As a philologist, I enjoy words; and I enjoy studying the way that they are used or, in some cases mis-used.  I also enjoy studying logic, since words are often used (both properly and improperly) in argumentation.  With that apology in place, you’ll understand the following complaint.

Addressing the National Restaurant Association yesterday, the President said that we are making incremental progress in Iraq.  Now, much as I respect the President (though, admittedly, very much at odds with him on the issue of illegal immigration), he really didn’t say much.  Think about it: incremental progress.  Consider the definitions:

1.  Progress: with reference to Iraq, the meaning which best fits is probably “improving.”  So things in Iraq are improving incrementally.

2.  Incremental: The best definition is to be found, no doubt, in the verbal (as opposed to the nominative) idea, which is “To increase by steps.”

So, according to the President, we are making progress (i.e., “improving”) in Iraq incrementally (i.e., “in steps”).  Now consider my question:  Just what sort of progress is not incremental?

Why am I picking on the President?  This habit of speaking a lot of words to say, in effect, nothing much is precisely one of the reasons we tend not to trust politicians, isn’t it?

“But, Philologous,” you say, “can’t you see that all the President was saying is that we’re making progress in Iraq, but not with all the alacrity we might like to see.”

Yes.  And that—or something like it—is exactly what he should have said, because that would be something.  One of the things upon which I agree with Rush Limbaugh is that words mean things.  (And I’m sure that I believed that before he did.  But I don’t have a radio talk show.)  If one is trying to say something and mean something, then one must find the words which mean what one wants to mean when he is speaking.  Otherwise, one runs the risk of sounding like just another gas-filled politician.

Just heard, during a news break, a clip of the President expressing concern over the “tone” of the illegal immigration debate and repeating, yet again, that we are a nation of immigrants.  Much as I respect the President, I grow weary of his—and others’—reminding us that we are a nation of immigrants.  For the life of me I don’t know anyone who is arguing against immigration qua immigration.  I just don’t know who the President thinks he is giving this reminder.

We are a nation of immigrants; we get that, Mr. President.  But we should be a nation of legal immigrants.  But even if not, Sir, nothing you propose follows logically from your mere assertion that we are a nation of immigrants.  Are you saying, “We are a nation of immigrants; therefore we should see that illegal immigrants receive their (illegally obtained) Social Security benefits”?  If so, then, Sir, please know that we see a non sequitur.  About the only immediate inference from the assertion that we are a nation of immigrants is that we are a nation of people—all of us, even “native” Americans—who come from other continents.

I wish someone would tell the President to stop reminding us that we are a nation of immigrants.  Those of us who are smarter than cultural elites think we are understand both that and the fact that our being a nation of immigrants has, logically, nothing to do with the justifiability of any of the proposals on the table.

National People’s Radio reports that the FBI claims to have video of William Jefferson accepting $110K from a FBI informant.  This is what it has come to: not even those saintly Democrats are immune to the influence of the evil Republicans’ culture of corruption.  We have to get those Republicans out of Washington before they infect the whole Democrat party.  It’s a battle of Good vs Evil.

I have to stop now: I’m making myself sick.

Much of the reason behind turning a blind eye to illegal immigration has had to do with the necessity of filling certain jobs, especially jobs which—supposedly—Americans won’t do.  Clearly, this is favorable to business, corporate America, Bush’s and Cheney’s “rich Republican business friends.”  In addition to hearing no mention of “the children” (except, as noted, the children of illegal immigrants), we have not heard anything from Democrats about the benefits of illegal immigration which accrue to the President’s rich Republican business friends.  Are there no illegal immigrants working for Big Oil, or Big Pharmaceutical, or Big Farm, or Big Telecom, or Big Development?

John McCain over the weekend, attempting to justify his non-amnesty amnesty (whereby, recall, illegal immigrants get to keep their fraudulently obtained social security benefits*):  They had the taxes taken out of their paychecks.

Now that’s rich.  We are supposed to pity them because they had the taxes taken out of their paychecks.  Next he’ll be telling us that we should pity the Menendez brothers because, after all, they are orphans.  (Never mind that they orphaned themselves by murdering their parents.)

Senator McCain, illegal immigrants would not be in the predicament which you have here outlined but for their own choice to put themselves in this predicament.  They have made their beds; now them lay in their beds.
_______________________
*  The Freedom Folks have posted on the laws broken by illegal immigrants, and the penalties for breaking those laws.  Well, the penalties paid by U.S. citizens, anyway.

As we all know, Democrats are more concerned about our children than we parents are.  All that that they want to do us is for the sake of our children.  It is interesting to note that there doesn’t  seem to be that same concern for our children when it comes to the issue of illegal immigration.

I’m willing to be corrected, of course.  But I haven’t heard the children talked about, except—oddly enough—for the children of illegal immigrants.  Those children I have heard much about.  Haven’t you as well?

Things that make you go, “Hmmm.”

Last week sometime, Lindsey Graham asserted that at least one problem with the idea of deportation of illegal immigrants is, among other things, that we want to criminalize the parents and grandparents of servicemen of hispanic origin.  According to Graham, “Thank you for your service,” we would be saying.  “We’ve criminalized your parents and are deporting them to their county of origin.”  Aside from the tacit assertion that, for Senator Graham, apparently, any serviceman of hispanic origin is here because his parents or grandparents are here illegally, a further problem with Graham’s logic is what happens if that logic is extended to other matters.  For example: What if the parents or grandparents of a serviceman of any origin were arrested for drug-trafficking?  Using Graham’s logic we should refuse to prosecute them for fear of failing to express proper gratitude for our servicemen?  Can you hear how awful it would sound:  “Thank you for your service, but we are sending your parents to prison for drug trafficking.”  How awful!  How ungrateful!

For one thing, illegals are criminals of some type, aren’t they?  Think about that for a moment.  They have broken one or more of our laws.  First, they crossed the border illegally; or, if they crossed legally, they have remained for far longer than they had permission to do.  Second, if they are working, then they are committing social security fraud and identity theft.  Most other people who do these things are criminals, why shouldn’t illegal aliens be also be considered as such?

For another thing, even those of us who see non-deportation as a form of surrender (i.e., we have been, and are being, invaded, and we can do nothing but like it) are not in favor of deporting those who serve our country—or their immediate family members.  But, of course, the line must be drawn somewhere.

I had wanted to post something on this news story myself.  But Jake Jacobsen pretty much sums it up for me.

I will add this, though.  According to (Mexico’s) presidential spokesman Ruben Aguilar, “Most countries want to bring their people together and tear down physical, commercial and cultural barriers.  “Anyone who proposes separating them is out of line. Walls are a sign of distrust, and that will never be the basis of a good friendship between two countries.”

He must be looking at a different map of the world than the one I’m looking at.  It doesn’t look to me like “most countries” want what he says they want.  Moreover, as a politician, Aguilar, no doubt knows that what most countries want, they want for their own self interests.  If it were to “most countries’” advantage to bring their peoples together and tear down physical, commercial and cultural barriers, then they would do so.  Here, the interests are a bit out of balance.  It is certainly to Mexico’s advantage for us to maintain the status quo.  Mexico can just keep trucking along, doing relatively nothing to create a strong middle class, upon which a strong economy depends, thus “permitting” us the privilege propping up their nonexistent economy, and trying to make us feel guilty, or “out of line” if we object.

