IR1

Government Help

2009-09-15T22:21:00.000-07:00

I'd Rather They Didn't...

I was over at thehill.com reading about how Olympia Snowe is bailing out on the Democrats on health care. One of the reasons given was:

"Snowe has objected to Baucus’s bill for requiring as many as 4 million uninsured Americans to buy health plans without providing them with significant federal subsidies.
Snowe said that lawmakers cannot expect people to comply with a federal mandate to buy health insurance if affordable plans are not available"

That got me thinking, the government plans to fine you $3800 if you don't get health care. So if you can't afford health care you get the fine, and you STILL don't have health care. In a way it's a perfect example of how government help "works".

Ten Ways I Would Help Obama

2009-09-02T22:16:00.000-07:00

I've been out of school awhile but hearing that Obama was going to address school-children nationwide after which the children would be required to discuss and write a paper on how they would "help" Obama got me thinking. After all he needs a lot of help.

Dear Teacher,
I would help President Obama by:

1. Getting him a door detector so he can quit trying to get into the White House through the window.

2. Lending him my geography book so he can look up how many states there are (hint, not 57).

3. Giving him a helmet or maybe just a big hat so it won't hurt when he bangs his head getting into his helicopter. A bucket might work too and then I could help him get his head out of it. (Teacher - does that count for two ideas? Do I get extra credit for having more than 10?)

4. Helping him to fix his teleprompter so he'll know what to say.

5. Getting him a copy of the United States constitution so he can look at it when people ask him questions about what's in there.

6. Giving him $15 so he could afford to order a copy of his birth certificate from the county recorder.

7. Getting him a ramp to put under the bus so people can walk down there instead of him having to throw them. That sounds hard. Especially if he ever has to throw Michael Moore down there.

8. Getting him bowling lessons would be a good idea.

9. Talking to him about why he shouldn't be so touchy about his ears.

10. Getting him some good tennis shoes so he can run away from all the old people who are mad at him for trying to take away their medicare. He's probably pretty fast already though.

A Stone Around Their Necks

2009-02-10T23:36:00.000-08:00

I have been writing in to a few politicians and noticed I was repeating myself so thought I would post it up here. Senator Schumer (D-NY) seems to think that Americans don't mind the "porky" nature of the Democrats stimulus bill. Other politicians seem to think the voter's attention span will be too short to bring judgement on them next election day.
The facts are this bill is more toxic to liberal politicians than DDT. The negative effects of this bill will last for years and be more firmly tied to the democrats who voted for it than a midriff bulge. Compared to a vote for this loser a vote for the Iraq war will seem like a get out of jail free card. By the time it's all over this stimulus bill will be known as the terminator for all the political careers it ends.

Gaza Truce

2009-01-03T10:43:00.000-08:00

Just a quick repost of a comment I left at "Have Your Say" on the BBC news page. I know it's a waste of time but it's a tough habit to break. Also I want to point out I DID NOT recommend my own comment so at least one other person agrees with me.

Added: Saturday, 3 January, 2009, 05:38 GMT 05:38 UK

Oh well, truce in Gaza is it? This joins the growing number of issues to which my reaction is, who cares? Why should I make a serious, logical effort to understand and react to complex issues when actual events, the people involved in the events, and the people reporting on the events, all seem completely mad. My new opionion is, if a thousand rockets are good then a million rockets must be a thousand times better. And if a suicide bomb is good then a nuclear bomb must be perfectly wonderful.
Memphis, USA
Recommended by 1 person

So THIS is "Change"

2008-11-13T23:34:00.000-08:00

I haven't posted anything lately.

BUT

The story about Obama considering Hillary for Secretary of State was just begging for a snarky comment and here it is.

So, we trade a black woman for a white woman and a white man for a black man and this is transformational because...?

Tell me this isn't the first thing that crossed your mind. You know it was.

Seems to me things were less racial before they were post-racial.

IR1

Sarah Palin versus The New Republic

2008-08-29T23:59:00.000-07:00

This article was begging for a Fisking

An Astonishingly Arrogant V.P Selection - --Peter Scoblic , The New Republic

It may be John McCain's birthday, but it seems like he's the one giving out gifts today. The selection of Palin doesn't simply, as others have pointed out, undermine the notion that Obama is too inexperienced to be president; it gives Obama the chance to actually take the edge on national security while making John McCain's age a central issue of the campaign.

OK I don't see any logic behind these assertions but give the guy a chance to make his argument.

Whatever the political calculations involved in picking a veep, the most important qualification for the vice presidency is the ability to assume the presidency in a crisis. Given that of the last 12 presidents, three have either died or resigned, this is hardly a hypothetical consideration--in fact, given that McCain is 72, it is a very real consideration. Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, and Gerald Ford all faced multiple foreign policy crises immediately upon assuming office, whether it was the onset of the Cold War, the North's invasion of South Korea, the Vietnam War, or the withering of détente and the resulting increase in nuclear tension with the Soviet Union. The next president will have to finish the denuclearization of North Korea; prevent the nuclearization of Iran; organize a departure from Iraq that maintains some level of stability; defeat a resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan; establish, nurture, and make the most of a relationship with Pakistan's new leaders; and confront a revanchist Russia while preserving and enhancing its cooperation on nonproliferation and climate change--to say nothing of working with India, China, or our allies.

Yeah OK, we know being president is an important job. Could you get on with it?

Could Sarah Palin conceivably manage this task? Her tenure as a small-town mayor and Alaska governor has given her no foreign policy experience whatsoever. True, Obama has little foreign policy experience either, as McCain and others have pointed out again and again. But during his time in national office he has demonstrated a clear commitment to the most pressing issues in American foreign policy. Take nuclear proliferation. Early in his tenure on the Foreign Relations Committee, Obama joined Richard Lugar's efforts to secure weapons of mass destruction in the former Soviet Union. Obama's first trip abroad as senator was to Russia and Ukraine to learn more about those efforts firsthand. In 2007, he cosponsored legislation with Senator Chuck Hagel calling for ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and negotiation of a fissile material cut-off treaty. And he was the first major presidential candidate to embrace the steps laid out in 2007 by Sam Nunn, Bill Perry, George Shultz, and Henry Kissinger through which the United States would fight nuclear terrorism, reinvigorate the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and ultimately eliminate nuclear weapons.

When you cut through the BS Obama's "experience" includes signing onto the same uncontroversial and pedestrian idea three times and taking one foreign trip. So we should give him credit for being against nuclear proliferation? Name one politician who's for it. His only apparent "commitment" is to his own career. Yeah I'm pretty sure Sarah Palin could handle this task.

