few. Unbelievable? It should be." Followed by a graphic saying "THINK".

8. Bush's speech of 1/28/03 plays. Graphic: "The President of the United States lied to America." "...And the world." "Since then, more than 451 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq." "An American soldier is killed nearly every day." "More than 8,000 civilians have been slaughtered in Iraq." "No weapons of mass destruction were ever found". The final graphic reads: "Lies. The ultimate weapons of mass destruction."

9. Shots of a twenty-something (complete with a bike in his bedroom) trying to sleep. His alarm radio keeps going off, and he keeps pressing the Sleep button when the radio announcer comes on: "Three million Americans have lost their jobs." "The President has cut unemployment benefits." "Cut health care for veterans." "The largest annual deficit in history." "Bankrupt the treasury." "Dissolved more international treaties than any other President in U.S. history." "Revoked more freedoms and civil liberties..." End graphic: "Wake Up America"

10. Samba music plays in the background. A Macintosh desktop is shown with the presidential seal in the center and folders on either side. The folders are dragged one after the other to the trash. Their names are: Environment, Social Security, Civil Liberties, Budget Surplus, $87 Billion, Veteran Benefits, Separation of Church & State, Corporate Accountability, Healthcare, The Constitution. Other folders which aren't dragged to the trash include Syria, Democracy, Bible Study, and "...ive Strikes" After dragging the folders to the trash, the unseen hand empties the trash. The first dialog shown after choosing to empty the trash doesn't match the closeup of the dialog shown later.

11. Voice-over: "The war they are in has been declared over by the same man who lied them into it. Their reward? Combat pay cut in half. $1.5 cut to their military family housing. $20 billion cut to military health care. No health care for reservists." Bush: "My answer is bring 'em on" Voice-over: "Thousands wounded, Hundreds dead, and no end in sight. If we support our troops, why can't Bush? Or is this what they mean when they say An Army of One?" The last line is spoken over a picture of a flag-draped coffin.

12. Angry, disturbed voice-over: "Friends left at the United Nations: 3" "America's future: bankrupt" Child's voice: "The time is now. Take our country back."

13. Guy in a Robin Hood outfit, wearing a Bush mask travels throughout the city taking things from the people. Voice-over: "Once upon a time, a man set out to change America. Under his leadership, 3.3 million jobs disappeared. He signed a bill taking away our rights to privacy. He cut hundreds of millions of dollars from education, including his own No Child Left Behind Act. He even proposes draining $1 trillion out of the social security program. Who benefits from these changes? Not us." As the final words are spoken, the character goes to a door at a building marked "MEGACORP INC." and hands his bag full of loot to a guy in a business suit who had exited from the door. The recipient takes a quick look around before receiving the bag. On his tour, the character stole a worker's toolbox, reaches into a window and tears down a curtain behind which is a guy in his briefs, he steals books from a couple of kids, and he picks the pocket and takes the cane of an elderly man.

14 - 17. I got tired, you do the rest.

Posted to Politics at 11:15 PM | Comments (3)

"What You Need to Know About Tenacious Katie"

Facts & Figures: What You Need to Know About Tenacious Katie

• As a child, she was active in track, gymnastics and cheerleading.

• In college, she served as an associate editor of her campus newspaper.

Posted to Celebrities at 09:53 PM | Comments (1)

What goes on in Vegas... Stays in your FBI file

From the article "Casinos, Airlines Ordered to Give FBI Information":

LAS VEGAS -- Las Vegas hotel operators and airlines serving McCarran International Airport are being required by the FBI to turn over all guest and passenger names and personal information, at least during the holiday period, several sources said Tuesday.

FBI spokesman Todd Palmer confirmed the federal action and said the requirement that the companies surrender customer information is a "normal investigative procedure."

However, Allen Lichtenstein, general counsel for the Nevada Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, said the program "clearly is not part of a normal investigation.

"What we seem to be witnessing at this point is a move on the part of the government to keep tabs on what everyone is doing all the time, which has serious civil liberties implications," Lichtenstein said.

"It's one thing to have some specific security concerns and a targeted investigation with some basis in fact, but to ... try to follow everyone goes beyond what is called for."

Hotel operators who asked not to be identified said the information being provided to federal officials includes guest and passenger names, addresses and personal identification information, but not casino records or guest gambling information...