America and Race 2007

Back a generation or so ago, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said ” I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” Sadly, it appears that most of the nation is working hard to prevent that from becoming reality. And that includes the government which is charged with ending such discrimination.

Let’s start with the government. Try to do anything with the government, and you will find yourself filling out paperwork. And what always shows up early in that paperwork, as soon as people are involved? That’s right, a demand to know the demographics, including the race of the person(s) concerned. Besides the obvious problem with demanding to know the race of an applicant or participant in a program before deciding on whether to accept them, there is also the poor consideration that not everyone has just one race. My wife and I, for example, are different races, so there is no neat simple box to check for my daughter, and I am personally offended by demands that we identify her by her race. Sure, they can say that they will not use race in their judgments, but the only real way to make sure there is no racial bias is to not ask that question. It simply has no virtue, and no explanation justifies the practice. I certainly understand statistics, and so I know that the bureaucrats will claim the race information is necessary to define demographic parameters. The problem, of course, is the Observer Effect – people change their behavior when they know they are being observed, which means that asking someone’s race, especially when it happens with every government action, influences people to believe that the government makes decisions based in large part, perhaps solely, on race. We also see programs designed to advance one race, preferential treatment which has no justification except by claiming that one race should be treated differently than others. The practice is long-standing and widely accepted, yet is unconscionable on its face.

Society does this as well. Behavior which is unacceptable for one racial group and consequently penalized, may be tolerated and even promoted for another. A good example is language. In the United States, it is reasonable to expect someone to be able to speak English, or to ask for an interpreter. At the very least, someone who knows their command of English is not good, ought to have the good grace to recognize that fact and not become angry at an American for not speaking a foreign language. After all, if one were to go to France as a tourist, one should plan on speaking French or finding an interpreter. While there are many French merchants who speak English, it is a courtesy they extend if they do so, not something which should be expected. The same for traveling to any country; if you do not speak the language, expecting the host country to accommodate you is a bit boorish. Yet here in the United States, foreigners regularly demand that Americans address them in their native tongue, especially Spanish. Speaking bluntly, this is an unmentioned facet in the illegal immigration debate; the refusal of the new arrivals to even try to speak the language, choosing not to just retain their own culture but to superimpose it on the one already in place. And yet, if someone complains about Hispanics who refuse to speak English, they are likely to be called racist, and the people who are the actual offenders are given a pass.

Another societal example is vulgarity. Certain words are universally agreed to be so offensive, that no one can justify their use – unless you are the right race, of course. The notion that epithets should be tolerated if certain races use them is absurd on its face, and yet it is promoted as the civic standard in many towns. Entire sub-cultures have grown up with a confrontational attitude, hostile to all practices which defined courtesy for countless generations. Blatant exhibitions of violent. lewd, misogynist, or racist behavior are common in large portions of the under-30 population, that same demographic which refuses to assimilate to any demand for respect for others or civic ideals, then complains because the society they create is as vulgar and hostile as they are themselves. It’s as if the street gang persona has become pandemic, and the attitudes of race-based gangs permeates to the whole of the racial demographic at large.

Then there is the media. Look at what get promoted, in the NBA for example. In the NBA, the shoe deals and media attention are focused on the likes of Alan Iverson and Ron Artest, gang-wannabe thugs who diminish the game. The NFL recently had enough of the behavior of its worst offenders, yet the media questions whether Adam “Pacman” Jones is being treated fairly; after all, he’s only up for felony indictments for an incident where someone got shot. I mean, Rae Carruth murdered his girlfriend and the NFL did not even fine him for that, so I can sort of see why the media got the idea that criminal behavior was a good thing for role models. And yes, it has to be said that there is a racial component in this; it’s not white athletes who are generally getting gun-crazy and toting drugs in their car, like Dexter Devon Reid, although the Colts show no interest in penalizing Reid for his behavior. It’s just the fashion you see, and it’s almost become expected for black athletes to have drugs and guns with them, so apparently that makes it something to excuse. Millions of kids see and hear this behavior, and what lessons do you think they learn, especially when they comprehend that you are not accountable if your skin is a certain color?

The root of the problem is hostility. Speaking bluntly, there is a vacuum of leadership where it is needed most. I quoted MLK Jr. early in this piece, but the plain fact is that no legitimate black leader of a stature anything like King’s has been seen since his death. Not that there are not qualified black role models, but the people who succeed on their own merits and refuse to play the victim, are attacked as somehow traitors to their own race. Dr. Bill Cosby, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, J.C. Watts, Justice Clarence Thomas, and many other brilliant blacks have been marginalized for not being radical and socialist, which perpetuates the vacuum, as those individuals deemed ‘worthy’ invariably prove quite the opposite, as the careers of Reverends Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson so sadly prove. Racism is quite alive and as venomous as ever. We see it when a Congressman is found with enough money to buy a luxury car stuffed in his freezer, but he keeps his job and privileges because of his race, while another Congressman is hounded out of office on charges which are dubious at best and based on a personal vendetta by a political enemy who hates Conservatives. We see it when a District Attorney willfully hides evidence, because he wants to pursue what he knows to be false charges, solely because the men charged are a certain race and culture, and the plaintiff a different and certain race and culture. We see it when we are told that only one race can possibly act in a ‘racist’ manner, and that another race is ‘entitled’ to lifelong, indeed multi-generational compensation and preferential treatment, solely on unproven accusations. We see it when people here illegally are able to march in public for “rights” they know full well they have no valid claim to, yet they know they will be untouched by the law, simply because they are a certain race. We see it when people who uphold the law are punished for it, because of their race and the race of the people they apprehend. We see it when one minority is refused its due consideration by other minority races, solely because that race practices assimilation and refuses direct confrontation with the majority culture.

And it is this same racism which keeps its own promoters down. Those who teach hostility and confrontation to their children, who urge a wholesale refusal of proven societal values in deference to behavior which even they recognize is futile and self-destructive. Sexual promiscuity destroys families, spreads disease, and leads to unplanned pregnancies and personal dismay, yet certain races promote the “right” to such behavior. Drug use leads to financial loss, penalties from the law and dismissal from employment, poor mental and physical condition and performance, yet certain races excuse or even glorify recreational drug use. Dishonest and confrontational behavior damages existing relationships and prevents development of healthy associations, leads to conflict with law enforcement, employers, and family, and can escalate to fatal consequences, yet again certain races excuse deliberately offensive behavior, even to the point of violence, as a social condition which cannot and should not be redirected to more positive choices. In short, many members of minorities are encouraged to pursue behavior which inevitably leads to loss and unhappiness in the long term, yet when that result occurs, the minority will blame the very culture it rejected, for its own self-created trouble.

Fortunately, the modern day seems to have more individual participation than in earlier years. More and more people refuse to accept the social pressure applied by special interest groups and political manipulators. Just as more people marry outside their race and raise mixed-race children, so too do more people work to escape the cycle of defeat imposed by con artists who profit by the game. The lesson is that neither government nor racial activism programs will help resolve the condition faced by individuals, but only the individuals themselves must choose to think, speak, and act according to their own character and ideals. And when they do so, such individuals generally find that other people share that same character and those same ideals, regardless of cultural heritage or superficial appearance. In my neighborhood, four races share a community with similar values. We all work hard and focus on raising our families, we all love our kids and want to build for the future. We all cooperate in common endeavors and we all ignore the sort of people whose only motives are based on hate and suspicion.

MBA Update

Well, mid-terms are nine and ten days away, so naturally it’s time for me to catch up on some blogging. Seriously, it’s struck me that an update on my school work might serve a purpose.

I’m taking three courses this summer, and here’s how I am doing so far. Each course assigns a total of 1000 points, and so to get an A I need 900 points or better. Here’s the position for each class so far:

Strategic Cost Management

Grades so far:
Reading 1 – 20 out of 20 (100%)
Case Study 1 – 70 out of 75 (93%)
Reading 2 – 18 out of 20 (90%)
Reading 3 – 20 out of 20 (100%)
sub-total: 128 out of 135 (94.8%) Ceiling is 99.3%


Grade pending:
Group Case 1 – worth 75 points

After this grade, 21% of the grades will have been awarded.


Coming up:
Reading 4 – worth 20 points
Group Case 2 – worth 75 points
Mid-Term Exam – worth 300 points

After June, 60.5% of the grades will have been awarded.