Perhaps more important than the experience they embodied, these efforts demonstrate that Obama has a worldview. Obama recognizes the greatness and uniqueness of the United States, but he does not translate that exceptionalism into dominance or isolationism as conservatives often have. Instead, he sees it as the basis for U.S. leadership. He has laid out that worldview in myriad speeches and articles, and he has surrounded himself with pragmatists who have a record of translating that understanding of America's role into concrete gains for our national security. By contrast, there is no indication that Palin has even shades of a foreign policy worldview; a Nexis search doesn't turn up a single article that she has written on international affairs.

A google search of Obama and "foreign policy article" turns up one article written after he was already a presidential candidate. This constitutes a "worldview"? The elitist attitude seeping out of this charge is outrageous. If you don’t have the right friends to get your article published in the right place you must not even have a "worldview" Bite me.

McCain undoubtedly thinks he has his national security bases covered; picking Palin shows that, unlike Obama, he doesn't need an eminence grise like Biden to add heft to his ticket. But surely McCain recognizes that Palin may have to fill his shoes someday. By choosing her anyway, he has demonstrated hubris well beyond anything Obama has displayed on his most arrogant day: a belief that he can master unforeseen circumstances, physical and otherwise, that are well beyond his control. This is insulting and dangerous and suggests that McCain may want to think twice before accusing Obama of putting his personal ambition ahead of the national interest.

Probably McCain just believes Sarah Palin can handle it if necessary. Why would you think a woman can't handle it? What's the odds he drops dead in less than a year or two anyway? And filling his shoes in exactly 4 years and 142 days is part of the genius of this selection.

No doubt Michelle is right that the Obama-Biden team will have to be careful attacking Palin's frighteningly thin resume and tenuous grasp of foreign policy. But surely a campaign that has been charged with being too naïve to manage rogue state dictators can have a bit of fun with the idea that a one-time Miss Congeniality could effectively face down Vladimir Putin, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, or Kim Jong Il. Surely, Obama's "eight is enough" quip ought to apply not only to President Bush's economic and foreign policy travesties, but to the elevation of mediocrity that has characterized his appointment of Michael Brown to FEMA and his nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. And surely we can agree that if the McCain campaign was desperate to transparently court voters put off by Hillary Clinton's loss, there is no dearth of women with far greater intellectual, executive, and political abilities--abilities that would allow them to assume the presidency in a heartbeat.

OK finally to the point. She's dangerous because she has no less real experience than Obama and that could make him look bad. On top of that she would be the Vice-President, not President, and at least has several years of successful executive experience. And being elected mayor and then governor doesn't sound "mediocre" any more than "state senator" and "senator". Was McCain transparently courting voters, well duh. And frankly the implied offer to suggest other better qualified women sounds like a cry of pain that McCain may have picked a winner.

Why Obama is a dumb jerk

2008-05-27T22:58:00.000-07:00

As opposed to just a jerk
.
Because he keeps saying the Iraq war has not made us any safer. I got the data for this chart from Powerline so if you don't like it blame them. But if you don't like it you're probably a jerk too so who cares. By the way I put the hint in the chart for Obama since he probably doesn't know when the Iraq war started.

2007-06-06T19:37:00.000-07:00

The following is pulled from david frum's diary over at National Review. It makes the point that the current immigration bill will be a financial disaster so well I had to include it. Also I think this may well be the first time ever that I have posted twice in one day. I can feel the energy building... Seriously if you think you are ever going to collect a social security or medicare benefit payment you should read his article and oppose this disastrous bill.

david frum's diary

Wednesday, June 06, 2007

Statistics Never Lie, But ....

... well you know how the rest of the aphorism goes. This afternoon's email brings a so-called Immigration Fact Check from the White House communications office. Here is the headline:

Immigration Fact Check: CBO Report – The Rest Of The Story
CBO Report Says Bipartisan Immigration Reform Bill Will Have "Relatively Small" Effect On Budget Balance, Impact On Illegal Immigration "Could Be Large"
The Washington Times offers a devastating rebuttal here:

CBO's misleading immigration $ numbers
The new Congressional Budget Office report on the Senate immigration bill is a textbook illustration of how advocates of massive new spending programs (and the tax increases that will be inevitable to pay for them) hide the true cost: Taking advantage of the fact that the the CBO only looks at the budgetary impact for over a 10-year period, Sen. Edward Kennedy and Republican supporters drew up a bill where — you guessed it — the real spending binge begins in year 11.

CBO found that during the first decade, the immigration bill would increase discretionary spending by $43 billion, while new workers would provide $48 billion worth of additional revenue to the government. (Over the next few days, these numbers will be repeated endlessly on radio and television and in Senate debate by advocates of the "compromise" bill.) But these numbers could hardly be more misleading, because with the exception of the earned-income tax credit and one smaller welfare program, illegal aliens granted amnesty under the bill do not become eligible to benefit from federally funded means-tested welfare programs until 2018 and beyond, while CBO's figures cover the years 2008-2017. After 10 years, amnesty beneficiaries become eligible for nearly 60 taxpayer-subsidized programs ranging from food stamps to Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security.
Roughly 9 million adult illegal immigrants will be given amnesty under the bill; 7 to 8 million of them will live to retirement age. When this occurs, 30 to 35 years from now, they will receive from the taxpayer an average of $17,000 a year in benefits above and beyond the taxes they pay. When amnesty recipients retire, the situation becomes much worse for the taxpayer: these people will pay approximately $5,000 a year in taxes and receive approximately $37,000 in benefits. The total net cost of the amnesty over the next three to four decades will be approximately $2.5 trillion, estimates Heritage Foundation scholar Robert Rector, who has done pioneering work in analyzing the effect of low-skilled immigrants on taxpayers.

None of this be a surprise, given the low level of employment skills these people bring to the United States. "This is a group that is 50 to 60 percent high-school dropouts," Mr. Rector tells us. "They will never pay substantial taxes in the U.S. system. But you're making every one of them, from the very beginning, eligible for Social Security and Medicare. And the worst thing about this is that the fiscal cost is going to come smashing into the Social Security and Medicare systems at the very time they are already going bankrupt."

In sum, when it comes to the true cost of the Senate bill, CBO's numbers have little to do with fiscal reality.

06/06 07:01 PM

OK now here's my summation. If you are a law abiding hard working citizen the political elites running the government want to sell you, your family, your children and your grandchildren down the river.

Why Illegal Immigration is Bad

2007-06-06T11:17:00.000-07:00

OK lists are boring but I felt this list would help make the case against the current immigration bill. Please go through the list and ask yourself if the current immigration bill would solve that particular problem if passed. By my count in the very best case the current bill would help with less than half of these problems even if we believe that its enforcement provisions would be pursued vigorously. Of course simply enforcing current laws would help with all of them. So the reason we need this bill is…?