Aguilar also says that “separating [countries] them is out of line. Walls are a sign of distrust, and that will never be the basis of a good friendship between two countries.”  Apparently, the moves of one nation (i.e., Mexico) to undermine the sovereignty of another is the basis of “a good friendship between two countries.”

Really, though, why should we distrust Mexico?  It’s not as if for years their history textbooks have been teaching their people that the U.S. stole the American southwest from them.  And it’s probably only the slightest coincidence that the people who have been told we stole that territory and moved the border, now traipse across that border as if we don’t have a right to enforce it.  And defy us even to try to enforce it.  I’ve said it before: friends don’t ignore each other’s borders.

¿Piensa que nosotros somos desconfiados, Señor Aguilar?  Pues, por nuesta punta de vista tenemos razón, hermano.

The day should not go by without my mentioning that today, my wife and I celebrate 16 years of wearing full marital jackets.  That probably sounds like a strange way to put it.  But my marriage—for you Star Trek fans—is something like the union of a half-Vulvan-half-Klingon (that would be me) to a full-blooded human female.  The battle rages ever so sweetly on.  Kai!  Tai-kleon!  (Well of course I know some Klingonaase.  I have this thing about languages.  And no, I am not one of those losers who go round speaking it to people.)

For you non-Star Trek fans, well, I have little to say to pataqi.  Actually, I should reserve use of that epithet to politicians of a certain (yellow) stripe,  gagnyi tokhi straavi.*

If the rest of my life goes by as quickly as the last 16 years, I’ll be dead soon, and on my way to Stovokor, to the real Kahless.  Kaplah!!!

Okay.  No more Klingonaase.  I promise.

Happy anniversary, “Philologea.”
__________________________
* “Damned willing slaves.”  To called a willing slave is a huge insult to Klingons.

In the midst of all the present chaos, confusion, trouble and tumult take a few moments to relax, take a deep breath and ponder deep thoughts with me.

You know how some people name their children after seasons of the year?  What if we named them after seasons of the day?  A friend of mine, whose last name is Wood, once told me he plans to name his first-born son Morning.  (I don’t know what he meanst by that, but it sounded funny so I laughted.

Speaking of wood:  If your last name were Smallwood, wouldn’t you hate for your first name to be Peter?  Or Richard?  (Hey, with a last name like Lector, you can imagine what sort of things my classmates did to my last name as a child.  The wounds still run deep.  Hold me.)

If the past tense of beach is beached, wouldn’t you think that the past tense of teach should be teached?  If the past tense of lie is lied, how come the past tense of buy isn’t buyed?  Makes perfect sense to me.

Okay.  Back into the breach (the past tense of which, by the way, is breached, and not braught, that is, of course, when breach is used as a verb, not a noun—because nouns don’t have past tenses).

…those here illegally can be rewarded for identity theft and social security fraud.  The Washington Times has the story about social security for illegal immigrants here.  You’ll love it, just love it—especially certain comments by Senators McCain and Leahy.

Yes, I heard correctly.  From the transcript at Radio Blogger of Hugh Hewitt’s interview of Mark Steyn (and with reference to this previous post):

Hugh Hewitt:  Today, [the Senate] voted to extend full social security benefits for contributions made while working illegally in the United States.

Now, in fairness, this is a move by legislators, not the President.  But since the President hasn’t made it a habit to veto much (and that’s putting it gently) I think that we can expect this provision to remain intact.

But always remember: This isn’t amnesty.  It isn’t amnesty.  It isn’t amnesty.  Just keep telling yourself that.  As many times as you need to do.

Illegal immigrants engage in identity theft and social security fraud.  And the senate wants to make sure that, no matter what else happens, they get what they illegally have coming to them.  But remember:   It isn’t amnesty.

Reporting the not-exactly-the-news, is just in some journalists’ blood, I guess.  As I mentioned in my previous post, the House passed an amendment making English the official language of the union.  Just this morning, as I was driving in to work, listening to Denver’s KOA-AM radion, April Zesbaugh referred to it as the latest in the “English-only” debate.  Now, I listen to KOA-AM almost daily—when I listen to Denver radio.  I know that April isn’t stupid; she knows very well that no one in favor of our union having an official language is at the same time in favor of having a requirement that only English be spoken.  What it does require is that people who participate in our political process do so in English.  Frankly, I don’t see the big deal: my family have been doing that for several generations.  Even today, I take a sick pleasure in saying, “Speak to me in English, please,” when those DNC and RNC pollsters call my house.


Now, it’s true that other nations have more than one official language.  The Swiss Confederation (a.k.a. Switzerland) has four: French, German, Italian and Romansh.  No doubt we have those here in the U.S. who think we should do likewise.  These are the sort of people who seem always to preface certain comments with, “Well, in Europe they….”  Yes.  Well, it’s like I’ve told my sister-in-law a couple of times:  If you want to live like a European there’s a simple way you can fulfill that desire without bothering the rest of us.

Now, I wonder why April, who certainly knows better, wants to call this an “English-only” debate.  I’ll hazard a guess: to motivate the uninformed but well-intentioned to oppose official English, by calling it English only.  (Really: who would seriously argue that no one be allowed to speak or write any language but English even in private conversation?  A few, perhaps.  But that isn’t what the rest of us are talking about.)  I would imagine that, having worked for NPR, April is quite accustomed to mischaracterizing and caricaturing Rightist positions.

When are these people going to learn?  We’re onto them; it isn’t going to work for much longer.

You know, it occurs to me that what we’re seeing here on the part of mainstream media is their Operation Nordwind.

English only.  Give me a break.

As Glenn Reynolds puts it:

THE AMNESTY PROTESTS CONTINUE TO BEAR FRUIT: The Inhofe Amendment, which makes English the national language of the United States, has just passed the Senate by a sizable margin.

A speaker at a conference held a few weeks ago by a certain research institute I am afiliated with called me and my ilk to task for not being truthful about the President’s plan.  I and my ilk call it either “stealth amnesty” or “amnesty light.”  The speaker outlined the President’s plan and, focusing on the fines and the fact that the plan only puts illegals on a path to citizenship rather than granting them citizenship by fiat, insisted that this is not amnesty.  Now, of course, I and my ilk, insist that it is not full amnesty, but in the end the still get to stay.  They don’t have to go back to Mexico and wait there, like people from other countries have to do.  We can argue about that, I suppose.  But I just heard on Hugh Hewitt's show (he was talking to Mark Steyn) that there are those in Congress who want these illegals to receive, when their day comes, all of the social security which they “earned” while they were illegal.  So first, they are going to be fined or made to pay back taxes, or whatever.  Then, when they retire, they will get social security as if they had been here legally the entire time of their stay.  Now, unless I have just misunderstood, that is even better than amnesty.  I’ll have to double check (it’ll probably by up at Radio Blogger later) and make sure I heard right.  But then, seriously, it wouldn’t surprise me.

John McCain says that anyone who believes that a fence is the only way to deal with our illegal immigration problem doesn’t know anything about the human heart.

Now, this is precisely one of my biggest complaints about Democrats (even when they call themselves Republicans): they engage in so much logically fallacious reasoning.  In this case it’s the old Straw Man.  No one I know is calling for a fence along the border as the only means of border enforcement.  It is one of several necessary means of border enforcement.

If John McCain thinks that his opponents believe that a fence is the only means of border enforcement, then he doesn’t know his opponent’s position.