Management & Organizational Behavior

Grades so far:
Assignment 1 – 15 out of 15 (100%)
Assignment 2 – 65 out of 65 (100%)
Research Paper Outline – 20 out of 20 (100%)
Quiz 1 – 7 out of 10 (10%)
sub-total: 107 out of 110 (97.3%) Ceiling is 99.7%

Grade pending:
Quiz 2 – worth 10 points
Quiz 3 – worth 10 points

After this grade, 13% of the grades will have been awarded


Coming up:
Quiz 4 – worth 10 points
Quiz 5 – worth 10 points
Mid-Term Exam – worth 150 points

After June, 30% of the grades will have been awarded



Business Statistics and Strategic Cost Management

Grades so far:
Homework DB 1 – 25 out of 25 (100%)
Homework DB 2 – 25 out of 25 (100%)
Case Study 1 – 100 out of 100 (100%)
sub-total: 150 out of 150 (100.0%) Ceiling is 100.0%


Grade pending:
Homework DB 3 – worth 25 points

After this grade, 17.5% of the grades will have been awarded


Coming up:
Homework DB 4 – worth 25 points
Case Study 2 – worth 100 points
Mid-Term Exam – worth 250 points

After June, 55% of the grades will have been awarded


So, at this time it should be obvious that early points do not count all that heavily, yet are important to collect if you want good chances to get an A. The Mid-Terms, no surprise, count heavily, and the pace of work will increase as I move into the final month of the semester. I also need to register for the Fall Semester when registration opens in the last week of June.

“Presidential” Crisis Management

Those who have been to my personal site will have observed that I paused my 'Major League Presidents' competition after 41 contests. Basically, that's because I have a ton of work to do, including my summer classes. But I am also not entirely satisfied with my numbers, and I am considering revisiting them. For this article, I would like to explain what I was trying to do, and to ask for your input on the essential elements.

It's a popular game to rank Presidents, and a lot of publications, schools, websites, and media like to do so. Of course, what happens is usually predictable when you know the leaning of the authors/producers, and so the rankings lose a bit of their usefulness. I have come to the conclusion that part of this comes from two mistakes. First, these polls basically just assign some nominal value to each candidate, total them up and sort them out by their total score. This misses the fact that each President lives and serves in a different set of circumstances, and some Presidents were dealt an easier hand than others. Further, it seems that any President who served prior to 1840 is given an aura of superiority, without much consideration of the fact that everyone has their good and bad points, Presidents included. I don't agree with the notion that a President should be considered better or worse than other Presidents on every point of comparison. Every man who served as President had certain abilities and skills which made them desirable as President in the first place, including those men who became President through the death or resignation of their predecessor. To gain perspective from studying Presidents, we need to watch out for the blunder of making President's one-dimensional.

Some may ask why measure Presidents at all? The present field of candidates demonstrates why, I think. Is Barack Obama or Fred Thompson, with so little experience in office, really a good fit for the office? On the other, how should we weigh the long and often controversial records of people like John McCain or Hillary Clinton? Seeing how real-life Presidents handled their duties could be quite useful in marking desirable traits and warning signs in the candidates, and based on something better than emotion alone.

To sort out any comparison between Presidents, I developed a system which created a series of contests in various times and conditions, where in one case a certain President might prove superior but not necessarily in another set of conditions. Without going into even more annoying specifics, I began by trying to consider what qualities are desirable in a President. To do so, I tried to avoid the subjective - and therefore hopelessly volatile - measures which are so often presented, such as "honesty" and "courage", because such descriptions will vary according to the flavor and mood of the respondent pool. Rather, I suggest that we examine the crises in American History, and how different Presidents dealt with them. So, for this article, I would like you to suggest some crisis in American History, and critique the responses of those Presidents who addressed them. In order to avoid the more emotional responses, I should like to ask that we limit the field to crises no later than 1987.

Thanks. This article is being cross-posted at both Wizbang! and Stolen Thunder.

Women and Men and Societal Lies

I was listening to a popular FM radio station this morning on the way to my bus, and I heard a discussion between a male and female disk jockey about what sort of person each gender finds attractive. The female disk jockey opined, as is common, that men judge women primarily by their physical appearance, while women are more likely to look below the surface. The male disk jockey countered that by noting that women are quick to overlook character flaws in a handsome male, such as Brad Pitt or Russell Crowe. A quick consideration brought me to the guy’s side; a glance at magazine covers, top-name stars and calendar models reveals that women are every bit as attracted to physical beauty as men, but they are apparently more willing to lie about their motive. After all, there’s a reason why firefighter calendars sell out in days, but there is no demand for calendars with accountants known for their integrity. Women first judge men by their appearance just as often as men do women. The difference in actual lewd conduct seems to be far more due to environmental opportunity and peer pressure, than to a superior ethical position for one gender.

Society lies. The male/female stereotypes are one example, but there are many other places where a little contemplation shows the conventional opinion to be far from accurate. Rising gas prices must be the result of corporate greed rather than poor planning by governments, for example, or that the party which historically supported Slavery and resisted Civil Rights legislation, is yet the party which best defends minorities and looks out for their rights. Or the claim that talk radio, which allows direct feedback from listeners, is unfair and biased, while network television, which not only does not allow for counterviews to its positions, but has also been caught in several deliberate frauds in recent years, is still somehow more professional and responsible. Or the notion that only one race can act in a racist manner. Or the claim that the nation which frees a country from a despot, is worse than that dictatorship for protecting itself.

Some Thoughts on the Republican Field

I was watching “Meet the Press” this morning, and it was nothing surprising. This morning, they were discussing the 2008 Presidential elections, and divided the discussion, reasonably enough, into the Republican and Democrat fields. They only discussed the major candidates, so I am afraid there was no mention of Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, or Albus Dumbledore. Where the discussion left balance and approach MSM norms, was the way the press panel discussed Republicans as a whole, and how they discussed Democrats as a whole. That is, the press panel focused on negatives, or potential negatives, for the Republican candidates, and considered only relative positives for the Democrats. In the end, though, that sort of thing tends to work for the Republicans, since the eventual GOP nominee will have to address weak areas early on, while the Democrat will not expect it until after the party convention, at which time – unable to address the most difficult questions – the Democrat nominee may be expected to declare that it is a ‘smear’ to challenge his/her/its claims.

As a result, nothing significant was said about the Democrats; the press still prefers them, and won’t say a word against any of them. The fun came before that, when the press was playing, once again, ’Why No Republican Is Any Good’. Going down the list, the panel played true to their favorite routines;

Fred Thompson won’t last, because he’s just an actor;

Rudy Giuliani is a goner, as soon as Republicans find out what he really stands for;

Mitt Romney is not trusted by Republicans, who are suspicious of his Mormon faith and his position flips;

John McCain is “desperate”, and will do or say anything to stay in the race.

I was almost hysterical with laughter when they finished that review. I mean really, I don’t care much for McCain, but to call him “desperate” two seasons before the first primary even happens? Also, it’s a bit of projection, I think, for the left-leaning press to worry about a Mormon running for President – no Republican I have talked to, considers it a deal-killer for someone to be a Mormon and ask for his vote. As for Giuliani, he’s been very honest about what he believes and how he would govern, so the notion that he’s pretending to be something he is not is rather far-fetched. Were that so, Rudy could have played himself as a strong pro-lifer for the support, but he did not do that.

And then there’s Fred. One thing I love about the present situation, is that the Left, well beyond a doubt, is afraid of Fred Thompson. Very afraid. Enough afraid of him, that even folks who don’t know much about him are interested in finding out what has frightened the media mob so much. We have learned over the years, that the press always hates leaders who are really good for America, so it’s an early endorsement, albeit unintentional, for Thompson that the press is determined to sack him if they can.

Don’t misunderstand me, that I would accept a candidate without giving him/her a good hard look. But neither do I rule someone out just because someone else says nasty things about them. To tell the truth, I even considered the candidacy of Barack Obama early on, but his demonstrated positions on the issues has proven he would not be a good candidate for President, especially on the most critical issues of National Security, reforming Social Security and the Income Tax, on Immigration Reform and Border Security, and on America’s position and responsibility in the world. As for Hillary, she was kind enough to make her positions clear in the past four years, and thereby removed herself from serious consideration before 2006.