1. Depressed wages and benefits and lack of opportunity for entry-level job seekers and unskilled or semi-skilled workers generally

2. Over-crowded classrooms and accommodations needed for non-English speaking children reduce the quality of education for citizens

3. Over-crowded hospitals and emergency rooms reduce the quality of emergency medical care for citizens

4. Closure of hospitals and emergency rooms over-burdened by providing urgent medical care to illegal aliens reduce availability of medical care for citizens

5. Loss of respect for the law

6. Participation by corporations and various levels of government in promoting illegal activity

7. Diversion of tax revenue to provide services (hospitals, schools, police, firefighters, roads, public transportation, etc.) to illegal aliens at a net loss to government at all levels requires higher taxes on citizens

8. Threat to solvency of social security fund from requirement to pay benefits if illegal aliens are granted legal status

9. Loss of opportunity to select more highly educated and trained applicants for legal immigration

10. Large flows of illegal persons over the border creates an opportunity for professional criminals or terrorists to enter the US

11. Large numbers of undocumented persons creates a favorable environment for professional criminals or terrorists to stay in the US undetected

12. Illegal aliens generally do not obtain auto insurance or valid driving licenses and often flee accident scenes

13. Illegal immigration leads to pressure for amnesty which will lead to further pressure on border security in the future

14. Illegal immigrants generally do not assimilate and threaten political and social cohesion in the US

15. Illegal immigrants are at high risk for injury and death from natural causes and professional criminals while trying to illegally enter the US

16. Money earned by illegal immigrants is usually sent abroad and is lost to the US economy

17. Illegal immigrants are especially vulnerable to exploitation by professional criminals

18. Large flows of illegal persons over the border are causing environmental damage to the border area

19. Large numbers of undocumented persons creates a favorable environment for professional criminals or terrorists to use false identities enabling them to flee back to their home countries without any consequence for crimes committed in the US

20. Creation of an underclass performing labor regarded as undignified and poorly paid leads to a loss of respect for work and threatens the US work ethic

21. Uneven distribution of benefits (federal) and costs (state and local) creates conflict between different levels of government leading to poor enforcement of existing laws

22. Hasty efforts to regularize the status of undocumented illegal immigrants will create opportunities for professional criminals and terrorists to obtain fraudulent identities backed by actual government documents

No Brag, Just Fact

2006-10-09T06:06:00.000-07:00

IR1 Scoops the New York Times

OK compare the dates on the NYT story and my next post below. The NYT took a lot more words but they are saying the same thing. Only they are saying it five days later. Gloat.
I am reproducing the entire NYT story here because it will go behind their archive wall pretty soon. I think this is a legitimate use because I am using it, with accreditation, to comment on one difference between MSM and the blogosphere: we're faster.

New York Times Story Follows

Evangelicals Blame Foley, Not Republican Party
Gary C. Knapp for The New York Times
Published: October 9, 2006

VIRGINIA BEACH, Oct. 7 — As word of Representative Mark Foley’s sexually explicit e-mail messages to former pages spread last week, Republican strategists worried — and Democrats hoped — that the sordid nature of the scandal would discourage conservative Christians from going to the polls
But in dozens of interviews here in southeastern Virginia, a conservative Christian stronghold that is a battleground in races for the House and Senate, many said the episode only reinforced their reasons to vote for their two Republican incumbents in neck-and-neck re-election fights, Representative Thelma Drake and Senator George Allen.
“This is Foley’s lifestyle,” said Ron Gwaltney, a home builder, as he waited with his family outside a Christian rock concert last Thursday in Norfolk. “He tried to keep it quiet from his family and his voters. He is responsible for what he did. He is paying a price for what he did. I am not sure how much farther it needs to go.”
The Democratic Party is “the party that is tolerant of, maybe more so than Republicans, that lifestyle,” Mr. Gwaltney said, referring to homosexuality.
Most of the evangelical Christians interviewed said that so far they saw Mr. Foley’s behavior as a matter of personal morality, not institutional dysfunction.
All said the question of broader responsibility had quickly devolved into a storm of partisan charges and countercharges. And all insisted the episode would have little impact on their intentions to vote.
It is too soon to tell if the scandal will affect the turnout of evangelical Christians, who make up about a quarter of the electorate and more than a third of Republican voters. Some of President Bush’s political advisers have said that pre-election reports in 2000 that Mr. Bush was once arrested for drunken driving depressed turnout among conservative Christians, nearly costing him the White House.
Pollsters and conservative leaders have said for months that grass-roots evangelicals were demoralized by what they felt was the Republicans’ failure to live up to their talk about social issues — to say nothing of the economy, the Iraq war and other issues that weigh more broadly across the electorate. A recent poll by the Pew Research Center showed a steep drop in conservative Christian support for Republicans, albeit without a corresponding gain for the Democrats.
Some in the crowd waiting outside the concert, by the evangelical group MercyMe, said the revelations about Mr. Foley, Republican of Florida, had redoubled their previous concerns about the Republican Party.
“The Republicans need to tighten up their ship,” said Wade Crane, a sign maker from Virginia Beach who said he usually voted Republican but had soured on the party in the last several months. “They need to stop covering themselves, using their power to protect themselves.”
Charles W. Dunn, dean of the school of government at Regent University, founded here by the religious broadcaster Pat Robertson, said that so many conservative Christians were already in a funk about the party that “the Foley issue just opens up the potential floodgate for losses.” The tawdry accusations, Mr. Dunn said, “give life” to the charges of Republican corruption that had been merely “latent” in the minds of many voters.
But as far as culpability in the Foley case, Mr. Dunn said, House Republicans may benefit from the evangelical conception of sin. Where liberals tend to think of collective responsibility, conservative Christians focus on personal morality. “The conservative Christian audience or base has this acute moral lens through which they look at this, and it is very personal,” Mr. Dunn said. “This is Foley’s personal sin.”
To a person, those interviewed said that Speaker J. Dennis Hastert of Illinois should resign if he knew of the most serious claims against Mr. Foley and failed to stop him. They said the degree of Mr. Hastert’s responsibility remained to be seen. Many said the issue had not changed their view of Congress because, in their opinion, it could not sink any lower.
But all also noted that the swift Democratic efforts to broaden the scandal to Mr. Hastert and other Republicans had added more than a whiff of partisanship to the stink of the scandal.
As the details were emerging last Tuesday, for example, Phil Kellam, the Democrat challenging Ms. Drake, called on her to demand Mr. Hastert’s immediate resignation. In a statement, Mr. Kellam said the House Republican leaders’ “lack of attention” was “perhaps more shocking” than what Mr. Foley had done.
Drew Lankford, a spokesman for Mr. Kellam, said the attacks on Ms. Drake had “painted her into a corner” because she was unwilling to denounce Mr. Hastert. Ms. Drake has said she will wait for a thorough investigation into what Mr. Hastert knew. (The matter has come up less in the Senate race between Mr. Allen and Jim Webb, the Democrat.)
Brian Courtney, a Republican-leaning sales manager attending the concert, said the Foley affair had led to “the kind of mudslinging one would expect to see at an election time like this.” He added that he was paying closer attention to the “values and character” of the candidates, and that he would probably vote Republican again.
Republicans have put up a vigorous defense, mainly through conservative allies and on talk radio. An e-mail message to talk-radio hosts from the Republican Party last week asked, “How would Democrats react if one of their own had a sexual relationship with an intern, was found out, then lied to a grand jury in an attempt to cover it up?”
Rush Limbaugh devoted much of his airtime to the Democrats’ defense of President Bill Clinton in the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Sean Hannity focused on former Representative Gerry Studds, a Massachusetts Democrat who in 1983 admitted having sex with a teenage male page, won re-election and served several more terms with the support of his colleagues.
Still, many conservative churchgoers said that what stood out for them was not the politics but the individual sin. “It is not going to affect my vote because I don’t live in Florida,” said Scott O’Connell, a mechanical engineer who described himself as a fundamentalist. “But there is a bigger moral issue which I would say is the prism I view this through: I do not believe in homosexuality.”
David Thomas, a father taking his family to the concert, said that he, too, was leaning toward voting Republican and that the scandal only reinforced his conservative Christian convictions. “That is the problem we have in society,” Mr. Thomas said. “Nobody polices anybody. Everybody has a ‘right’ to do whatever.”
In an interview on Friday, Pastor Anne Gimenez of the 15,000-member Rock Church here said the scandal “doesn’t change the issues we are voting on,” like abortion, public expression of religion and same-sex marriage.
The church has been actively registering parishioners and reminding them to vote. “Every Sunday already,” Ms. Gimenez said.