I heard on Sean Hannity’s show yesterday that a male student at a university which shall remain nameless (here) said that he wanted to see the members of the Duke University lacrosse team get tried whether a rape took place or not because this would make up for past injustices.  What this young man actually demonstrates is that, desite his talk of past injustices, he really doesn’t care about justice at all.  If a white guy injures anyone, this kid is saying, then the demands of justice can be satisfied by punishing any white guy at all, rather then the white guy that actually did the injury.  I used to say something like that your’d have to go to law school to get that stupid. I was really selling our universities short.

Here, read this.  It’s fairly brief.  I found this quote worthy of comment:

"This plan to send soldiers is one more sign of the decadence of the American empire."

Those words were spoken by a Dominican monk named Carlos Amado Luarca, who works in a migrant shelter in Ciudad Juarez.

1.  Isn’t it a sign of decadence, Fra. Carlos, when people cannot exercise self-control?  Someone, somewhere in central and south America is having more babies then he can afford; so much so that there are, apparently, more people than there are jobs.  How has this come about?  It has come about because people who clearly, given economic realities in central and south America, who cannot afford to have families, are having them anyway.  Isn’t being that sexually out of control also a sign of decadence?  And if you want to say that we Americans are also sexually out of control but we just kill our babies rather than having them I will just say two things:  (1) you are already convinced of our decadence by the fact that we want to put troops on our borders; (2) having babies in countries which cannot support them cannot be very much superior to our not having them.  So, Fra. Carlos, we are decadent.  Fine.  But so are you, just differently so.  (For the record: I do just happen to believe that my country’s easy sexuality and abortion-on-demand is a sign of our decadence.  But I deny that it is illegitimate for a nation to demand respect for its borders.  Certainly it is not a sign of decadence that it do so.)

2.  Now, Fra. Carlos let’s talk about the Mexican Constitution—yet again.  You think it a sign of our decadence that we are sending troops to protect our border.  You must be unaware of this provision of Mexico’s constitution:

Foreigners are those who do not possess the qualifications set forth in Article 30. They are entitled to the guarantees granted by Chapter I, Title I, of the present Constitution; but the Federal Executive shall have the exclusive power to compel any foreigner whose remaining he may deem inexpedient to abandon the national territory immediately and without the necessity of previous legal action.  (Constitution of the United Mexican States, Title I, Chapter 3, article 33, bold, italics and underlining mine.)

Do not waste your breath, Fra. Carlos, trying to tell me that Vicente Fox would not do the same thing to illegal immigrants from the US, persuant to this provision of his constitution, if the present situation were reversed.  Yes, this provision refers specifically to removing people, not keeping them out.  But if the Mexican government determined that any North American’s being in Mexico was “inexpedient” then, logically, the next move would be to keep Americans from coming into the country in the first place.  And if the Mexican president had to enforce that determination by military means he would certainly do so.

3.  I happen to think it a sign of decadence when people enter a nation illegally and then demand from that nation’s government rights which their own governments would not grant to others in the same circumstances.

Josue Sierra calls this article by Dick Morris “good.”  In part, I agree.  But I did have a problem with two elements in Morris’s article, so I left a comment here.

Mike Rosen, KOA-AM Denver today interviewed Robert Rector, author of the Heritage Foundation study I mentioned  previously.  Rector told Rosen that S.2611 is “a stealth open border law” and its proponents are trying to ram it through.  He also said that this legislation, if passed as is, will permit  100,000,000 legal immigrants over the next 20 years.  As I read through Rector’s analysis—and portionsof the Senate Bill itself—I continue to just be shocked.  The purpose of this legislation must be to increase the size of the welfare state and, thereby, the entitlement class.  Idon’t really know that, of course.  But I’m at a loss to see the purpose of this sort of legislation.

Now, keep in mind that S.2611 doesn’t contain language to effect that it will do what Rector says it will do.  Rector’s figures are the results of mathematics which are based on what I think are reasonable assumptions.  I also think that his estimates are CONSERVATIVE.  

Fro the sake of full disclosure:  Did I mention that I haven’t finished reading Rector’s analysis or the bill itself?

Hooray!!!!!!!!!!!

Attention people of the Darfur region of Sudan!  Your serpentine salvation is at hand!  There shall be peace in your time!  Oh, happy day!  The UN has passed a peacekeeping resolution, written under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter, which means it can be enforced with punitive measures and possibly even military force.  You know what that means, don’t you?

Nothing much really.  We all know how, uh, resolute, the UN is about enforcing its resolutions.  Anyone remember UN Res. 1441?

Yes, I’m sure those Sudanese evil-doers are quaking in their little UN-fearing booties.

If you were encouraged by anything you heard during the President’s speech last night, then you should read this transcript of Hugh Hewitt’s interview with Julie Meyers.

HH: If fencing is the best way to stop them at the border, why don't we have a plan laid out for that?
JM: Well, you know, I don't think we think that fencing is the best way to stop them on the border. I think the President's called for...if you build a fence, they build a tunnel. We just saw that today. There was another tunnel destroyed, another, excuse me, another tunnel found over in the San Diego area. So you can't...given the kind of the layout of our land, I believe it's the President's view, it's the border patrol's view, that a fence alone is not enough. We need a layered approach that includes surveillance, personnel, technology. We are working with the military to make sure we have the best technology. And some places, a fence may be very effective, but some places, it's simply not.

To be fair, the President did not say that a fence alone is enough to secure the border. But if, as Ms. Meyers claims, we build a fence then they build a tunnel, there would be little point to building a fence. Like Hewitt, I too am “underwhelmed.”


Hewitt’s interview with Mark Steyn was also enlightening and, thus, also not encouraging; and that is putting it midly.

I've been through U.S. immigration as a participant. And what everybody tells you is that Congress and the President can announce things as often as they want, and Congress can pass laws on it as much as they want. They can pass particular programs. A couple of years back, they determined there was a need for a particular type of business category, and Congress passed a law for it. And it just sat on the desk of the relative immigration agency. The reality of U.S. immigration is that basically, you've got a lot of different...every single border guard and border post is operating a free-lance immigration policy. The border post at Pittsburgh-New Hampshire is unmanned two-thirds of the day. The border post on the Manitoba-Minnesota border is on the honor system. It's open 24 hours a day. You pull up there and there's a video phone and there's a sign saying please check in on the video phone. And 60% of the time, the video phone doesn't work. So you have to ask yourself are these people, the ones who regardless of what the President and Congress says, seriously going to enforce anything he requires anyway?

During the course of his speech, the President asserted that we are a nation of laws. Steyn’s testimony about the two border posts he mentioned, seems to indicate otherwise.

Nation of laws. Right.

One of the most (and there were many) disappointing moments in last night’s speech was, “Some in this country argue that the solution is to deport every illegal immigrant and that any proposal short of this amounts to amnesty. I disagree. It is neither wise nor realistic to round up millions of people, many with deep roots in the United States, and send them across the border.” In other words: “No matter what we do, we can really do nothing meaningful, or effective, about this invasion. We need to accept it: they are here and we are powerless to do anything about it. We just need to deal with it.”

No matter what else he said last night, President Bush told the world that we are unable, perhaps even unwilling, to protect and to defend our borders. [UPDATE: And, as Reuters reports, illegals have gotten that message loud and clear. Said Roger Nahun about the "militarization" of the border: "It is not going to stop [us], because the United States is where the money is." Nahun spoke as he prepared to enter the river himself!!!