For the Republican candidates, I would say that while I have preferences, I am open to just about any of them, so long as they are properly focused on, as I said, those critical issues. And since we are still months away from the primary season, it is fine for a candidate to speak in general terms, if he or she prefers to establish his identity and character with the GOP voters. I do intend to find out where Fred Thompson stands on the key issues, but for now I like him because he seems to grasp the priorities better than anyone else. Running for President is not the same as applying to be a company’s go-fer. Even though the party has done a very poor job of it in recent years, when the President is elected he will lead the party and the party has the duty to pursue the course set by the President. As a result, it is essential not only to know where a potential President stands on the issues, but for the party to get a gut feel for who they would most be willing to trust with the helm. The candidate’s temper, stability, judgment, humor, intelligence, faith, courage … all these things matter more in the early going. To put it simply, Howard Dean’s obvious character flaws blew him off the map in 2004, a lesson both parties should consider before plunging too fast into the 2008 primaries. John McCain lost me not when he sponsored McCain-Feingold, but when he lied about what he had done, and about his opponents. But I could be content with a Romney, a Giuliani, or a Fred Thompson in the Oval Office, provided their answers remain consistent and direct as we move on in the primaries. What the press continually fails to grasp, is the need for a good person, not a clever media-savvy one, to serve as President.

Twelve Million Invisible People

This one is going to set off the rabid rowdies, I know already, but I have to put this in print.

I am a Republican, have been since I was 8 years old and I couldn’t understand why more taxes were supposed to be a good thing for regular folks. I am also a Conservative. I believe in the rights and power of the individual, in limited and accountable government, in strong support of the Constitution as it was actually written, and in promoting and expanding American-style to as many places as possible, because no other system works half as well or promises half as much. I am also a fundamentalist Christian, and I believe we are all accountable for those things put into our power to help or hurt fellow human beings. It is not fear of hell which moves me, half so much as fear that I might act of a hellish character.

All this brings me to the present problems of Border Security and Immigration Reform. And make no mistake, they are separate issues, both important but still definitely separate. One mistake I think both Democrats and Republicans have made in all this brouhaha, is the notion that so many disparate acts should be rolled together in one fix-all bill which in actual fact does none of what it promises. Make no mistake - I do not like the present bill before the Congress, because while a measure of bipartisanship is nice to see, getting together to push out legislation which will confuse and hinder millions of honest people while allowing some dishonest types to play the system for their own advantage is simply a very bad idea. What should be done, is that Congress should lay down the present bill and try again with several bills which each address their own specific function. Of course, that shows the politically distasteful possibility of Democrats publicly supporting a bill which secures our borders, or Republicans openly voting for a bill which requires businesses to be accountable in their hiring practices. For now, I will address only the question of Immigration Reform, for the simple reasons that the most important issue, Securing the Border, seems so obvious that I cannot imagine a serious argument against it. In fact, the only arguments I have read or heard, have been contrived rhetoric which attacks individuals – often falsely – for not doing enough or not doing it fast enough. So I leave that useless bickerfest to those who find it to their taste. Other issues are, to my mind, less important and less of the moment than reforming our Immigration laws and policies, so that is why I focus there.

Back in 1998, my wife’s mother was planning to come from Hong Kong to the United States to visit her daughter and me, but there was a problem with the State Department. You see, once mainland China began talking about Hong Kong’s “reunification” with the mainland in the same way Michael Corleone talked about Fredo’s place in the family, a lot of Hong Kongese started wondering if they might be wise to consider leaving for better climes. To that end, Mikki’s mother came to the United States and began the long process towards residency, the almost-legendary Green Card. She filled out all the forms, paid the fees, and complied with all the requirements, some of which made little sense. But she missed one of the required visits back to the United States, and Mikki explained to me that the INS refused to reconsider her position, at one point stating that the old lady would be arrested if she tried to enter the United States. Widows over sixty years old, of course, are well-known to be the most nefarious class of villain.

So I made an appointment to go talk to an INS officer at the Houston office. It was a hot summer day when I arrived, and I saw about three hundred people standing in a long line in the sun outside the building, a long line that wrapped around the building and into the parking lot. Most of the people in that line were Hispanic, though there were also a lot of Asians and some Africans. Since I had made an appointment, I wanted to make sure the line was for everyone entering the INS building, so I walked around to the entrance and saw a couple staffers smoking outside. One of them saw my white skin and business suit and waved me over. I thought he was confusing me for an employee, so I tried to explain what I wanted, but the guy didn’t care. He waved me into the lobby where the line ran up to a window where a couple clerks were handling the long line. I was directed to an ‘Information’ window where another clerk issued me a Visitor pass and directed me to the elevator. I noticed then, that the building had a large waiting room, with enough seats for more than a hundred people. I asked why the people in the first part of the line couldn’t just wait there, where it was air-conditioned, and the clerk told me it just wasn’t done. I said nothing more, but went up to my appointment, where a polite young man assured me that the INS had no intentions of arresting little old widows and grandmothers, and after a bit more paperwork I had her visit approved. As I left the building and saw all the people still waiting in line, I couldn’t help but wonder how much my appearance as a successful – and white – American had smoothed the wheels of bureaucracy. Certainly I had accomplished more in an hour than my wife’s mother had been able to see in a couple months’ of work, and she was neither lazy nor stupid. I was glad for the result, but uneasy at the apparent double-standard at the INS. Considering that event was years before 9/11, I don’t think it has gotten better for those people who try to follow all the Byzantine rules of the government.

And it is with that impression in mind, that I turn my eyes to the millions of people here illegally in the United States. I am hardly unaware or unconcerned about the effects of illegal migration, on just about every level, so I will start with the negatives of the present situation. Twelve (or more) million people who do not pay for their children’s education, for police and fire protection, for taxes, or for medical care, will severely impact any infrastructure you can name. And it is a plain fact that the number of violent criminals in the United States who came into the country illegally has been rising, and continues to do so at a fast pace. Further, the network of coyotes who traffic in border crossings is ready-made to smuggle in enemies of the United States, and whatever materials or weapons they wish to use. An answer is long overdue.

However, many of those who demand draconian actions are not realistically examining the condition. As my title suggests, they seem to not see the sort of people who are the focus of this issue. Yes, there are terrorists to protect against, but as yet I have not heard of a major Latino group which desires to murder American civilians or overthrow the United States government. Granted, movements like the Reconquista and racist groups like La Raza are problematic, but if we call them ‘terrorists’, we not only start to blur the difference between vulgar but nonviolent activists, and people who bomb schools and cut heads off as part of their ideology, but we would also be forced to declare many leading Democrats to be ‘terrorists’. The rhetoric is too similar to ignore the shared meme. Also, most Latinos are neither violent nor opposed to nominal American community practices. The Latin culture is often family-centered, loyal to Christian morals and standards, and as a whole compatible with standard Western values and beliefs.

At this point, I have to stop and acknowledge that yes, I am speaking of the illegals as basically Latino, though there are other races and cultures involved, because statistically most of the illegals are from Mexico, and from Central and South America. I also agree that I am stereotyping to some degree, but I think that in the general sense, my descriptions are accurate. I do not mean to suggest that we should not worry about millions of uneducated and unskilled foreigners in our country, who do not speak the language and do not try to assimilate into the American cultural fabric. Yet I have read enough history and heard enough from first-generation immigrants, to know that every group which comes to America in large numbers tends to be unskilled and uneducated, because the one who do have skills and knowledge are able to do well without coming to America. The United States has always taken the apparent dregs of the world. The Irish, the Polish, the African, and the Asians were all in their turn described as “too many”, “unskilled”, “uneducated and uneducatable", and they lived in cultural islands and ghettoes away from the majority for a generation. Ever hear of Little Italy? Little Warsaw? Little Vietnam? Such communities are everywhere, and they are not new. I have noticed that it is usually the second generation, the children, who start to assimilate and become part of the nation and in so doing add their contribution and shape the nation’s future. One reason my own father made a point of getting a Masters degree in Mathematics, was because growing up he got angry at hearing how bad the Irish were at Education, and that higher-order studies were impossible for a “mick”. I don’t mean to imply anything about the people who find the current illegals undesirable as a class of person, except that what is happening now has happened before. It is something which can be corrected, but only with time and only by understanding the Historical context of Immigration to America.