Not Perfect, Forgiven

2006-10-04T09:54:00.000-07:00

Democrats are Tone Deaf on Foley Scandal

This is just a quick post about the topic of the day, the Mark Foley scandal. Specifically this is about the democratic party reaction to the scandal and why I don’t see it as playing out the way they seem to expect.

I won’t recount the details of the scandal itself but while driving my daughter to school this morning I heard a democratic party spokesman on the radio claiming this scandal would “cut directly to the Christian right base of the Republican party and make them question their support for George Bush”. I also read this Townhall article about how the democrats have already launched an ad campaign centered on Foley. It’s pretty obvious the democrats are hoping this scandal will cause Christians conservatives to stay home in disgust and hand the election to democrat candidates. I think this betrays a profound misunderstanding of how Christians think.

I am a Christian and consider myself an evangelical Christian, although not always a very good one and that’s really key to what I want to say. The democrats seem to think that Christians will recoil in disgust at Foley’s transgressions. However knowing that “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God” is so ingrained in Christians that I don’t believe most will either recoil in shocked horror or see a particularly political dimension in this. It's just ordinary human weakness.

Obviously Mark Foley’s weaknesses have caught up with him and his behavior must, I believe, be called sinful. As an added note I personally am totally unsympathetic to homosexual inclinations or behavior. In Foley’s case it’s right that he should lose his job. I hope he is sincere in confessing and repenting his sins. However Christians must heed the call to “hate the sin and love the sinner”. For Christians that insulates not only the republican party but even Foley himself from the sort of animus the democrats seem to expect. Being motivated by hatred is completely un-Christian. The democrats just don’t seem to get it

Tribute to 9/11 Victim Joseph J Berry

2006-09-11T05:32:00.000-07:00

Part of the 2996 Tribute Project

A proper tribute to Joseph J Berry must start with his family for he valued his family above all else as this article and this make clear. But along with being a wonderful husband and father he was also an extraordinarily successful executive and it is this aspect of Joseph J Berry I wish to expand on.

Just to get some perspective on the outline and dimension of his success in business consider this simple listing of the various job titles he held throughout his career:
Men’s Clothing Salesman
Math Teacher
Vice President of Equity Sales
Senior Vice-President
Executive Vice-president
President and Chief Operating Officer
Co-Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board

His early position as a math teacher hints at his analytical ability and indeed Joseph Berry spent his career in the arcane world of financial institutions and their incredibly complex transactions. In this world he not only mastered the technical details, a daunting feat itself, but added two other important dimensions, the human and strategic perspectives.

His continuing involvement and success in equity sales speaks to his ability to build strong personal relationships with his customers. His position at the highly respected firm of Keefe, Bruyette and Woods gave him excellent products to sell that created real value for his clients. Nevertheless, the nature of sales work always requires personally facing difficult situations without the resources to control the outcome. Those without the empathy to truly understand the customer, the fortitude to sustain their own energy and optimism, and the strength of character to maintain their integrity, cannot enjoy lasting success in this challenging field. Joseph J Berry however, possessed all of these traits in abundance.

His ability to lead through consensus also speaks to his mastery of the human and strategic elements in business. Managing highly skilled professionals, such as the traders and analysts employed at Keefe, Bruyette and Woods has been quite properly compared to herding cats. Only someone with the ability to let all employees know their opinions had been heard and respected combined with the ability to find the key common elements to set a vision and strategies providing daily guidance to employees and keeping the firm moving in the right direction can be successful. Again, Joseph J Berry possessed these abilities in abundance.

Finally the continuing success of the firm he ultimately headed speaks to Joseph Berry’s abilities as an executive. From its founding in 1962 through to today Keefe, Bruyette and Woods has enjoyed both steady financial growth and the respect of customers and even competitors. As one of the early employees, hired in 1972, and as a leading member of the management team who helped to set and implement strategic direction, Joseph J Berry was a key contributor to the firm’s outstanding success.

With these outstanding achievements it is no wonder that for the last two years of his life Joseph Berry was honored as one of the top fifty Irishmen on Wall Street by Irish America Magazine. Although he always placed his family first he achieved an uncommon level of success in his career. Doing both so well made him a truly extraordinary person.

Relax and Give France a Chance

2006-08-26T09:52:00.000-07:00

Who Knows?