In the past, I have rejected the notion that the President is in anyone’s pocket, even the pockets of Big Oil. But his refusal to take a strong position on illegal immigration (which, let’s face it, is just a comforting euphemism for invasion) makes me wonder. Really: Who does have him?

Now, in all fairness, the President is not the Dictator; he’s an executive. He may only recommend legislation. One could argue that he has recommended the strongest legislation he thinks he is going to get from this Congress. Still: He could have started much stronger and negotiated down; or at least started strong and then signed whatever came out of Congress. After all, what has the President vetoed?

Like Red Sky Brothers, I’ll be doing my own point by point commentary on the President’s Speech

During my lunch break today, I’m planning to read a Heritage Foundation analysis of the Senate immigration reform bill ( i.e., the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (  CIRA, S.2611).  I’ve already read parts of it.  Just on the basis of the first two paragraphs, I am getting even angrier about matters immigration than I have been thus far.  And I’ve been pretty angry for some time.  And my immediate family members will tell you that, unless super-stressed, I rarely get emotional about anything.

I just do not understand what is so difficult to grasp about the concept that national borders ought to be respected, that a nation has the right (and, to its citizens, the obligation) to enforce national borders, that nations (no less than property-owning individuals) have the right to decide who gets to come in, why, and how long they can stay before being asked to leave.  The President insists on calling the United States and Mexico “friends.”  Well, my friends respect my property rights; you could very well say they respect my borders.  If I had a friend who was a friend to me in the way that Mexico is a “friend” to the United States, I’d cut him loose.

If enacted, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (CIRA, S.2611) would be the most dramatic change in immigration law in 80 years, allowing an estimated 103 million persons to legally immigrate to the U.S. over the next 20 years—fully one-third of the current population of the United States.
 
Much attention has been given to the fact that the bill grants amnesty to some 10 million illegal immigrants. Little or no attention has been given to the fact that the bill would quintuple the rate of legal immigration into the United States, raising, over time, the inflow of legal immigrants from around one million per year to over five million per year. The impact of this increase in legal immigration dwarfs the magnitude of the amnesty provisions.

This analysis is a must read.

…is, “Give slavery another chance!”

I was perusing Freedom Folks blog early this morning, something I still am not doing often enough. I read this post on why politicians are so keen on extending amnesty to illegal immigrants. It is an insightful post on the question, well worth the read—and short. Here’s a relevant sample:

Another example were the years following the civil war. Blacks begn [sic] moving North and getting good jobs, their former masters were furious. If they couldn't have their slaves they would settle for keeping the black folks in what amounted to slavery. Local Democrats refused to allow black folks to be educated and preferred to keep them near and cheap for decades.

Of course, if amnesty is extended, its proponents (and the illegal immigrants themselves) will fall victim to the law of unintended consequences. When these illegal immigrants are no longer illegal they will not have to settle for the garbage level wages they are presently working for. Obviously, the “slave holding class” as FF call them, will need another shipment of slaves, who will work for the garbage wages that the present crop of illegals is working for. And, of course, this new problem for the “slave holding class” will be, in many respects, a bigger problem for the rest of us—but perhaps more especially people like John and Pat King who aren’t safe on their own property!

"Are you telling me that tens of millions of Americans are involved in al Qaeda?"  So asks Senator Patrick Leahy.  This because, thanks to yet another leak (thank you loyal Americans in the “intelligence” community), we now know that spy agencies have been secretly collecting records of millions of ordinary Americans' phone calls in order to build a database of all calls within the country.  In other words, these spy agencies are looking for patterns in an effort to identify possible terrorist operatives in the US by comparing called numbers with the known numbers of known terrorists.  It is not unreasonable to me to ask who in the US is calling the known numbers of known terrorists and which known terrorists are calling numbers in the US.  One cannot apparently expect someone as obviously

STUPID

as Patrick Leahy is to know what information has been provided or what is being done with it.  This is a man who was kicked off the intelligence committee for…uh…leaking.

Like those who keep talking about immigration, instead of illegal immigration, alarmists speak of wire-tapping and domestic serveillance.  No one is trying to find out who you are calling.  We are comparing numbers here:  known terrorists phone numbers and US phone numbers.  There is a big difference.  You are not being watched by the police if, in the course of following a mobster around, they end up at your house because the mobster went there.  And you are not being spied on if, while on stake-out at the lair of a known mobster, the police observe you show up and go into the lair like you’re an old friend.

This is another passage by passage response to some article somewhere.  This time its  Andrew Sullivan, “My Problem with Christianism: A believer spells out the difference between faith and a political agenda,” Time Magazine, Sunday, 7 May 2006 [cited 10 May 2006].

Are you a Christian who doesn't feel represented by the religious right? I know the feeling. When the discourse about faith is dominated by political fundamentalists and social conservatives, many others begin to feel as if their religion has been taken away from them.

Well, anyone familiar with the writings of the early Church Fathers knows that the relation between Christians and “political fundamentalism” and “social conservativism” has a long tradition.  For example, after the Christians “took over” the Roman Empire, homosexuality, though still widely practiced, was illegal.  Sullivan seems to think that Christians having an interest in the laws they live under and the government that runs their lives is something new and unusual.  It isn’t.  I’m not saying it is inarguably legitimate.  The relation of Christ to culture has been a subject of discussion since the earliest days of the Church; and there are at least five views on the subject:  Christ against culture, Christ of culture, Christ above culture, Christ and culture in paradox, and Christ transforming culture (see, e.g., H. Richard Neibuhr, Christ and Culture).  And  Sullivan’s  is  only one view.

The number of Christians misrepresented by the Christian right is many. There are evangelical Protestants who believe strongly that Christianity should not get too close to the corrupting allure of government power.

So what?  There used to be many Christians who thought that sex was something little more than a necessary evil.  That doesn’t mean they were correct.  And if government power is so corrupting that Christianity should not get too close (a ridiculous way of putting it), then why should anyone get too close?  And what is “too close”?  Probably, just closer than Andrew Sullivan thinks his opponents should be.

There are lay Catholics who, while personally devout, are socially liberal on issues like contraception, gay rights, women's equality and a multi-faith society. There are very orthodox believers who nonetheless respect the freedom and conscience of others as part of their core understanding of what being a Christian is.

Well “socially  liberal” can mean many things.  I am a devout Christian; and I also consider myself socially liberal.  I don’t believe in any contraception except self-control, but I hold that as an article of faith, binding only upon those who hold to the same faith; to me that’s logic.  With respect to gay rights, I agree that gays have rights.  However, because I believe that it is a prerogative of a state to define what marriage is, to decide that homosexual  unions are not heterosexual  unions and therefore that they are not to be called the same thing, I also believe that this position can be given the force of law.  The Christian, as a citizen has input on this matter, just like the non-Christian.  I believe that what women do should be a determination of their faith system, not government; I just am not familiar with a move on the part of any Christian to legislate “a woman’s place.”  (I also do not hold that “equal” means “identical,” which is what the left seem to hold.)  I am also comfortable with a multi-faith society.  I find positively offensive Sullivan’s intimation that we wish by political means to put down all other faiths but our own.  (There are numerous indications in Scripture that when Jesus Christ returns to this good earth there will be—HORRORS!!!—unbelievers.  It stands to reason, then, that Christians will always live in the presence of people of other faiths.  And here’s a little secret, Sullivan: Most, if not all, Christians, even us “right-wingers,” know this.)  One implication of Sullivan’s assertion that, “There are very orthodox believers who nonetheless respect the freedom and conscience of others as part of their core understanding of what being a Christian is” is that everyone, not just Christians, should stay the heck out of politics, or risk being thought of as someone who does not respect the freedom and conscience of others

Read more...