The reason, more than anything else, that illegals enter the United States, is a better life. No, that does not make it all right to ignore the law, but it does mean that illegal entry into the United States will continue to be a crisis until the root causes which spur illegal migration are addressed in substance:

[] The Mexican Economy and Infrastructure
[] The U.S. Immigration Bureaucracy
[] Assimilation Strategy
[] Law Enforcement Strategy

Each of those is a sub-topic worthy of its own discussion, so I will leave them stated simply for the moment. For here and for now, it is important to understand that to address this problem in any fashion which will lead to a durable and practical solution, we must choose a party which is best minded to address the matter rationally, we must support the leadership of that party and work to craft corrections and enforce functional law. We must clear out inefficient and unethical practices in the government’s offices, and we must create avenues of communication which help foreign nationals understand that compliance with the law is in their best long-term interest, and that of their children. New proposed legislation must be designed with those principles in place to guard against repeating error or creating obstacles for people who have already complied with the law, and it should encourage people to begin to comply if they have not done so already. The forces of law enforcement must be encouraged to work cooperatively to advance the cases of law-abiding immigrants and protect the rights of all persons involved, to the degree that their conduct warrants such attention, and to communicate a simple, clear message regarding rewards for compliance and punishment for defiance, for businesses as well as individuals.

We cannot simply act as if twelve to twenty million people are invisible.

So Waddaya Want?

OK, from the start I admit that I am not the best candidate to play peacemaker, but the matter is too important to ignore. Conservatives, various flavors of Republicans, and more than a few flame-throwers just out to stir up the fighting have been going after each other on and off again for more than a year now. There have been manifestos demanding surrender by the majority to a rabid few, there have been some folks so offended that they say this is the end of the Conservative Movement, there have been good-faith efforts by some very fine people to try to mend fences,
there have been gentle reminders that some folks have gone very angry without checking the facts, and some have pointed out deliberate attempts to lie about what certain officials have actually said on an issue.

A depressingly large number of Conservatives have, once again, taken up the ridiculous chant that losing is winning if it rids the Movement of ‘impure’ members. That Republicans who survived losing seats would decide to become more Conservative (I warned last year that the opposite would happen. When they lose seats, the GOP starts thinking the public wants more Liberals, and they start acting that way. I also warned the readers long ago, that the My-Way-Or-Else Conservatives were the greatest threat to the Republican majority in Congress, and that the Democrats would be happy to accept Napoleon’s advice, ‘do not interrupt your enemy when he is making a great mistake’.)

So, here we are. Republicans are the minority party, the public does not trust anyone in office because pretty much all the character attacks left marks, some of the best-qualified people are staying out or leaving the work because of how anyone gets treated, who seriously tries to tackle the hard jobs, and the tone of debate on issues has gotten so foul that no discussion ever lasts even an hour before personal attacks begin.

You did that. Yes, you. So did I. The cast is made up of folks who either caused the fights and derailed the discussion, or they stood by and let it happen. Yes, that’s a generality, there are some few people of honor who tried their best to stop the implosion, but they were ridiculed or ignored. Enough people were hell-bent on taking the Conservative Movement over the cliff, that we are now flying headlong towards the rocks. My question here, is what we do now.

Don’t bother with the issues here. As I said, the Republicans are in the minority of Congress, and even Republicans would rather heckle the President than help him get work done, so it’s not as if we are in charge of the legislation train. And Conservatives? Shoot, a bunch of them are going around pointing fingers at the others and saying they can’t call themselves Conservatives unless they troop along with the mob, and “purge” Conservatism of anyone they deem unworthy. There’s a phrase for that: Malignant Narcissism. It makes Conservatives a flea on the back of a very small dog in a very big dog pound. It’s going to be a while until Conservatives have the clout to get D.C. to take them seriously, and I hope we can all agree that is not a healthy thing.

The question here, really, is what everyone wants. To some degree, I think we feel the need to vent, to let loose some frustration and to find someone who will listen to us. I could point fingers (and you know how much I am tempted), but really the only thing we can do now is start to survey the damage and figure out how to rebuild. But even before that, we’re going to have to get the screamers to give it a rest, so we can find out what options are even possible.

The Sopranos? Get Real!

The hit series on HBO ran out its string last night, and this morning a lot of folks are talking about the ending, which is doubtless how everyone with the show wanted things to go. Me, I never watched the “Sopranos”, largely because I did not feel the need to shell out money to a cable company for something of such variable quality and annoying scheduling. But even if it had been on my set, I don’t know that I would have watched. OK, part of that is because I am in school again, and spent most of yesterday doing Cost Analysis and Quant homework (and a couple hours trying to treat a rash on my dog and to find out what was causing it). But another part is because movies and shows about the Mob are getting further and further away from the reality. While “wise guys” and the Mafia are still around, especially on the East Coast, they are a small minority of Organized Crime in America, and they are losing ground. The vanguard of Organized Crime is both more savvy and dangerous than the old guard ever could claim.

There are six types of Organized Crime groups generally operating in the United States or targeting Americans:

[] Race-based groups (like the Bloods and the Crips, the Yakuza, or Aryan groups)
[] Nationality-based groups (like the Yardies from Jamaica, or the Mexican Syndicate)
[] Professional Crime Organizations (like various Triad groups, the Moran family, or the Russian Bratva)
[] Religious organizations (like the Michigan ‘Militia’, Al Qaeda, or Lebaron’s “family”)
[] Street Gangs (small local operations)
[] Political Crime Organizations (like the Earth Liberation Front and ALF)

These organizations participate in a combination of five key types of activity:

[] Vice (prostitution, pornography, gambling)
[] Fraud (credit card, internet, real estate)
[] Drugs (distribution routes and bulk manufacture)
[] Robbery (especially small businesses)
[] Contract Violence (against rival groups, for causes, assassinations, or against threats like witnesses)

The key difference between the old-guard Mafia and modern Organized Crime, is that the new guard has learned to much better conceal its actions, to act unseen by normal people. That does not mean that OC groups have given up violent methods, however. Consider these real-life events and the possible TV show or movie plots which could be made from them:

** A gang sets a bomb off under a van belonging to a bombmaker for a rival gang.

** Hurricane Katrina sends hundreds of gang members out of their home turf as refugees in another major city, where they get into turf wars with established street gangs when they try to carve out new territory.

** Home invasion gangs target ethnic business owners with families, especially young children, who are kidnapped and held while the parents are compelled to collect a ransom. The families are dissuaded from going to the police by a suspicion of an authority alien to them, as well as reminders from the gang that while the police will do their reports and leave, the gang can come back at any time.

** Control of illegal aliens being considered a valuable commodity, gangs will hijack delivery of illegal immigrants in bloody raids.

** Women from Asia are coerced to serve as sex slaves for years, in order to “pay” for their trip to America. Such women are often sold as “wives” in black-market transactions.

** Merchandise stolen from luggage at airports is fenced through local retailers, along with many bootlegged products, such as fake designer clothing and electronics.

And that’s just what has gone on in Houston in the past ten years. You think Tony Soprano was ruthless? Next to these guys, he’s a pansy, and a fictitious one at that.

MLP Round 041

Game Scores:

T Roosevelt at McKinley, 37-33 McKinley
Garfield at Washington, 36-30 Washington
Fillmore at GW Bush, 36-31 GW Bush
Lincoln at Clinton, 33-23 Lincoln
Ford at F Roosevelt, 33-31 FDR
Reagan at Polk, 37-32 Reagan
Jefferson at Cleveland, 34-31 Jefferson
Truman at Taft, 33-32 Taft
Kennedy at JQ Adams, 29-27 JFK
Madison at J Adams, 30-24 J Adams
Taylor at Hoover, 28-23 Taylor
GH Bush at Jackson, 28-25 Jackson
Monroe at Tyler, 30-29 Tyler
Grant at Eisenhower, 30-25 Ike
Nixon at Van Buren, 23-21 Van Buren
Hayes at Coolidge, 31-22 Hayes
Carter at Arthur, 26-21 Arthur
W Harrison at B Harrison, 27-22 W Harrison
A Johnson at Harding, 27-22 Harding
Buchanan at Wilson, 26-25 Buchanan
L Johnson at Pierce, 23-18 LBJ

After playing each of the other Presidents once, one President has one loss, another two have 2 losses, another four have 6 wins, and another two each have 2 wins.