One of the things America and Americans are said to be is pragmatic. As individuals and as a nation willing to put aside fancy theories and preconceived conclusions in favor of what actually works. So now we have a chance to put this national predilection to work for us in a gigantic experiment conceived and largely funded by Iran, Israel and the European Union. I am speaking, of course, of Lebanon.
As everyone knows the outcome of fighting in Lebanon has been inconclusive and the resulting situation fluid. France, with US backing, has assumed the lead role in attempting to manage the outcome. So far so good but almost immediately France was accused of failing to carry out the responsibilities it had shouldered, mostly by volunteering what was regarded as too few troops. I suggest that this criticism amounts to expecting the French to act like a bunch of Americans with French accents.
One of the really basic principles of conducting an experiment is to try something and see what happens. Arguments I can think of against this approach fall into two main categories. One, its been tried so many times before there’s no chance of learning anything new. Two, the outcome is too important to take a chance on. It doesn’t seem either exactly applies here. True France’s track record of success in foreign endeavors over the last fifty years or so is pretty dismal. On the other hand so many new factors are in play now that it can be argued that the pattern may not hold.
First, there is at least some reasonable threat of a far more muscular response from Israel or even a direct confrontation between Iran and the US somewhere down the line if France fails. Second the configuration of Islamic forces seems to change like a kaleidoscope, frequently and abruptly falling into totally new patterns. Is this instability a weakness to be exploited or some sort of self-organizing strength? If it is a weakness how can it be used? We don’t seem to have really figured this out so why not let someone else take a shot? Third, there is a lot of activity on the surface in the Middle East and it is logical to assume this means a high level of less visible changes we should not expect to immediately see or understand. Possibly just one key new perception can have an enormous effect on outcomes.
The other argument, that a poor outcome is too big a risk doesn’t seem to apply either. Hizbollah is significant to Lebanon and Israel and as a proxy for Iran but that is about the extent of it. Lebanon is obviously not the only opportunity for the US to confront Iran and Islamic fascism in general so leaving it to the French doesn’t foreclose all other options. Israel can pretty much be relied on not to allow itself to be destroyed by even a well armed group of terrorists with very limited offensive military capability. At worst if France fails we move back a couple of squares in the ongoing struggle with the larger forces of Islamic fascism.
In Iraq the US has tried an approach that is pretty much typically American. I don’t mean to imply that is was not multilateral to some extent or that American efforts in Iraq entirely lack subtlety. In fact though, 500 lb JDAM bombs may be precise but lack the nuances you can get from even one Frenchman, let alone the several thousand they are proposing to send to Lebanon. So why not wait and see what sort of results we get from this experiment?

Layers of Editors

2006-08-21T05:06:00.000-07:00

Just Being Snarky
I found this article on the BBC website this morning August 21, 2006. I guess that last sentence is an example of the high quality of writing you get when you have the "layers of editors" the MSM is so proud of, instead of just a guy in pajamas like me.

Saudi Arabian security forces have surrounded a building holding suspected militants in the west coast city of Jeddah, Saudi's commercial capital.
There have been exchanges of fire in the al-Jamea area of the city.
The suspected militants took refuge in the building after being chased by police, interior ministry spokesman General Mansur al-Turki said.
Saudi Arabia has been battling a wave of violence by militants linked to the al-Qaeda organisation.
There have been a series of attacks and bombings in Saudi Arabia over the last three years. In the most bloody of these, 35 people were killed in a attack on three residential compounds in Riyadh in May 2003.
In February this year, a suicide attack on was foiled on major oil production facility in the eastern town of Abqaiq was foiled.

Mr. Naverrette Thinks You're a Racist

2006-08-12T23:54:00.000-07:00

The following editorial on CNN bothered me so much I had to put it up and reply to it. I am reproducing it in its entirety for the purpose of commenting on each section. My comments are in italics. The original article is in regular font.

Navarrette: What really bothers immigration foes
By Ruben Navarrette Jr.
Special to CNN

Ruben Navarrette: The Hutchison-Pence proposal reveals what motivates immigration restrictionists.

SAN DIEGO, California (CNN) -- Immigration restrictionists can be so dishonest.
They've said all along that all they care about is that border security be the first priority of any immigration reform plan and that illegal immigrants not be given amnesty. They insisted that they aren't motivated by racism and that they have no problem with immigrants, if they are here legally.
Now we learn otherwise in light of the opposition to a middle-ground immigration reform plan proposed by two anti-amnesty, pro-border security Republicans: Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas.

First, by asserting that border security and amnesty is "all" illegal immigration opponents admit to caring about Mr. Naverrette tries to make it appear concern for the cultural heritage of this country is a shameful hidden agenda. In fact that concern and doubts about the willingness of purely economic immigrants to assimilate is an important part of the debate. Second he attempts to narrow the scope of legitimate opposition to a question of legal status as if the qualifications for legal status are unimportant. However how and when immigrants can become citizens is the heart of the debate.

Anti-amnesty Republicans in Congress come in three flavors. There are the opportunists who view the issue as red meat that will inspire GOP voters in November. There are the nativists who are frightened over how Latinos affect the culture and who have taken it on as their crusade to reverse that trend. And there are the pragmatists who are willing to work for a bipartisan agreement that fixes a broken immigration system.

OK this trick of classifying your opponents into categories that fit your argument is so stale I won’t comment on it except to point out the further attack on concern over assimilation of immigrants. Perhaps he should ask the French if unassimilated immigrants can be a problem.

Pence and Hutchison are pragmatists. They came up with this: As the first priority, secure the U.S.-Mexico border. For the first two years after the bill becomes law, the emphasis would be on beefing up the border patrol. Once that happens, it would be up to the president to certify to Congress that the border is secure.

Since the president has, unfortunately, demonstrated he is unabashedly in favor of legalization under terms so liberal that it borders on outright amnesty why should his certification be at all reassuring. (Note, check into fox and henhouse.)

Then we'd move on to goal No. 2: establishment of a guest-worker program that would require millions of illegal immigrants in the United States to return to their home country for a couple of weeks to register at privately run "Ellis Island"-type placement centers, where they would receive temporary work visas that could be renewed every two years for a maximum of 12 years.

Why is establishment of a guest worker program a goal? The goal is to get control of illegal immigration. If a guest worker program could do that then it could be considered. Otherwise it's just a way to wave a magic wand and pronounce millions of illegal immigrants "legal". (Note pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Just click your ruby slippers and say "There's no place like home...as long as it's in the US")

At that point, workers convert to a new type of visa. And then, in five years -- or 17 years after enrolling in the program -- we'd move on to goal No. 3 in which workers could apply for U.S. citizenship.

Mr. Naverrette uses the length of time, 17 years, to make it seem as if the proposed program has stringent requirements. The problem is other than one little joy ride back to their home country the illegal immigrants will still be in this country the entire time. What's so stringent about that? And again, why is it a goal to grant illegal immigrants citizenship through a charade of legalistic machinations.

You would think that GOP hard-liners could live with this. You'd be wrong. The Pence-Hutchison plan is under fire. Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Alabama, criticized it for favoring low-skilled workers and not offering preference to immigrants who speak English.
And, during an interview last week with The San Diego Union-Tribune editorial board, House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wisconsin, flirted with nativism when he said that his concern is that the plan would provide "unlimited immigration from Mexico and Central America."
Now we're getting to the heart of the matter.

You know I actually agree with that last sentence. This is the heart of the matter. If you think it is legitimate for a country to determine who it will accept as an immigrant and potential citizen based on the country's own best interest then, according to Mr. Naverrette you are a racist. If you think that it is legitimate for a country to allocate a reasonable quota of immigration slots to various other countries then, according to Mr Naverrette, you are a racist. In short it seems if you don’t agree that US immigration policies should be set in Latin America for that regions sole benefit then, according to Mr Naverrette, you are a racist.