I was in my closet this morning, gathering up the clothes I would be wearing to work.  For a moment, I stood in there looking over some outfits that my wife bought yesterday.  As I did so it occurred to me:  Isn’t “Sag Harbor” rather an unfortunate name for a line of women’s clothing?

According to a California judge, as reported by Nanette Asimov, ("Judge Says California Exit Exam is Unfair," San Francisco Chronicle, Tuesday, 9 May 2006 [cited 9 May 2006]), being poor, among things, is a sufficient enough excuse for failing a high school exit exam that the exam itself can be declared unconstitutional because it violates the “equal protection clause” of the Constitution by virtue of being “unfair.” Unfair.  I have come to hate that word.  Allow me to critique the ruling, as reported by Asimov.

A judge in Oakland struck down California's controversial high school exit exam Monday, issuing a tentative ruling suggesting the test is unfair to some students who are shortchanged by substandard schools.

If finalized, the unexpected ruling would block the state from carrying out its plan to deny diplomas for the first time to tens of thousands of seniors who have been unable to pass the exit exam.

Judge Robert Freedman of Alameda County Superior Court said he based his ruling on the concept of "equal protection" and is expected to make a final ruling at a 2 p.m. hearing today.

“Equal protection?”  Is he kidding us?  The phrase has been used so much that it is almost devoid of meaning.  At base it means a law that applies to me also applies to you.  If I have to meet certain requirements in order to vote so must you.  If I have not been to law school and passed a bar exam and neither have you, then if I am not permitted to practice law you are not either.  Let’s apply this equal protection garbage another way.  I know a guy who would like to have gone to law school, but could not afford it.  Other, and lesser minds, merely because they could afford it, have gone to law school and are for that reason alone allowed to practice law.  Notice how the laws respecting the practice of law are” unfair.”  I mean, come on, the only reason he failed the bar exam was that he was too poor to afford to go to  law school.  It’s unfair to penalize someone—to deprive him of the opportunity to engage in work that he might enjoy—just because he is poor.  (The full import of this seemingly ridiculous point will be clear below, when we see how the issue of poverty is raised..)

Read more

You bet. Read this story. Apparently there is a group called Latino Americans for Immigration Reform. The head of that organization, Lupe Moreno, is a Mexican, and so is her sister, the vice president. (Actually, they are Americans. But we get the point.)

Here’s what LAIR have to say of themselves:

Latino Americans for Immigration Reform believe in the rule of law. As descendants of immigrants that came to this country in search of a better life, we recognize that immigrants are of great value to this nation. However, as a sovereign nation, we need to assure that the well-being and social needs of our citizens are met first. Adherence to laws, not circumvention of laws, needs to be enforced.

Darn straight.

LAIR have organized a protest at the President’s Crawford, Texas ranch. They are not some of his biggest fans, at least on the issue of illegal immigration.

It may go without saying, but LAIR are fans of The Minuteman Project.

From my LP/OP somewhere in the State of Colorado I listen to radio stations from around the country (e.g., Los Angeles, Ca., Austin and San Antonio, Tx., New York, NY.) and around the World (Rio de Janeiro is a lot of fun).  (I have always loved radio.  When I was a boy, I used to stay up late, late at night with my old Satchel-Carlson—I mean “vaccum tube” old—and…. Anyway.)

The day after the Day Without Traffic Congestion (sorry, Day Without an Immigrant) as I listened to various news reports from various stations, each reported the protests of 1 May as protests in support of immigration.

But the newscasters of KNUS-AM radio of Denver, Colorado just about went out of their way to report those protests as protests in support of illegal immigration.  They went so far as to put a great deal of stress on the word illegal.  It was very heart-warming.

My alter-ego. The mask is an improvement, I assure you.


This guy here is the real deal.


Same guy, closer up.

Hearing more minimum wage increase talk this morning on my way in to work, reminded of a post I wrote last year.  Since my argument against it is roughly the same now as it was then, I am posting that one again, with a few revisions.

Sen. Kennedy and others want to increase the minimum wage again. Senate Amendment "To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide for an increase in the Federal minimum wage", S.AMDT.44,  amends "A bill to amend title 11 of the United States Code, and for other purposes," S.256; see also Jared Bernstein, others, "The Next Step; the minimum wage proposals and the old opposition," Economic Policy Institute, 8 March 2000. One thing that bothers me about this is that these people do not have to live, or more especially work, with the consequences of raising the minimum wage. Of course that, logically, is not much of an argument against a wage hike. So let me offer two brief arguments against it.

1. The first thing that will happen is that people who actually work for minimum wage will work less; this means that, while their wage will increase, their actual income will decrease. Now, how can this be? Get your calculator handy: we have some math to do.

In another life, I was a restaurant manager. As such, I had three highly controllable costs: food, paper products, and labor. Forgetting the first two as irrelevant to our present purpose, in order to be profitable with respect to my labor costs, that cost could not exceed 16 percent of my adjusted gross sales. So, if I was planning my week, and I projected my sales as $32,000, then my labor cost was going to have to be not more than $5,120. To calculate the number of hours I need to schedule in order to reach this goal, I divide this figure (i.e., $5120.00) by my average hourly wage. (I arrive at this average by totalling the hourly amounts each of my employees are paid and dividing this total by the number of employees.) Let's say that this average wage is $5.90. Dividing $5120.00 by $5.90 I see that I can schedule no more than 867.80 hours. If I actually do $32,000.00 in sales, then I shall make my labor budget.

Let us say, now, that an increase in the minimum wage increases my average hourly wage to just $6.15. Using the same sales and labor budget figures, the number of hours I can schedule comes to 832.52. This means that I shall have to decrease the number of hours that I schedule by 35.27 hours. 35.27 hours!!! That's near 40 hours; that's almost one experienced, full-time employee's job! Now, am I going to let a full-time, experienced employee go? Not on your life. So where I am going to cut this 35.27 hours? From those minimum wage workers, of course. You know the ones: they just got a raise from the federal government. Their hours just got cut.

The only other way I can make my labor budget is to increase my sales, which I can do only by either increasing the number of people who choose to eat in my establishment (something I was never very good at, honestly) or by raising my prices just enough to cover the average wage increase I just experienced thanks to Congress. Of course, I'll have to raise my prices eventually; so will all of my competitors, who are having the same problem. It's just a matter of which of us will raise his prices first. Since none of us want to go first, all of us are going to cut hours from our minimum wage workers until one of us just has to start increasing prices. This problem will affect anyone who has minimum wage employees; and as employers increase prices to offset the cost of the hike, the benefit will disappear. And when it does, there will be more demands to increase the minimum wage yet again...and again...and again; and so on. And when the wage is increased yet again employers will be faced with the problem the solution to which "caused" the need for the increase in the first place.

So, the only way that Congress can make the minimum wage increase of any lasting value will be to forbid employers from cutting the number of hours worked. Not only that, but it occurs to me that Congress will also have to add a price freeze to the wage hike.

2. Another problem with artificial increases in the minimum wage is inflation. Now, I am no economist, so I am more than willing, with respect to the following, to be corrected, but only by an economist. (I will accept a BA or better, in Economics, as qualifying one as an economist.)