The new Rankings are as follows:

After Forty-One Rounds

.1. McKinley (40-1) beats TR
.2. Washington (39-2) beats Garfield
.3. GW Bush (39-2) beats Fillmore
.4. Lincoln (40-3) beats Clinton
.5. Reagan (35-6) beats Polk
.6. Ford (36-5) loses to FDR
.7. Teddy Roosevelt (34-7) loses to McKinley
.8. Jefferson (32-9) beats Cleveland
.9. Polk (32-9) loses to Reagan
.10. FDR (29-12) beats Ford

.11. JFK (29-12) beats JQA
.12. Truman (29-12) loses to Taft
.13. Fillmore (29-12) loses to GW Bush
.14. J Adams (27-14) beats Madison
.15. Cleveland (27-14) loses to Jefferson
.16. Taylor (26-15) beats Hoover
.17. Taft (25-16) beats Truman
.18. Jackson (23-18) beats GH Bush
.19. Eisenhower (23-18) beats Grant
.20. Monroe (23-18) loses to Tyler

.21. Tyler (19-22) beats Monroe
.22. Nixon (20-21) loses to Van Buren
.23. Garfield (20-21) loses to Washington
.24. Hayes (18-23) beats Coolidge
.25. JQ Adams (18-23) loses to JFK
.26. Arthur (16-25) beats Carter
.27. W Harrison (15-26) beats B Harrison
.28. GH Bush (15-26) loses to Jackson
.29. Harding (12-29) beats A Johnson
.30. Madison (11-30) loses to J Adams

.31. Wilson (11-30) loses to Buchanan
.32. Clinton (10-31) loses to Lincoln
.33. Grant (10-31) loses to Ike
.34. Carter (10-31) loses to Arthur
.35. Van Buren (7-34) beats Nixon
.36. Buchanan (6-35) beats Wilson
.37. LBJ (6-35) beats Pierce
.38. Coolidge (7-34) loses to Hayes
.39. Hoover (6-35) loses to Taylor
.40. B Harrison (6-35) loses to W Harrison
.41. A Johnson (2-39) loses to Harding
.42. Pierce (2-39) loses to LBJ

Gang Warily, Drummond

That handsome shield you see at the top is the ancestral coat of arms for the family Drummond. Normally, I would not pay all that much attention to heraldry, as it is as dead a matter for most people as studying Latin, or expecting Al Gore to actually cite his sources for the outrageous claims he makes. But I have discovered a bit about my family’s beginnings, which seems strangely familiar to me.

The first known Drummond appears to be a fellow named Maurice, the commander of the vessel which saved Edgar the Atheling and his sisters from the usurper Harold. Maurice, it seems, was the son of George, and a grandson of Andrew, the king of Hungary. The passage was difficult and it seems Maurice was pursued fro a while by Harold’s men. When the passengers were brought safely to Scotland, it is said that for his gallantry in the mission, Maurice was given the name Drum-onde, which in Gaelic means a high wave, and his coat of arms features three wavy bars to symbolize the sunset waves of the North Sea. Fanciful perhaps, but interesting to me.

It is also interesting to note that Sir Malcolm de Drummond was attached firmly to the cause of Robert the Bruce, and at Bannockburn it was Malcolm who devised the way to unseat the feared English cavalry – by spreading caltrops before the horses. Explaining his plan to Robert before the battle, Drummond warned the men who would fight near him to “gang warily” – that is, to watch their step since he would have caltrops all over the place. That’s how that motto got onto the family seal.

The Drummonds made a name for themselves as stout defenders of Scotland’s freedom from England. They were also strong supporters of the Jacobites, and found themselves in many battles because of it. Reading through the family legends from ancient times, and recalling stories my father passed along from our recent years, I was struck by how often my family has been loyal to causes, well beyond the point where men more frail in their convictions would flee. I was also well aware that my family gets into scraps far more often than ordinary folk do, and well beyond the number which prudence would commend. With that in mind, it seems to me no surprise at all to find that I am no deserter from President Bush, simply because turning coats has gained fashion among Republicans, nor that my words should – often – cause a protest and controversy.

I am my father’s son. And near as I can tell, that has been our tradition for going on eight centuries, at the least.

MLP Round 040

Game Scores:

McKinley at Reagan, 35-31 McKinley
GW Bush at Taylor, 37-30 GW Bush
Eisenhower at Lincoln, 37-28 Lincoln
Polk at Ford, 35-32 Ford
Washington at Grant, 34-25 Washington
B Harrison at T Roosevelt, 33-23 TR
Tyler at Jefferson, 34-28 Jefferson
Wilson at Fillmore, 31-21 Fillmore
F Roosevelt at Madison, 30-25 FDR
Van Buren at Kennedy, 32-26 JFK
A Johnson at Truman, 32-22 Truman
Cleveland at L Johnson, 32-21 Cleveland
Harding at J Adams, 30-26 J Adams
Jackson at Monroe, 32-30 Jackson
Taft at Garfield, 30-29 Taft
Pierce at Nixon, 30-21 Nixon
Arthur at GH Bush, 29-28 Arthur
JQ Adams at Carter, 32-26 JQA
Clinton at Hayes, 28-23 Hayes
Hoover at W Harrison, 27-25 Hoover
Coolidge at Buchanan, 25-19 Coolidge

One President has one loss, another two have 2 losses, another two have 5 wins, and another two each have 2 wins.

The new Rankings are as follows:

After Forty Rounds

.1. McKinley (39-1) beats Carter, Madison, Ford, Reagan
.2. Washington (38-2) beats Buchanan, Hoover, Lincoln, Grant
.3. GW Bush (38-2) beats Reagan, TR, W Harr, Taylor
.4. Lincoln (39-3) beats Garfield, Grant, Ike, loses to Washington
.5. Ford (36-4) beats Hoover, B Harr, Polk, loses to McKinley
.6. Teddy Roosevelt (34-6) beats Wilson, Hoov, B Harr loses to GWB
.7. Reagan (34-6) beats Hoover, B Harr, loses to GW Bush, McKinley
.8. Polk (32-8) beats GH Bush, Carter, Madison, loses to Ford
.9. Jefferson (31-9) beats J Adams, Arthur, Jackson, Tyler
.10. Truman (29-11) beats Pierce, Van Buren, JQA, A Johnson


.11. Fillmore (29-11) beats Ike, Clinton, Coolidge, Wilson
.12. FDR (28-12) beats Monroe, GH Bush, Carter, Madison
.13. JFK (28-12) beats Tyler, Pierce, Van Buren, loses to Cleveland
.14. Cleveland (27-13) beats Harding, JFK, Nixon, LBJ
.15. J Adams (26-14) beats GH Bush, Harding, loses to Jeff, Monroe
.16. Taft (24-16) beats Van Buren, JQA, A Johnson, Garfield
.17. Taylor (25-15) beats Clinton, Coolidge, Wilson, loses to GW Bush
.18. Jackson (22-18) beats Nixon, LBJ, Monroe, loses to Jefferson
.19. Monroe (23-17) beats J Adams, Arthur, loses to FDR, Jackson
.20. Eisenhower (22-18) beats Buch, Hayes, loses to Fillmore, Lincoln

.21. Nixon (20-20) beats Tyler, Pierce, loses to Jackson, Cleveland
.22. Garfield (20-20) beats A Johnson, Grant, loses to Lincoln, Taft
.23. JQ Adams (18-22) beats A John, Carter, loses to Taft, Truman
.24. Tyler (18-22) beats LBJ, loses to JFK, Nixon, Jefferson
.25. Hayes (17-23) beats Grant, Clinton, loses to Washington, Ike
.26. Arthur (15-25) beats LBJ, GH Bush, loses to Jefferson, Monroe
.27. GH Bush (15-25) loses to Polk, FDR, J Adams, Arthur
.28. W Harrison (14-26) beats Cool, Wilson, loses to GWB, Hoover
.29. Harding (11-29) beats Pierce, Van B, loses to Cleve, J Adams
.30. Madison (11-29) beats B Harr, loses to McKinley, Polk, FDR

.31. Wilson (11-29) loses to TR, W Harr, Taylor, Fillmore
.32. Clinton (10-30) beats Buchanan, loses to Taylor, Fillmore, Hayes
.33. Grant (10-30) loses to Hayes, Lincoln, Garfield, Washington
.34. Carter (10-30) loses to McKinley, Polk, FDR, JQA
.35. Coolidge (7-33) beats Buch, loses to W Harr, Taylor, Fillmore
.36. Hoover (6-34) beats W Harr, loses to Ford, Reagan, TR
.37. Van Buren (6-34) loses to Taft, Truman, Harding, JFK
.38. B Harrison (6-34) loses to Madison, Ford, Reagan, TR
.39. LBJ (5-35) loses to Arthur, Jackson, Tyler, Cleveland
.40. Buchanan (5-35) loses to Washington, Ike, Clinton, Coolidge
.41. A Johnson (2-38) loses to JQA, Garfield, Taft, Truman
.42. Pierce (2-38) loses to Truman, Harding, JFK, Nixon

MLP Round 039

Game Scores:

Ford at McKinley, 37-32 McKinley
W Harrison at GW Bush, 36-31 GW Bush
Lincoln at Washington, 36-35 Washington
Reagan at B Harrison, 37-22 Reagan
T Roosevelt at Hoover, 30-23 TR
Jefferson at Jackson, 33-28 Jefferson
Madison at Polk, 33-21 Polk
Fillmore at Coolidge, 29-22 Fillmore
Carter at F Roosevelt, 33-22 FDR
Kennedy at Pierce, 31-18 JFK
Truman at JQ Adams, 30-27 Truman
Nixon at Cleveland, 31-28 Cleveland
Taylor at Wilson, 30-25 Taylor
GH Bush at J Adams, 30-26 J Adams
Hayes at Eisenhower, 30-29 Ike
Monroe at Arthur, 29-24 Monroe
A Johnson at Taft, 30-23 Taft
L Johnson at Tyler, 28-21 Tyler
Garfield at Grant, 27-25 Garfield
Buchanan at Clinton, 25-21 Clinton
Harding at Van Buren, 30-23 Harding


One President has one loss, another two have 2 losses, another three have 5 wins, and another two each have 2 wins.