The Hutchison-Pence plan forces the anti-amnesty crowd to level finally with the rest of us about what really bothers them. If it is that people are here illegally, or that the border isn't secure, then the plan has that covered.

Note the technical definition of "illegally". Same people, doing the same thing but now it's different because they all jumped through Hutchison-Pence's magic hoop. And if you don’t believe that then you must be a racist.

But if it's the fear that Anglo-Saxon culture and the English language are being eroded by Spanish-speaking foreigners, and that the country is going down the tubes because of it -- then this plan doesn't offer much relief.

This country combines many other cultures than just Anglo-Saxon but the key word is "combines". The problem with illegal immigrants with purely economic motivation is that they don't combine. They live in little isolated enclaves that weaken the overall social fabric (I hate that term but it really fits here).

After all, under it, the immigrants get to be legal, but they also get to stay. For some people, that's the real problem. As far as those people are concerned, the Hutchison-Pence plan doesn't offer much comfort.

At this point Mr. Naverrette doesn’t even bother to address why adding tens of millions of unassimilated illegal immigrants should not be considered a problem. Again if you are opposed to the idea then you must be a racist.

What it does offer is something this debate could use more of: clarity.

What's clear is Mr Naverrette's whole goal is to smear and intimidate anyone who opposes this latest fraud with the term racist. Would Mr Naverrette look his opponents in the eye and call them racists for disagreeing with him? If so he does not understand the whole illegal immigration debate. There's plenty of evidence for that here. But if not, then this editorial is a despicable, hypocritical, piece of work.

Why Israel Fights

2006-08-09T22:41:00.000-07:00

Hat Tip to Powerline

Condi, Warrior Princess

2006-07-25T07:49:00.000-07:00

You can't make this stuff up!

From our pals at the Tehran Times we get the following gem. My response: Yes Condi Rice is a warrior princess fit to rule over the hearts and minds of men (particularly).
I think what really annoyed the Iranians was the way Condi played their own negotiating tactics back to them through Lebanon. Sort of like, "Well we'd really like to discuss a cease fire but that's all, just discuss. We don't actually plan to do anything." Go Condi!

From the July 25, 2006 Tehran Times:

Condi, warrior princess, comes to town

By our staff writer
The warrior princess Condoleezza Rice began her trip to the Middle East so nonchalantly that it made everyone wonder what is really going on behind the scenes. It seems that she had been waiting until Israel completed the destruction of much of Lebanon’s civilian infrastructure, an assault which it initiated after receiving the green light from the U.S. administration. Ironically, after the murder of about 400 hundred people, mostly civilians, and billions of dollars in damage, she said a ceasefire is “urgent.” She also said she would not try to restore the status quo which existed before the ongoing conflict. "What we're seeing here, in a sense, is… the birth pangs of a new Middle East and, whatever we do, we have to be certain that we're pushing forward to the new Middle East, not going back to the old one."

The Tehran Times is not supposed to be a satire but I'm pretty sure these guys are going to be good for a lot of laughs.

Top 10 Reasons Why Kim Jong Il is a Loser

2006-07-05T10:55:00.000-07:00

Even Bozo Had Better Hair

After the North Koreans ludicrous failure at rocketry I thought I would encourage everyone to let Kim know just what we thought of him and his limp little rocket. The best email address I could find was the feedback line of the official North Korean News Agency: eng-info@kcna.co.jp . If anyone finds a better one please let me know.

Top 10 Reasons Why Kim Jong Il is a Loser

1. You only got your job because of your daddy
2. Your poofy hair is gay
3. You have the moral standards of an alien cockroach
4. Your clothes look like a dictator uniform from a bad 1950s movie
5. "Beloved Leader" is a name for either a dominatrix hooker or a fishing line
6. Even the Chinese are getting sick of you
7. Your country is so poor people save up to buy dirt...to eat!
8. You, on the other hand, have the physical conditioning of the Pilsbury doughboy
9. Your glasses are so thick they're bulletproof
10. Your rocket lasted 39 seconds longer than you do

Taliban Burns School

2006-06-10T05:30:00.000-07:00

Threaten to cut class next

This paragraph from an article on CNN caught my eye:

Taliban militants set fire to a school on June 3, in Uruzgan, the coalition command said..."

Now I don’t want to imply that burning a school is insignificant. However, in the last five years the Taliban have been reduced from ruling an entire country through terror, destroying historic cultural artifacts with high explosives, imposing repressive and archaic Sharia law on millions of people, and bragging about how they would put an end to Western civilization to: starting fires at school.

One of the enablers of the Islamist terrorist movement was a mistaken belief on the jihadis part that they were an especially potent force. This arose from a familiar litany, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Somalia, etc. This is an important part of their appeal so anything that helps point out how relatively weak they really are helps reduce their ability to attract recruits. Of course for this purpose nothing succeeds like repeatedly beating them down. And ridicule.

What's next for the Taliban, spit-wads?

Zarqawi You Dog!

2006-06-09T14:22:00.000-07:00

Just what kind of meeting was this?

Now from the BBC we have this statement from Major General William Caldwell providing more details about the death of terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi :

Zarqawi was one of six people killed in the raid, including two other men and three women, he added - contrasting with earlier statements that a child had died.

OK, Zarqawi plus two other men…hmmm, that's three men. And let's see, oh yeah, three women!

Is this kind of carrying on the sort of "spiritual advice" Abdel Rashid Rahman was providing to Zarqawi.

But seriously Islam is a sort of sex-crazed religion. I guess that reflects its founders personality since, after all, he did marry an 8 year old (or was it 6 I forget) so maybe we shouldn't be too surprised.

In honor of Zarqawi's demise I am reposting my last article about him dating from November 2004. I am glad to say it looks like he finally fought to the death, even if it was in a cowardly and immoral way.