In 1983 I bought a pickup truck for around $10,000. If I had bought that same, or a comparable auto, in 2000, then, utilizing Gross Domestic Product deflator method it would have cost me $15,375. Here's a funny thing: when I bought a new car in 2000 it cost right around $15,500! So the amount I was charged for my auto in 2000 was keeping up with inflation.

Now let's look at the artificially (and arbitrarily) set (as opposed to market set) minimum wage. When I first started working, in 1982, the minimum wage was $3.35 per hour. It is now $5.15. Adjusting for inflation, using GDP deflator, that $3.35 would be the equivalent of $5.84 today. Clearly, this seems to bolster the argument for increasing the minimum wage. What it actually does is demonstrate the problem with setting the wage by law: the law itself is not keeping up with inflation. To keep pace with inflation would require new minimum wage legislation every year or so. As I've said, I'm no economist, but I think it’s easy to understand how automobile prices have managed to keep up with inflation, and how minimum wages won't if we let market forces set the wage.  Unlike the minimun wage, automobile prices keep up with inflation because those prices are determined by the market; and the market is keeping up with inflation.

Right now, the wage set by Congress is not keeping pace with inflation. So right now, that wage works well for employers. But we are being mentally lazy if we truly believe that a minimum wage can be effectively prescribed by law. When the minimun wage does go up, as it inevitably must, that new wage will not keep up with inflation.  It will be frozen in place while inflation increases.

This, I think, explains much of the problem with executive salaries. The minimum wage is meant to be a wage paid to unskilled laborers. The unskilled have nothing to negotiate over. Executives are not unskilled. When companies are competing for executives whose skills they need, those applicants are able to negotiate better packages than the relatively unskilled. And, unlike hourly wage employees, whose wages are a function of the minimum wage, executive salaries, like auto prices, are likely keeping pace with inflation. As with auto prices, I find it easy to understand how executive salaries—without legislative interference—are able to keep up with inflation, but hourly wages can't. Hourly wages for skilled laborers are likely kept lower than they might otherwise be because they are all a function of the minimum wage; executive salaries, because they are relatively unrelated to the minimum wage, are free to grow with inflation because these salaries are determined by the executive market.  Clearly the market does a better job of determining salaries than Congress does of determining the minimun wage.

There is another problem with the minimum wage. The last minimum wage increase (to $5.15) was in 1996, if memory serves. To keep up with inflation it should be about $5.95. But it isn't $5.95; it's still $5.15.  Executives salaries are not now what they were in 1996.  Now, let's say that Congress raises the minimum wage tomorrow to the $7.00 that John Kerry and others have wanted.   E.g., Paul Farhi, "Kerry Backs $7-an-Hour Minimum Wage," Washington Post, 19 June 2004.  That $7.00 will be ahead of inflation, which means that employers will be paying way the heck more by far than even inflation requires. It raises the question: If, after the minimum wage increase to $7.00, employers will already be paying too much for their unskilled labor, why should they increase wages for their skilled labor?

Minimum wage talk is a part of the whole politics of envy. It constitutes little more than a transfer of wealth. There is little difference between my putting a gun to you and telling you to give $5.15 to your neighbor and putting a gun to you to force you to give me $5.15 which I then give to your neighbor. In both cases, I have succeeded in robbing you of $5.15.

The whole politics of envy always makes me think of a song by one of my favorite rock groups of all time:  Rush.  (Hey, Greg Bahnsen liked the Beatles.) Here are the lyrics to that song:

The Trees

There is unrest in the forest
There is trouble with the trees
For the maples want more sunlight
And the oaks ignore their pleas

The trouble with the maples
(and they’re quite convinced they’re right)
They say the oaks are just too lofty
And they grab up all the light
But the oaks can’t help their feelings
If they like the way they’re made
And they wonder why the maples
Can’t be happy in their shade?

There is trouble in the forest
And the creatures all have fled
As the maples scream `oppression!`
And the oaks just shake their heads

So the maples formed a union
And demanded equal rights
’the oaks are just too greedy
We will make them give us light’
Now there’s no more oak oppression
For they passed a noble law
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet,
Axe,
And saw ... .

Rush, "The Trees" (lyrics by Neil Peart), Hemispheres, (Mercury/Polygram 1978).

To my mind, "equality" sought--or enforced--by means of "hatchet, axe and saw" is fascism.

I still feel that way.  And who knows: With wages determined by a freely operating market, instead of Congressional interference, perhaps, with all other costs—no longer artificially kept high—being "equal," employers may be motivated not to undercut these articially high wages by employing illegal aliens.  (I’m not betting on it, of course.)

Whatever.  Just don’t overlook two things:

1.  The Congress interferes with hourly wages by setting a minimum wage; and hourly wage employees are unhappy and, apparently, underpaid.
2.  The Congress does not interfere with executive salaries—YET!!!—and executives are (relatively) happy and, apparently, overpaid.

Employees whose wages are set by the market are happy.  Employees whose wages are set by Congress are unhappy.  The market compensates well and Congress doesn’t.  It’s the sort of thing that makes you go, “Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.”  Isn’t it?

(Note:  My mention of Greg Bahnsen should not be taken as evidence of my being a Christian Reconstructionist—not there’s anything wrong with that, of course.)

Perhaps you—or someone you know—has also received this circulating email. I have not finished checking the source, but it does seem to square with the little that I do know of Mexican law respecting aliens working in Mexico.

The following is from a director with SW BELL in Mexico City.

I spent five years working in Mexico. I worked under a tourist visa for three months and could legally renew it for three more months. After that you were working illegally. I was technically illegal for three weeks waiting on the FM3 approval.During that six months our Mexican and US Attorneys were working to secure a permanent work visa called a FM3. It was in addition to my US passport that I had to show each time I entered and left the country. [my wife’s] was the same except hers did not permit her to work.

To apply for the FM3 I needed to submit the following notarized originals (not copies) of my:

1. Birth certificates for [my wife] and me.
2. Marriage certificate.
3. High school transcripts and proof of graduation.
4. College transcripts for every college I attended and proof of graduation.
5. Two letters of recommendation from supervisors I had worked for at least one year.
6. A letter from The ST. Louis Chief of Police indicating I had no arrest record in the US and no outstanding warrants and was "a citizen in good standing."
7. Finally; I had to write a letter about myself that clearly stated why there was no Mexican citizen with my skills and why my skills were important to Mexico. We called it our "I am the greatest person on earth" letter. It was fun to write. [Italics added by Philologous.]

All of the above were in English that had to be translated into Spanish and be certified as legal translations and our signatures notarized. It produced a folder about 1.5 inches thick with English on the left side and Spanish on the right. [Italics added by Philologous.]

Once they were completed [my wife] and I spent about five hours accompanied by a Mexican attorney touring Mexican government office locations and being photographed and fingerprinted at least three times. At each location (and we remember at least four locations) we were instructed on Mexican tax, labor, housing, and criminal law and that we were required to obey their laws or face the consequences. We could not protest any of the government's actions or we would be committing a felony. We paid out four thousand dollars in fees and bribes to complete the process. When this was done we could legally bring in our household goods that were held by US customs in Loredo Texas. This meant we rented furniture in Mexico while awaiting our goods. There were extensive fees involved here that the company paid. [Italics added by Philologous. Did he say “felony”?]

We could not buy a home and were required to rent at very high rates and under contract and compliance with Mexican law.