Get A Job? Plan For A Career!

I was reading through the new issue of BusinessWeek, and came across an article about problems for a “generation” of folks in Japan. Well, that sounded serious, so I read through the thing. Turns out, “generation” was rather an exaggeration, and the article implied that Japan meant to use some rather Socialist practices to “fix” the problem, which seems to me a bit worse than the problem it is meant to address. I suspect that a lot of folks are somehow unclear on how employment works in a free society.

That is not as uncommon as you might think. Socialism and it’s more radical brother, Communism, are founded in the insipid notion that artificial controls on an economy will not prevent it from effective function, a notion long disproved by the histories of the Iron Curtain countries, and “worker’s paradise” locations like Cuba and North Korea. Labor unions, which were created for good reason and which have served great causes in the past, have also killed strong companies through their greed and mindless demands. And an appalling number of people under 30 seem to think that their company “owes” them their job, benefits, raises, and promotions. And they get bitter when reality refuses to let them live like Paris Hilton. Which explains a lot about why so many otherwise-sane people can support Democrats, but that’s another topic.

After reaching this point, I realized that it might actually be necessary to state the obvious. That whole ’Common sense is not very common’ idea. Take that BusinessWeek story on Japan, for example. The first guy they cited was a fellow by the name of Sadaaki Nehashi, who has a degree in Marine Biology but is working as a contract worker, effectively as a mailboy. All right, I have had hard times too, working for jobs well below my skill set, but it occurred to me that no one seemed to ask Sadaaki if he had checked with potential employers before getting his degree, to make sure that it mad sense to get a specialized degree like Marine Biology. Yes, the world needs Marine Biologists, and I am sure that Sadaaki Nehashi is a smart guy, but nowhere in the article did it seem that anyone asked whether he had some responsibility for his own financial condition. In the interest of disclosure, I will say that my undergraduate degree was in English, and that was a very poor panning decision on my part. And it cost me in my early work, as a direct consequence of my choices. That’s life folks, good things and bad things both happen, but some of them are the result of your choices, and simply are not someone else’s responsibility.

Basically, there are four kinds of jobs. There’s the temp job, which you do for a short time and get basic pay, which is fine for students and for a little pocket money, but you can’t really live on it. There’s the pay-the-bills job, where you take the job you can get fast, because you have bills to pay and don’t really have any options. A lot of folks go this route, and start down a dismal road that they never enjoy. There’s the vocation, which is a fancy word for finding a job that pays you to do what you love; most of us never have a chance at that job. So what’s left? The career.

What sets the career apart from the other types of jobs, is that you plan ahead for it, you acquire the specific skills it needs, you seek jobs which fit together in a pattern to show improved ability and accomplishments in that field, and you build a network that opens the opportunities for you. It takes more thinking, more commitment, and yes, more work, to create a career rather than just work a job, but in the end, the career is more satisfying, more rewarding financially and in opportunities, and the career is more stable.

Here’s how it works. To get a job, you simply find someone willing to hire you for a job you are willing to do under the proposed conditions of employment, and – boom – you have a job. In most states, the employment is ‘at will’, meaning your boss can fire you or you can quit, at anytime. You would work this job until you did something to get fired, you decided to quit, or unless your employer offered you another position in the company, which you accepted. Generally, because jobs are not that hard to get, it means you could be replaced easily by someone who doesn’t need much training, and so the company won’t offer you much money for the job. Also, since you were hired for a specific task, you won’t be a decision-maker in the company, and so you will often feel – correctly – that you have no real influence or power.

To build a career, you have to be able to make decisions independently, and to show discipline. You will have to decide your field, find out what is needed to get work in that field, earn the necessary educational certification for it (and plan on more school later; most serious fields require an advanced degree or Continuing Education Units), keep your grades up and look for entry positions in companies with openings in your field of interest. The first few years in that work, you will probably not be paid all the much, but you will make contacts with people who can either get you a better position within the company, or an interview with someone who will offer you a better opportunity. After that, your work will make your name, open doors, and buy your house. It’s a long process, takes a lot of work and a dedication to a core made of Integrity, Diligence, Inspiration, and Optimism. It also helps to enjoy life and have a sense of humor. You will likely find that the same skills which build a good career, will also help you find a good spouse and build a family. More work, but also well worth it.

Somewhere along the way, you will need a dog.

Good luck.

A Modest Proposal For Conservatives

Emotions among Conservatives have run high at times during the Bush Administration. Let’s – for once – step aside from the yelling and start with common ground. I think it is reasonable, as a starting proposition, to contend that everyone with a strong opinion on the issues under debate has thought about them at some length, and their emotion is the result of their concern for this country. So, for the first step in this article, I propose that we leave the weapons of ad hominem and character attacks outside the door; we do not need them, and they are not useful for the purpose of discussing the issues.

If that can be done (sadly, a doubtful prospect at the moment), I would also suggest that we should also leave behind the baggage of past debate. Guilt trips are not effective debating tools, and we will have quite enough on our hands to even begin working on the issues which matter most. I would further submit that, especially as Republicans are the minority party in Congress, and even among Republicans there is a wide range of opinions on certain issues, we must demonstrate a reasonable tolerance for different opinions. No, you don’t have to agree to a bill you find unacceptable, but at the same time it is suicidal for a faction to refuse to discuss points of a bill under consideration, or to refuse the possibility that getting some of what you want is better than getting none.

Let us also forego that practice of mis-portraying the other side. Let a proponent say what they would like to see done, why they think it will work, and how they would see that put into action. Those opposed or unconvinced could then properly ask for information, challenge assumptions and faulty contentions, and – most important – offer feasible solutions. This would be, of course, much lengthier and complex than the present smear-fest we see on radio shows and web forums, and it would require a much higher level of maturity than is usually presented in these debates, but it would have the salient effect of actually moving the debate forward. Deal with what people are actually and genuinely believe, rather than some ‘gotcha’ strawmen, and there is much better foundation for building a real solution.

Since Border Security and Immigration Reform are two of the most contentious issues at present, I think we might next consider the key problems to address in those issues. My list is not the be-all, end-all, but I think we could use it as a launch point for the forum to follow in this thread:

1. The presence of at least 12 million foreigners in the United States who arrived illegally and who continue to stay here illegally, represents a serious problem for the United States, which must be addressed in a manner which, in effect, closes the door to such numbers of illegal immigration.

2. There are organized groups who would desire to attack the United States, either as criminals (gangs) or as terrorists. This is the chief reason why the borders must be secured against entry by foreign nationals, especially organized operations.

3. The Immigration laws of the United States simply do not work as intended. Not only is there a serious enforcement problem with the laws already in place, but those immigrants who try to comply with the bureaucracy find the rules illogical, punitive, and arbitrary.

4. There are a number of American businesses which have no intention of complying with U.S. law regarding the hiring of illegals. Therefore, there is a strong market able and willing to subsidize illegals, and any legislation considered needs to contend with this problem.

5. There are a number of state and local authorities who oppose federal efforts to control illegal immigration. Substantive legislation should consider this interference, and legal recourse should be prepared for these conditions.

6. The overwhelming majority of these illegal immigrants are non-violent and could function as valuable members of society under the right circumstances. Accordingly, any plan to address the long-term situation must provide an opportunity for eventual citizenship for those families and individuals who can demonstrate the ability and will to act responsibly under American law, allegiance to the United States, and penalties for their illegal entry. Any plan must consider legal applicants first and with strong preference.