Terror Leader Zarqawi Denies Fight to Death Flip Flop!
Cites PLO Leader Yassar Arafat as Role Model
Terrorist leader Al Zarqawi strongly defended his record on fighting to the death today despite critics’ claims that he has recently modified his position to accommodate changing political circumstances.
"I have said the exact same thing from the very beginning", Al Zarqawi claimed. "My position on fighting to the death has not changed once and I have been absolutely consistent. I completely support the idea of fighting to the death as long as it does not involve any risk of injury to me. My personal role model is the late PLO chairman Yassar Arafat who, although he spent an entire lifetime championing fighting to the death, died himself at a very advanced age in a French hospital surrounded by sympathetic toadies. That’s my idea of fighting to the death".
When questioned by reporters over what appeared to be clear changes in his position over the last several months Al Zarqawi claimed he was the victim of misunderstanding. "I never said I would fight to the death", he stated. "What I said is that I would fight until I was a little bit out of breath. The two words sound alike so when my remarks were translated it was understandable that there would be some confusion. I stand by my record, having run from Falluja so fast I was not only a little bit out of breath but was, in fact, completely winded. And I promise my supporters I will keep running at least that fast for the foreseeable future now that the US marines are chasing me."
When asked what effect his rapid departure from the battle of Falluja would have on those who remained behind to fight and die Al Zarqawi was unapologetic. "I have sent a message conveying my enthusiastic support for the terrorists in Falluja in their fight to the death. It is not important that the message was sent from a relatively secure location far from the actual battle, or that I composed the message while relaxing and enjoying a nice hot meal, or even that I received large sacks of cash from sympathetic governments in the region for carrying out my duties which included sending the message. The important thing is that I sent a message. This shows that I have continued to support fighting to the death. People who don’t appreciate the risks I take should know I received a serious paper cut from the message itself." Al Zarqawi then showed reporters the paper cut on his left little finger, covered by a purple heart band-aid.
When it was pointed out that many would interpret fighting to the death to mean actually continuing to fight personally until killed Al Zarqawi responded that the questioner clearly did not understand the meaning of the term as it is used by Islamic terrorists.

Two Can Play

2006-05-17T14:10:00.000-07:00

Rethinking “Guest Workers”

Like many conservatives I have been lukewarm, or less, on a so-called “guest worker” program. I had considered this little more than another way for President Bush to propose amnesty or “amnesty lite” under another name.

But today I had another thought. Since the administration does seem to be having some success with blurring the distinction between a “guest worker” program and a “path to legalization program”, which is pretty clearly an amnesty program, why don’t conservatives take advantage of this? In other words propose an immigration package that in fact includes a “guest worker” program but define it so that it actually means guest workers. This would tend to deflect the criticism that an “enforcement only” program would receive while actually helping to bring the border under control.

Taking this one step further I have a modest proposal that I think would be appealing to all sides. Let’s go ahead and automatically make ALL illegal aliens “guest workers”. In other words as of a certain date any undocumented person would automatically become a guest worker without any further effort on their part. The provisions of the guest worker program could then include a requirement to register within a period of time, say six months or a year, in order to remain in the USA. Any undocumented person who is in the USA illegally and who does not register within the required time would be liable to deportation. Those who do register would receive documentation entitling them to remain in the USA for an additional period of time, say an additional year. After that time they would be required to leave the country for some short period before re-entering as guest workers.

Naturally as participants in a guest worker program any children born to registered or unregistered guest workers would not become American citizens. Additionally participation in the guest worker program would have no impact on an eventual path to legalization. In other words the application to immigrate legally would still have to be made from the applicants home country through the normal process.

I think this proposal has a little something for everybody. It would immediately upgrade the status of all illegal aliens from “undocumented” to “deferred documentation”. It would allow guest workers to stay for fairly long periods before having to return to their home countries. It would completely avoid the problem of non-participation by simply including all undocumented persons. It would enable guest workers to be covered under minimum wage laws both avoiding their exploitation and raising unskilled wages generally. It would eliminate the problem of “anchor babies”. And by requiring periodic returns to their home country it would insure guest workers retain ties to their country of origin and citizenship.

That’s the idea in a nutshell. One of the refrains you hear over and over in this debate is the need to “get control of the border”. So let’s make every single undocumented person in the USA a guest worker and define exactly what that does and doesn’t entitle them to. That’s control.

A Man Under Authority

2006-05-15T17:18:00.000-07:00

Going and Coming….

When I first heard that President Bush was planning to make a speech on immigration tonight, and heard the speculation that it would mark a shift in his position away from amnesty and towards enforcement I felt that he had finally heard the message from the American people. However the more I though about the proposal to place National Guard troops on the border the less impressed I was with it. Why is that? Let me give you chapter and verse, Matthew: Chapter 8, Verse 9 to be specific:

For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh….Matthew 8:9 KJV

So if President Bush tells the National Guard to “go” to the border how long will it be before he tells them to “come” on home?

That’s the advantage of a wall. It might not be perfect. It might get a few holes poked in it. It might not stop everybody. But once you put it somewhere that’s where it’s going to stay.

Frankly I am now suspicious that this is another Republican “bait and switch” and that the guard troops will be nothing but another promise for conservatives while the big money gets the programs, and the cheap illegal workers.

Yes We Can...what?

2006-04-10T22:22:00.000-07:00

Memphis, April 10, 2006
There were two things in the air at the rally for illegal immigrants at the National Civil Rights Center in Memphis today, hope and fear. Fear is never far when you are living illegally in a foreign country but hope is elusive. When the speakers on the local stage in Memphis spoke, in Spanish, of America as a country of immigrants where decent people could live, work and raise their families in peace and dignity the hot run-down streets around the museum were filled with it. But when the speakers on a bigger national stage speak of making it a felony to be in the country illegally hope vanishes to be replaced by fear. Both emotions can bring people to action, or a political rally, and the size of the crowd proved their potency. I estimated the crowd at three to four thousand when the rally started at 3:00 PM
]

but by 3:40 PM I estimated the crowd at about five thousand and when I left at 4:15 PM the crowd had grown to about seven thousand and people were still arriving as quickly as when I came. Despite a number of families and children the crowd was overwhelmingly male and young. I estimated that better than ninety percent of the crowd was men and the average age appeared to be under thirty.

I had planned to spend some time trying to determine the percentage of “undocumented” immigrants. I thought this would be a touchy subject and I was right, sort of. The first two people I talked with, Alberto and his friend who preferred to remain anonymous did not volunteer their own status. However they readily responded to my questions, in broken and heavily accented English, estimating that over ninety percent of the crowd was “undocumented”. This raises at least one tough question: what does it mean to a political movement when your supporters, by definition, do not have a political voice? Will politicians listen to people who can never vote for them? Why should they? And if they do does that serve or betray their actual constituents? Whoops, that's four questions. This is tough.

Of course any politician that tried to listen to the crowd at this rally had better speak Spanish. Not only were nearly all the speeches in Spanish, easily overwhelming my minimal ability, the crowd’s lack of English skills made getting reactions to the speeches in real time impossible. Only one of the actual speakers used English. At one point I thought I heard someone echoing a Spanish speaker’s remarks in English, which I thought a good idea. I had it backwards though. The organizers had not found it necessary to provide a translation of Spanish remarks but were thoughtfully translating English remarks. At least you have to give them credit for knowing their audience.