We were required to get a Mexican drivers license. This was an amazing process. The company arranged for the licensing agency to come to our headquarters location with their photography and finger print equipment and the laminating machine. We showed our US license, were photographed and fingerprinted again and issued the license instantly after paying out a six dollar fee. We did not take a written or driving test and never received instructions on the rules of the road. Our only instruction was never give a policeman your license if stopped and asked. We were instructed to hold it against the inside window away from his grasp. If he got his hands on it you would have to pay ransom to get it back. [Italics and bold added by Philologous.]

We then had to pay and file Mexican income tax annually using the number of our FM3 as our ID number. The companies Mexican accountants did this for us and we just signed what they prepared. I was about twenty legal size pages annually.

The FM 3 was good for three years and renewable for two more after paying more fees.Leaving the country meant turning in the FM# and certifying we were leaving no debts behind and no outstanding legal affairs (warrants, tickets or liens) before our household goods were released to customs. [Italics added by Philologous.]

It was a real adventure and If any of our senators or congressmen went through it once they would have a different attitude toward Mexico.

The Mexican Government uses its vast military and police forces to keep its citizens intimidated and compliant. They never protest at their White House or government offices but do protest daily in front of the United States Embassy. The US embassy looks like a strongly reinforced fortress and during most protests the Mexican Military surround the block with their men standing shoulder to shoulder in full riot gear to protect the Embassy. These protests are never shown on US or Mexican TV. There is a large public park across the street where they do their protesting. Anything can cause a protest such as proposed law changes in California or Texas.

Please feel free to share this with everyone who thinks we are being hard on illegal immigrants.

Can anyone verify this?

Responses to a potpurri of stupid comments heard during the Day Without Immigrants (aka The Day Without Traffic Congestion):

1. They are working and paying taxes (Every-darn-left-body). – As the Ghost of Christmas Past told Ebenezer Scrooge, “That these things are what they are, do not blame me.” If crossing a nation’s borders illegally puts them at some sort of disadvantage, then this is of their doing. If they knew of the possibility that this would happen and came here anyway then surely they thought that this would still be a condition superior to what they had in the country they left behind. If they did not know of this, then more’s the pity for their ignorance and presumption. (We all make decisions which we might not otherwise have made, if only we had known this or that. Life’s difficult, even for legal Americans, immigrant or otherwise.) If you break into someone’s house and in so doing you break your foot, you show precisely what you are if you sue the homeowner for negligence.

2. We can’t “woo” them here and then call them criminals (Caller to Mike Rosen’s radio show). – If I had a radio show, this would be one of my stupid calls of the day. The identities of those doing the woo-ing and those who call them criminals are not the same.

3. These are honored guests; we don’t want to get them angry (Geraldo Rivera. To think, this man and I may share a common, Rivera, ancestor—it makes my skin crawl). – I have been an honored guest. I have never protested my host or made demands on him. Guests don’t make demands; they may make requests. On the other hand, someone who sneaks onto the property isn’t normally called a guest. He is usually called a traspasser. Where I come from, we used to know how to deal with trespassers. (Warning: My home is protected by Smith & Wesson, Winchester, and a man with PTSD and anger management issues—among other things—who, if awakened suddenly in the middle of the night, has a tendency to act first and ask questions a couple cups of coffee later…if then. Ask my wife.)

4. We will be paying $10.00 for a head of lettuce, et cetera. – Fine. My country is worth my blood. If my country costs me $10.00 for a head of lettuce, then so be it. If that gets to be too much, I’ll grow the darn lettuce myself. (And yes I really know how. I won’t need a Mexican immigrant, legal or illegal, to do it for me, or even to show me how.)

5. They do jobs “we” (Americans) won’t do. – Maybe, but they are not doing these jobs as a favor to us. Besides, one of my first jobs as a kid was going through boxes of tomatoes (E. A. Brown tomatoes, to be precise) and replacing sub-standard tomatoes with good ones. I’ve been an American all my life; I did that job without complaining—too much. (Well, it’s no one dream job, after all.) Another one of my first jobs was lawn care; but when I was growing up that was typical, even for an American boy! (Some of the lawns I took care of were multi-acre lawns. I mowed them with a push-mower!)

6. These immigrants have human rights just like everyone else. – I approach the issue from a single basic premise: Nations have the right to expect that their borders be respected and to prosecute those who do not so. We, the people of the United States of America also have rights just like everyone else. Among those rights is the right that our government shall protect our borders. We want our rights, too. I mean, if it isn’t asking too much. After all, Mexico would hardly do less.

A day without hispanics is how the local spanish language radio station is billing it.  In most other venues it’s being billed as a Day Without Immigrants or some similar nonsense.  In either case, it’s bullcrap.  Neither hispanics nor immigration per se is the issue.

The local spanish language station said that the purpose of all this is, and I quote (because I can): <<Para demonstrar que los hispanos son indispensables para la economía de los estados unidos.>>  Or: “In order to demonstrate that hispanics are indispensable to the economy of the United States.”  Demonstrators are supposed to go to Denver, wearing white shirts to show their solidarity with our “brothers” and “sisters”.  Pues, ellos no son ní mís hermanos ní mís hermanas.  They aren’t my brothers and sisters.  My brothers and sisters belong to a colorless race called The Americans.   (On this same station on Friday, a caller told the host, <<Sí, no somos legales, pero tenemos derechos.>> “Yes, we are illegal but we have rights.”  I have written the spanish here because that is what I heard and that is what played itself over and over in my mind the rest of the evening and much of the weekend.  Tenemos derechos.  Tenemos derechos.  Tenemos derechos.  We have rights.  We illegals have rights, and the U.S. must give them to us.  And still they have yet to explain to us how they illegals have come by these rights.  Apparently, they owe us no explanation.  But I digress.)

Are they serious?  My first thought after hearing that garbage about how indispensable hispanics are to the economy was, “Well, my employer is indispensable to my economy.”  (My second thought was,  Who the hell made all this about hispanics anyway?  But then I remembered.)

Quite frankly, if every hispanic who felt this way—native, immigrant, legal or illegal—moved to the hispanic nation of his choice, though it would hurt at first, in the long term we would recover.

Clearly, the issue is really language.  When there is a debate, the first thing that must be done is to have key terms defined and the definitions agreed upon.  Our side of the debate has been consistently using the term illegal immigration.  We have made no reference to race, except to note that the vast majority of illegals appear to be coming from south of the border.  Our opponents have consistently made the issue—and have used the term—immigration.  If the debate is about immigration, then we lose, of course.

Our problem is that our opponents have refused to acknowledge our case about illegal immigration.  They are not debating us.  Quite frankly, that is in my experience how the Left always debates: they don’t.  They argue against strawmen; they argue against people who don’t, for purposes to those debates, even exist.  People who are opposed to immigration don’t, in any significance numbers, exist.  People who are opposed to illegal immigration do exist.  I am one of them.  We are just being ignored.

Once again: We are debating illegal immigration, illegal immigration, illegal immigration, and illegal immigration.  They are debating immigration, immigration, immigration and immigration.  And they will win that debate because no one opposes immigration.  Sadly, we may lose our debate because our debate over illegal immigration is being treated as if it were a debate over immigration.

I’ve just visited the Tanker Brothers'.  The Master Gunner has an excellent post on the role that words play in debates such as the present one.

Finally, if you would like to see some of what is behind all this check out http://aztlan.net/.  But first, brace yourself.  These folks ain’t friendly to you white people, or us “white-washed” people.  (H/T to Mike Gulf for the link.)