7. Because the Democrats can be counted on to oppose any substantive solution to Illegal Immigration, Republicans must maintain a united public face. Consensus therefore is the sine qua non for Republican in-house debate, and under no circumstances should a Republican, no matter his opinion, commit an action or statement which weakens the GOP’s position or advances the Democrats’ agenda.

All of these have been considered or proposed before, but unfortunately have been ignored by opponents, mis-characterized or mis-stated, or simply mocked. We have the means to find answers, but only if we act like the adults in this debate. We surely cannot expect the Liberals to even try to resolve these problems, and ignoring the problem is simply out of the question.

MLP Round 038

Game Scores:

McKinley at Madison, 33-25 McKinley
GW Bush at T Roosevelt, 37-33 GW Bush
Grant at Lincoln, 37-28 Lincoln
B Harrison at Ford, 35-23 Ford
Washington at Hayes, 36-28 Washington
Hoover at Reagan, 31-26 Reagan
Arthur at Jefferson, 34-26 Jefferson
Polk at Carter, 30-26 Polk
Clinton at Fillmore, 314-23 Fillmore
F Roosevelt at GH Bush, 30-28 FDR
Cleveland at Kennedy, 33-32 Cleveland
Van Buren at Truman, 32-25 Truman
Coolidge at Taylor, 30-25 Taylor
J Adams at Monroe, 31-30 Monroe
Eisenhower at Buchanan, 28-19 Ike
Jackson at L Johnson, 29-21 Jackson
JQ Adams at Taft, 30-29 Taft
Tyler at Nixon, 30-29 Nixon
Garfield at A Johnson, 27-19 Garfield
Wilson at W Harrison, 25-23 W Harrison
Pierce at Harding, 27-25 Harding


One President has one loss, another three have 2 losses, another three have 5 wins, and another two each have 2 wins.

The Knives of False Patriots

Readers may recall I used to write for a site called Polipundit. Nice place, often producing thoughtful ideas by the writers and readers. Good for the mind, good for the Conservative movement.

Then President Bush did the unforgivable: he used his own authority and opinion. Turns out some of the folks at Polipundit.com thought they should be able to control the President, that those 62 million votes for Bush in 2004 didn’t count unless he did as he was told.

I pointed this out, and immediately found myself shown the door by the site owner. And I was also falsely accused of all sorts of terrible things by people whose notion of “Debate” begins with character assassination.

At that same time, other writers on the site were also evicted, for having their own minds. It made some noise, and Polipundit’s readership dropped significantly. I found a new home at Wizbang, went back to school, was diagnosed with Cancer and got a dog. Meanwhile, the environment at Polipundit, sad to say, devolved to an echo chamber.

A few days ago, I wrote about a faction within the Republican Party, which I contend seeks to deny open debate on the key issues, but instead demands that they alone speak for the party and Conservatives. I rather strongly disagree with their contention that the extremists who resort to name-calling and threats are somehow the “base” of the Conservative Movement. I discovered today that I was referenced by Oak Leaf at Polipundit.com. The strange thing is, Oak Leaf mentioned my post but did not link to it. Instead, he linked to a post an another site which attacked not only my contention, but lobbed more than a few insults at me.

Interestingly enough, neither Oak Leaf nor the writer he praised made any attempt to address the contention in substance, and what’s more, I was amused to discover that the tactics employed by the readers in the comments amply demonstrated the problem in the tactics embraced by “the base”.

In that section, no effort was made to address the question, as I said, but I was called, just in passing, these sorts of things:

“Blind Loyalty”

“mindless republican”

“What Al Gore is to Global warming, DJ is to Bush/Republicans”

“the most appalling example of party hack i have EVER read”

“his clueless world view.”

This is not debate, nor does it seek to find common ground among Republicans or build a consensus. Such behavior by these people has gone on for several years now, prompted every time the extremists do not get what they demand, or any time the President dares to show his own mind on an issue. This is not to say, at all, that disagreement is not allowed; ironically, these character butchers try to shout down anyone with an opinion different from their own, yet they are quick to play the victim whenever they are called on it, a tactic we all to quite reasonably rebuke when the Democrats did it. Putting it bluntly, these people are trying to kill the Republican Party out of spite, and if they do they will try to frame President Bush for what they did. They trashed GOP control of Congress in order to ‘send a message’, and they are simply not willing to address the issues in substance or context.

Pray to God they do not become more powerful. The Republican Party should be the party of ideas and open discussion, not malignant thuggery.

The Impossible Just Takes Longer

I love reading books, and at one time my greatest love was Science Fiction. But wheeeeeew, there’s a lot of bad Sci-Fi out there, and I don’t mean just the fanfic. Sometimes that comes down to bad story-telling, but more often it’s because the author misjudged what things would be like, and cast a world which was obsolete soon after the publication of his story. In a perverse manner, I find it fascinating to read some of these visions of the future, and consider what happened to send them off-track. I am happy to say that a principal cause of the mistakes comes from the writer being too pessimistic in many cases; a lot of future histories assumed the continued rise of tyrannies like the Soviet Union, central-government bureaucracy, and the failure of capitalist economic and ecological systems. That is, the good guys really do win most of the battles, and God watches over us with grace and care. I don’t suppose I need to mention that many failed predictions fail to consider the power of faith and the intervention of God in human affairs. As if we managed half a century of intercontinental nuclear weapons stockpiles without blowing ourselves off the planet because we were, what, a mature race which never made big mistakes?

That’s not to say everything is better. The world of the 21st Century is no Nirvana or Utopia. We have millions of offenders in sordid varieties of criminal behavior which were far fewer in ages past. Slavery and Piracy have once again become common practices in parts of the world. We face serious threats from groups which eagerly contemplate the deliberate extinction of entire classes of ‘inconvenient’ people. Financially, the divide between Rich and Poor remains unacceptably wide, especially since being poor still includes threats from Famine, Disease, and dismal prospects for the rising generation. And while long proven invalid, many people still embrace Fascism, Communism, Caste systems and Racial/Gender prejudice. And we must add to this the increasingly radical tide of violent protests, from the insanity of individuals who speak for the ‘sanctity’ of life by bombing buildings, people who show their love of Diversity by vandalizing the offices and property of the opposing political party, and people who “support” their nation by cheering on monsters who want to kill innocent civilians, in the name of ‘dissent’. We have schools which neglect core academic skills in favor of politically correct curriculae, we see media which sometimes showcases entertainment which is vulgar and promotes immorality and violence, and we see a judicial system which rewards the side which has the most clever lawyer, but does not protect the innocent or encourage conscientious idealism. We obviously have a lot of work to do.

So we seem to be looking at a future somewhere between ‘Star Trek’ and ‘1984’. But in general, I’d say the good outweighs the bad. I was diagnosed with a form of Cancer which a generation ago meant dying within a couple years with no hope at all, but which today can be treated in a number of ways with excellent survival prospects. Systems like the Amber Alert, Code Adam, and Escape School provide the means for children to avoid abduction, and if abducted, for law enforcement to find them quickly. In most developed nations, the rule of law protects the rights of citizens far more consistently than ever before, and more nations have effective constitutions which make government accountable to the citizens than ever before. A person in the United States who is willing to make the effort, has better educational and occupational opportunities than ever before. My daughter, who is the result of a mixed-race marriage, has better reason than ever before to expect that she will not be punished for her race or gender, but allowed the same opportunity as anyone else to show her ability and character. Conduct by elected officials which used to be passed-over as ‘the way things are done’, is now regularly scrutinized by law enforcement, and when a crime is committed arrests are made and the official is tried in court. We have safer cars with better fuel efficiency than ever before, we have phones and music players that can go virtually anywhere conveniently and at low cost, more Americans own homes than ever before, and more nations are allowing private investment and ownership of property than ever before.

Sure, there are obstacles, problems, and challenges. But while we will never create a perfect world, we have the opportunity to improve everything along the way. It’s not impossible, and even the parts which are impossible, will not always be so.

Handing Weapons to Our Enemies

One of the strangest phenomenae I have seen in my life, is the way political sorts will swoon for a person at one point, then turn completely against them later. Mood swings worthy of a mental institution have become commonplace in recent years, and never more so than the present “Love You/Always Hated You” hypocrisy of the Right Wing.