And if politicians do listen what would they hear? “Yo soy creo en Dios”, I heard one speaker say, following this affirmation of faith with some remarks about God not permitting injustice and then a sentence or two later the name Martin Luther King. I could understand where he was going with that and the crowd’s enthusiastic reaction indicated the popularity of either God or Martin Luther King or, more probably, both. Another crowd pleaser was a black speaker who extolled the alliance started “in 1967 between blacks, browns, reds and yellows”, and ended with “Gracias mi hermanos”, to sustained cheers. The endless repetitions of the chant, “Si se puede” show they intend to do something, but what? Is the crowd cheering the political sub-text or are they just glad of anything that looks like an offer of assistance?
]
The political sub-text is definitely there. I spoke with Dan Driscoll of the Service Workers Union and found myself on the receiving end of a polished presentation about the immorality of making it a felony to be or assist an illegal immigrant. The power of this argument is that most people remain opposed to jailing the good Samaritan. And according to Dan the real problems caused by illegal immigration would be solved by just changing the law and thus preventing the “exploitation” of these “workers”. However I also spoke with Jason, one of a group of black men carrying a sign reading, “How dare you desecrate our holy place, what’s wrong with Mexico.” Jason said the rally, ”is like someone cutting in front of you in the lunch line and I’m getting further and further back. And by the time I get up to the front all the real meat will be gone.” His associate, Sam, said that where Martin Luther King Jr. had promised to overcome. “These people threaten to overwhelm. This is their shock and awe.”

Despite that, one thing that was thankfully missing was hate. Security was tight but it wasn’t really needed. Even without it the crowd was polite, orderly and respectful. One could suspect that the word had gone out to restrain any anti-American speech and to bring US flags instead of Mexican. The event organizers were handing out miniature US flags as fast as they could and they actually had two singers sing "The Star Spangled Banner". Twice.

Still there was no sense of suppressed anger. As I wandered through the crowd in the streets and small park in front of the National Civil Rights Museum looking for reactions I found no hostility but just the normal reticence born of fear, and the eagerness to be heard born of hope. Hope that by explaining why America should allow them to stay their dreams would become real.

I could see hope and fear struggle on the face of Guillermina Hernandez when I asked her if she would like to give me any reaction to the rally. Here eyes remained impassive at first, until she was convinced I would really listen to and report her words. Then her face lit up with eagerness as she struggled to say, “We come here because we need America people to respect us. We been living here seven years and we love America. This United States I like for my daughter and sons and for my family.” And Estrada, one of a group of young men who finally decided to speak to me said, “All the Mexicans, we are together. We only want to work. We don’t want nothing else.” That sounds a lot like at least part of the American dream but is it enough? What is America’s capacity to absorb so many? What of those who have already stood in line waiting for their turn? And why should Mexico fail to profit from the labor of so many of its own citizens?

Mañana. Today hope was clearly ascendant, as the crowd believed together, “Yes we can.”

Fence First Frist

2006-04-08T09:52:00.000-07:00

The House is Burning
Let me tell you something about myself. For years I have been a single-issue voter. The one issue I judged every politician on was gun control. I thought Arnold Schwarzenegger was terrific until he supported the .50 caliber ban. After that I didn't care what he said or did I would rather vote for a sausage. Well just this last week I finally made what was, for me, a momentous decision: I'm switching issues. From now on my issue is illegal immigration.

I have to briefly apologize to and thank the NRA. The terrific job they have done is partly what allows me to switch since that battle is just about completely won. And maybe someday they'll be my number one political concern again. And I always enjoyed getting the frequent NRA-ILA-PVF solicitations even when the threats of registration and confiscation started to seem a little far-fetched. (Please don’t get mad and take away my life membership guys.)

But it seems to me that illegal immigration is now the bigger threat and it can only be dealt with by the same sort of single-minded focus that the NRA brings to the gun control issue.

I am not opposed to legal immigrants or any ethnic group. I work in the electronics manufacturing industry where immigrants, legal and illegal, are common. Nearly all have been hard-working, upstanding people that I was glad to know. And having seen it first hand, as well as having heard it directly from their mouths, I am completely sympathetic to the often horrific reality in their home countries. Just seeing the surprising weight loss people would often show after a lengthy visit home to Mexico dramatizes the advantages of our economic and political system, to say nothing of the number who have lost friends and relatives to murderous corruption, criminal violence, and deadly political rivalries in their home country. I understand these people have a world of trouble on their backs. That does not convey the right to break our laws.

Illegal immigration threatens our country on so many levels you need a program to keep track of it. It threatens us with criminal violence, since career criminals and gangs mix easily in a transient population with no legitimate identification who are forced to maintain shadowy connections to criminal enterprises to enter and remain here illegally. For the same reason it threatens us with rich opportunities for terrorists. It threatens our economy. Not the capital "E" Economy that politicians talk about but the real economy that average Americans face when they or their friends or relatives can't get an entry level job at a wage that will pay the bills. It threatens the rule of law when different levels of our own government not only embrace the concept that some laws are not to be enforced, but actively work to subvert the law. It threatens our political democracy when we allow illegal foreign nationals to vote in our elections.

Worst it threatens what is most important to our country, the entire concept of America, and being an American. This is a country of immigrants. American identity is not based on a particular ethnic group. This country relies on a shared concept of itself, its citizens and its destiny, to remain the United States. America can not survive without the very concepts that entrenched populations of unassimilated illegal immigrants will destroy. Unlike nearly any other country America welcomes immigrants with only two conditions. Come legally and come with the intent to become an American.

As I write this the compromise bill sponsored by senator Frist appears dead for this session but like a zombie vampire the "path to legalization" approach will certainly return to life. It's bad enough pairing this fallacy to the popular and needed strengthening of our border security, a classic "bait and switch", but what's worse is that the "path to legalization" is just the thin edge of the wedge of amnesty. Just as the NRA understands that gun registration, no matter how reasonable it is made to appear, is always the path to confiscation we need to understand that "legalization" will always result in amnesty for lawbreakers, and an ultimate worsening of our crisis.

When it comes to illegal immigration our national house is burning. We don't need to figure out how to put up smoke detectors. We need to put out the fire by stopping illegal immigration. We need to stop it at the border. We need to stop it at employers. We need to stop it with enforcement at the local government level. We need to enlist every possible approach to stop this raging fire that threatens to consume the fabric of our country.

New Mohammed Cartoon

2006-02-07T21:30:00.000-08:00

The cartoon that should have been made from the pig caller
With apologies to the pig caller (and the pig) ...

Well I'm not an artist so I was at a loss as to how I would show my solidarity with my Danish brothers and sisters (actually no kidding my great-grandmother on my Dad's side came over from Denmark on a boat). Then I saw an article exposing one of the "extra" cartoons as a flimsy fraud derived from, of all things, a picture of a competitor in a pig calling contest.
Carefully comparing the original image to the cartoon created from it I was able to detect absolutely no sign of imagination or a sense of humor. My opportunity was at hand. Here is the cartoon the Danish imams should have created.