On 4 November 1979, when I was 14 years old, a whole bunch of angry Iranian students seized control of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran for the next 444 days (i.e., until 20 January 1980) held hostage 52 citizens of the U.S. Those citizens were held hostage, though technically (being an embassy) on American soil, in Iran.

On Monay, 1 May 2006, we shall, apparently, be held hostage again, here on our own soil this time. If all goes according to the plans of organizers, so many latinos will walk off their jobs and refuse to shop or otherwise patronize business (there are even calls to shut down entire U.S. cities) that America will be brought to her economic knees Edward James Olmos says this will teach us all a lesson. As a consequence, their demands regarding immigration reform shall be met without delay. (Mexican lawmakers have issued a declaration of support for Monday’s boycott, which angers me because of what Mexico would do if a similar stunt were attempted in their country.)

And of all this to live in a country which is a terrible as the Center for American Progress says it is. But I digress.

Now, typically, when one walks off the job one no longer has a job. As I was driving into work this morning I heard an interview with a Chipotle executive. Chipotle has assured its workers that if they walk off the job on Monday they will still have jobs on Tuesday. In fact, restaurant managers have asked employees that if they are planning not to show up for work on Monday they let management know so that staffing arrangements can be made. In other words, “If you’re planning to sodomize me can you let me know in advance?”

Hey, Chipotle! How much is your country worth, you buggers!!!

You can ask both my wife and my mother: all this has taken me off the fence. I have been, inwardly, very friendly to immigrants from the south, legal or illegal, until recently (like when I learned of Los Zetas conducting ops here on our soil). No more. Come here and then try to take me hostage? It may less even than a token, but I celebrated my last Cinco de Mayo last year. Hell, Mexico wouldn’t have had a Cinco de Mayo to celebrate in the first place if not for the help of a country they now want to bring to its knees. (Our history with Mexico is not entirely one of “stealing land” from them. Once our Civil War was over, we began supplying Mexicans with weapons and ammunition, with which, by1867, they finally defeated their French invaders. Invaders. How ironic.)

So what do we do? Normally, I don’t do “movements”: I don’t like fads. But my family and I will be engaging in Super Shop Monday (or whatever it’s called; I heard Laura Ingraham talk about it). Everything we normally do at the weekend, both shopping, eating out, going to movies and so forth, we shall be doing on Monday. Now on one hand that will be fine; businesses should do fine. But service may be lousy. I don’t care. Hell, I’ll serve myself, bag my own groceries, whatever. And I’m xerascaping my yard (just bought a new house). Not that there was ever a worry there. I’m not afraid of tools and machines. Here’s my attitude: I’d rather have lousy service than to be held hostage in my own country, by people who tell me they demand to be exempt from our laws or else.

Oh. One more thing.

ATTENTION WELFARE RECIPIENTS AND LAZY BUMS: WE HAVE NOW REACHED THE POINT AT WHICH GETTING UP OFF YOUR BUTTS AND WORKING A JOB IS TANTAMOUNT TO DEFENDING YOUR COUNTRY. SO, GET UP, GO GET A JOB AND DEFEND YOUR COUNTRY!!!

HOOAH!!!

A tribute to the proud history of Aztlan!!!

In salute of the once-industrious French...

Okay. Now, I’ve heard everything, at least for today.  I’m sure that I just heard Nancy Pelosi say there is a causal relationship between the high prices we’re paying at the pump and the fact that we have two oilmen in the White House.  As fun as it might be two debate Pelosi on the subject of causality, it is more fun to think about another aspect of her logic.  Consider this statement, which I found at her website:

“With skyrocketing gas prices, it is clear that the American people can no longer afford the Republican Rubber Stamp Congress and its failure to stand up to Republican big oil and gas company cronies. Americans this week are paying $2.91 a gallon on average for regular gasoline – 33 cents higher than last month, and double the price than when President Bush first came to office.”

Republican big oil and gas cronies.  One would think that if these oil bastards—I mean, barons—were cronies of the present administration, they would actually be lowering gas prices.  Really.  With friends like these, President Bush wouldn’t need Democrats. For enemies.  If I were an oilman in the White House, and I wanted my party to look good, I’d be talking my oil buddies into driving the price down, not up.
If we’re going to look at causal relations, madam, perhaps we ought to look into whether these oil bastards—barons— are, in reality, Democrats.  Surely there is a causal relationship between the high gas prices and the President’s low approval ratings?
Causal relationship.  Silly woman.  I know a tanker with a 31 GT score who is a better philosopher than you.  What’s the cause of that?

A lot of people who aren’t on some type of welfare like to think that they don’t buy into an entitlement mentality.  Until they get to the fuel pump, at which time they realize that, while they may not be entitled to live off of me, they are entitled to a guaranteed price at the pump.  And they blame the oil companies for depriving them of that to which they are—apparently—entitled.

Pissed off about the price you’re paying at the pump?  Hey, stop blaming me.  Oil companies don’t set the price.  Oil traders set the price; oil companies, like Exxon/Mobile, are little more than middlemen.  And if you don’t know the difference, then you may not know enough to be pissed off at anyone, much less the oil companies.  (And not paying an oil executive $400 million to retire isn’t going to affect your price at the pump.)

But even behind the oil traders is another menace—a phantom menace.  Like the wussie-looking Senator Palpatine, they go round with these long faces wondering, just like us, what can be done about all this.  And, also like him, they work behind the scenes creating the very problem they assure us they are working on—for us.  William Anderson can tell you who’s to blame.  And of course, it’s the people who tell us they intend to get to the bottom of it all:

“[A]lmost all of the anger from consumers — if editorial cartoons are an indication of the direction of the rage — is pointed toward oil companies and their executives. On the other hand, members of Congress, which created this current crisis, are calling for the near-destruction of oil companies, imprisonment of executives, as well as a whole new set of taxes that would further reduce available fuel supplies — all in the name, of course, of lowering gasoline prices.

We cannot put these things into the category of bad policies made by well-meaning people. Instead, we are seeing the attempted destruction of one of the most vital industries in our country to be carried out by incompetent, venal tyrants who have no intention of telling the truth — and we have a cynical media acting as the mouthpiece.

There is a way out of this mess — reinstitute free markets in gasoline and oil — but Congress and the President of the United States, not to mention those who are politically connected, have no intention of permitting the markets to work.”

Now, you may be wondering why I’m telling you to stop blaming me.  It’s simple.  I am big oil: I have a diversified portfolio which includes oil stock.  And I won’t be altering my portfolio any time soon.  Write your congress-person and senator.  Tell them to stop screwing around with the market in an effort to make themselves look important.  If supply and demand were the only two elements at work, your price at the pump would be much lower.  If governments would reduce their take on a gallon of gas sold, your price at the pump would be lower still.  (Or are we going to buy into the anti-democratic-republican notion that there is no such thing as tax gouging?)

Yes, I know the oil companies make billions in profit.  That’s why we are supposed to hate them.  But profit is a measure of what a business makes over and above its costs.  The relevant figure is a percetage, not a dollar amount.  Of what figure, we ought to be asking ourselves, are those billions in profit a percentage?  It does no good to talk about billions in profits if those billions amount to .25% in profit.  I wouldn’t urinate on a fire for a man who would into business with the hope of making a mere .25% in profit.

Finally, no matter what you might think about who’s to blame, repeat this to yourself as many times as necessary until you finally get it:  “I am not entitled to low-cost fuel.”

Or anything else for that matter.