Writing for Salon magazine, Glenn Greenwald is unfortunately all too aware of the hypocrisy, and worse for the Right, he has documented it in his latest article. While he pursues the obligatory “Bush is evil, inept, and a total failure” meme which is required of all Liberal writers these days, Greenwald is devastatingly ruthless in showing the way many Conservative pundits have ruined their integrity by changing their opinion of the President solely because of poll numbers. Greenwald simply posts what each pundit said, along with the opinion poll numbers at the time. The results are damning indeed, but not for the President.

Jonah Goldberg for instance, just a few days ago wrote that if you “look at Bush from the right angle, he looks an awful lot like a liberal”. But back in 2003, Goldberg wrote this about the President:

"Georrge (sic) W. Bush has proved that he's a Reaganite, not a "Bushie." He may not be a natural heir to Reagan, but that's the point. The party is all Reaganite now. What better sign that this is now truly and totally the Gipper's Party than the obvious conversion of George Bush's own son?”

Was Goldberg lying then, or is he lying now? That is, after all, how the Liberals will cast it, and it’s hard to claim Goldberg was honest in both places.

But Greenwald is not short of examples. He shows the same dishonest embrace-then-run-away from the President by Rush Limbaugh, by Bob Novak, and by Rich Lowry. It’s bad enough that such prominent pundits have engaged in such unethical practices, but it hurts the Conservative Movement that the Left can use it to claim moral superiority. Greenwald quotes Rod Dreher, who explains the behavior succinctly:

“It is tempting to blame Bush for everything. But it's not fair, and it's not honest. Bush is today who he always was. The difference is we conservatives pretty much loved the guy -- when he was a winner.”

I understand the frustration among Conservatives. I am still a Conservative myself, though many of the Bush-haters have pretended otherwise. And that’s the problem. We know there are many more Conservatives than Liberals, and we know that any serious consideration of the Conservative vs. Liberal arguments would prove the superiority of the Conservative position. We also know that the American people will follow a Conservative leader, indeed are hungry to do so. The only way Conservatives can lose, therefore, is when they allow themselves to become fragmented and factionalized. The only way that regular people can come to believe that Democrats are a better choice for leadership than Republicans, is if Republicans attack other Republicans and prove they cannot seek answers and solutions.

It’s too much, perhaps, to expect apologies from the people who have poured gasoline on the fire. But at least the rest of us can try to work with the other Republicans, and the other Conservatives, for the good of the nation and the hope of the future. Because if we do not, History shows us how painful the price of that hubris can be.

MLP Round 037

Game Scores:

Carter at McKinley, 37-19 McKinley
Reagan at GW Bush, 36-35 GW Bush
Lincoln at Garfield, 31-29 Lincoln
Ford at Hoover, 31-23 Ford
Buchanan at Washington, 36-22 Washington
T Roosevelt at Wilson, 28-25 TR
Jefferson at J Adams, 34-30 Jefferson
GH Bush at Polk, 33-28 Polk
Fillmore at Eisenhower, 31-30 Fillmore
Monroe at F Roosevelt, 33-27 FDR
Kennedy at Tyler, 32-28 JFK
Truman at Pierce, 33-18 Truman
Harding at Cleveland, 31-26 Cleveland
Taylor at Clinton, 30-25 Taylor
Nixon at Jackson, 28-27 Jackson
Taft at Van Buren, 33-23 Taft
A Johnson at JQ Adams. 27-21 JQA
Hayes at Grant, 29-25 Hayes
L Johnson at Arthur, 24-21 Arthur
W Harrison at Coolidge, 29-22 W Harrison
Madison at B Harrison, 24-22 Madison


One President has one loss, another three have 2 losses, another three have 5 wins, and another two each have 2 wins.

Online MBA – An Update

This past Tuesday, I began the summer semester at the University of Houston at Victoria. I took the spring semester off, as you may recall, to address my abdominal cancer, which I am happy to say has largely decided to behave itself and so far has responded well to treatment. Anyway, I had promised to report on the progress of my studies, I also want to warn that the frequency and topic choice of my posts is going to change a bit, and for those who are interested, I need to keep my promise of progress reports, even if they are a bit sporadic.

First, a recap about studying online. There are three kinds of students who might consider university study; those seeking Continuing Education Units (CEUs), which many professions require these days, those seeking their Bachelor’s degree, and those seeking their graduate degree. These three groups have sharply different goals and needs. This is because the school and the degree/certification are designed for different purposes. With the exception of those pedigreed scions who merely need, hmm, “finishing”, most folks get their college degree so they can hope to get a good job, and start a good career. Again repeating what I wrote before, the person seeking to begin their life work should take time and think well about what, precisely, they want to do for a career. They should then find out what is necessary to get into that career with good prospects, and from there find out which school provides the best opportunity for them. When someone is applying for a position with a company, they will find that work experience is the best quality which will get them a chance to interview for the position, and the ability to discuss their skills and abilities well will help them stand out from other candidates in the running. To that end, certain schools have a good reputation in general, and some stand out as excellent in the selected field. This is the chief knock against many online schools; the name sometimes suggests a lower level of academic quality. I hate to play into the tactic of snob appeal, but it has to be remembered that employers make hiring decisions on what attracts them, and until you have experience that tells someone you can do the job, the best indicators will be your grades, your specific degree, and the school where you earned your degree.

The school name is much less important with CEUs and the advanced degrees, but it still counts in the case of chasing the Masters’ degree. As I mentioned back when I explained my choice, what you want to do is start by finding the key attributes, which in my case was making sure the school was AACSB-accredited. If you are considering online education, you will need to understand that you will be gaining some convenience, but you should still seek a program which is every bit as challenging and thorough as any classroom-attendance course, because the first priority is learning the material well enough that your career abilities reflect it. Also, studying online means you will have to be very disciplined with your time; you will have just as many assignments, tests and term papers, and unlike the regular classes, where the professor may or may not note your participation every time, in the online class your participation will be documented to the second, and the quality of your answers will be there in print, which is very bad for the slacker but great support for the hard-working student.

I got some additional work to do for my concentration. Because I did not get my Bachelor’s degree in Accounting, and I intend to earn my MBA with a concentration in Accounting, UHV is requiring me to take some undergraduate Accounting courses as prerequisites to some of the higher-level Accounting courses. This is both bad and good. Obviously, the additional courses, which could be two more, three more, or five more courses depending on how the Department Head sees my work, means more time, work, and cost, which is a bit frustrating, especially since I will probably not be able to take those courses online. That part greatly complicates things. On the other hand, I have been advised that some of the prerequisites may be waived, since after this summer (presuming I pass my current schedule) I will have earned six hours of graduate Accounting credits, demonstrating a certain level of comprehension. Also, since I intend to sit for the CPA exam after I earn my MBA, and since I want to be sure I have full command of the subject in which I want to base my future career work and positions, taking these classes may well be essential to my plan, even from my personal point-of-view. But that will wait until after the Summer semester, which is already looking at me the same way an alley-cat looks at a trapped mouse.

I am, craftily or most unwisely, taking three courses this summer, which are Strategic Accounting, Management and Organizational Behavior, and Quantitative Statistics and Research Methods. All three have the usual complement of assignments, discussion boards, case studies or term papers, group work, and examinations/quizzes. The difference this time from the fall, is – first - that in two of the three classes the teams will be assigned by the professor, rather than letting us choose our groups. I certainly want to carry my weight, but I also hope that my group members feel the same way. The second difference is that the summer semester is shorter, and so we will be hitting due dates much sooner, and I am scrambling to cover my bases already. Nothing is actually due yet, except for an information sheet which I turned in two days before it was due. But since my plan all along was to stay ahead of the pace if at al possible, I am well aware that some of my classmates have already taken the lead, which means that the pace is definitely up-tempo. I have homework to do in all three classes, our group has an assignment to work on and present in QMS, and my outline for my term paper in Management is due within a week. Oh well, sleeping is over-rated.

And that’s where I am right now. The lessons for those considering online studies would include the following:

[] If you are considering getting your degree online, make sure you are disciplined enough to keep up the pace and stay on schedule;

[] If you have not chosen your school, make sure you know what you expect to get out of the degree, and use that information to determine whether the school is worth what it will cost, in money and effort, compared to what you hope to get back;

[] Know your degree plan, and look out for surprises before they cause bigger problems;

[] Do the job right. Make sure you respect the challenge, because you want the best result for all the work you have to do for it.


Good luck to my fellow students, and thanks to everyone for stopping by.