Out on a limb at Mike Lief.com

POINT 1: Page 21, lines 12-16, apparently reinstated the 24-hour limit on probationary background checks. Remember when they promised to fix that so that no one would get a probationary card without passing the full background check? I guess they broke that promise.

POINT 2: Page 29, lines 12-end: The Z-visa has unlimited 4-year terms. I don't think this is a change, but shouldn't the immigrant at some point actually immigrate?

POINT 3: Page 33, lines 19-25: Z-visa non-immigrants over the age of 65 are not expected to maintain employment in order to remain eligible to be in the US. Again, why would they be here if they're not working and not applying for a regular immigration status?

POINT 4: Page 48, lines 8-14: Interesting method here to ensure that Z-visa non-immigrants don't get preferential treatment. The regulations set up a timing mechanism so that no Z-visa immigrants can file for permanent residency until 30 days after eligibility for those who applied for normal immigration on May 1, 2005. That means that illegals can't "cut in line" ahead of anyone who applied on that date or before, but can be put ahead of legal immigrants who applied in the last two years.

POINT 7: Page 69, line 20: The DREAM Act, providing scholarships for the children of illegal immigrants, still exists in the bill.

POINT 8: Page 89-90, lines 22-04: The 24-hour limit on background checks still holds within the Ag Workers section (the temporary guest worker program). If it takes longer than 24 hours, they get their credentials. (h/t: commenter Redherkey)

POINT 9: Page 92, lines 14-15: Do I read this correctly? The new limit on guest-worker visas is now 1,500,000 -- not counting dependent Z-A visas? Wasn't this originally 400,000 and reduced by half later?

Ed notes that the text is in a searchable PDF file, so you can aggravate yourself with the original.

Posted by Mike Lief at 07:58 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Do you hear that?

It's the sound of Winston Churchill, Rudyard Kipling and every British gentleman who believed there was something special about Great Britain, spinning in their graves.

Because the U.K. apparently has become the most inviting place on the planet for kiddie rapers.

A PEDOPHILE who raped a 10-year-old girl will be free in just four months after a British judge said his victim had "dressed provocatively".

Window cleaner Keith Fenn, 24, could have been jailed for life after twice attacking the girl in a riverside park.

Judge Julian Hall was at the centre of a storm over the "pathetic" sentence he imposed after hearing the girl had appeared much older than her age.

The same judge caused uproar earlier this year by setting free another paedophile and telling him to give his victim money "to buy a nice new bicycle".

In the latest case, Oxford Crown Court heard harrowing details of the assault on the 10-year-old. She was attacked in a park in South Oxfordshire by Fenn and his accomplice Darren Wright, 34, on October 14 last year.

Fenn removed all her clothes and raped her, then Wright took her to his home and sexually assaulted her.

Yet Judge Hall said the case was exceptional because the "young woman" had been wearing a frilly bra and thong.

The girl has been in local authority care since the age of four.

She was on her own when she met the pair in the street. They went to the park together. The judge said he faced a moral dilemma.

The court heard that the girl regularly wore make-up, strappy tops and jeans.

"It is quite clear she is a very disturbed child and a very needy child and she is a sexually precocious child. She liked to dress provocatively," the judge said.

"Did she look like she was 10? Certainly not. She looked 16."

He gave Fenn concurrent two-year and 18-month sentences but he will be free in just weeks after spending eight months in jail awaiting sentence.

Wright is a free man because he too had served eight months on remand.

Via Clayton Cramer, who notes that this is the progressive, liberal society that so many in the U.S. want to emulate.

I differ with Cramer to the extent that I think this speaks more to the disconnect between the public and the judiciary; decisions like this undermine the social compact wherein the people forego vigilante justice in return for some assuarance of impartial, fair and just punishment. More of this and the public begins to think there's little point in letting the police apprehend the suspect.

Posted by Mike Lief at 07:10 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

June 25, 2007

Michael Ramirez

Posted by Mike Lief at 10:53 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Want to look into the past?

If you're tired of waiting for a time machine, this is almost as good for seeing what Rome was like in the year 320 A.D.

Don't forget to check out the videos in the gallery, as well as the story of how the researchers created the model of the city.

Posted by Mike Lief at 10:30 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Who's stifling debate on the Amnesty?

The U.S. Senate is preparing to take up the Amnesty Bill tomorrow; some Republican Senators sent a letter asking Majority Leader Harry Reid to refrain from limiting debate -- as well as the number of amendments offered to the proposal itself.

Michelle Malkin posted the letter, as well as the response from Reid.

If you are opposed to the bill, like me and nearly 70 percent of your fellow Americans, you'll probably find Reid's response infuriating -- for reasons very different than you think.

Posted by Mike Lief at 10:09 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Michael Moore: What a Sicko

Michael Moore -- Hollywood's 21st Century, fatter, sweatier, less talented Leni Riefensthal -- has a new piece of leftist propaganda hitting the multiplex, sure to generate mega-millions for the self-proclaimed friend of the working man.

In Sicko, Moore cherry picks heart-rending tales of Americans who have suffered as a result of the (allegedly) terribly cruel and unfeeling market-driven U.S. healthcare system -- avoiding the inconvenient truth of Canadians and Britons coming to the U.S. for the care they cannot get at home.

Anyhow, what is the cure for what's ailing America?

According to Moore, socialized -- er, nationalized, single-payer medicine is the key, as practiced in Canada, the United Kingdom, and, most laughably, in Cuba.

Conservative columnist Star Parker asked a friend what he thought.

I shot an e-mail to a friend, an American, now a long time resident of Great Britain, and asked about their National Health Service. Here's the response:

"If you end up with an exotic disease that requires a lot of care, you're screwed. For example, the waiting list for any kind of major surgery is long and for things like knee replacements you can wait for three years. Alzheimer's drugs aren't available on the National Health Service because they're too expensive. More and more people are paying for private health insurance cover, and more and more companies are making it part of the perks package. So, Britain will end up with a two-tier system before too long where the "rich" get good private cover and the poor or uninsured have no alternative to the NHS."

Moore and his rich left wing Hollywood buddies won't have to worry about the inevitable shortages and distortions of socialized medicine. They'll simply be living in their own private care universe.

Cuba? Call any Cuban expatriate here, and I've talked to a few, and they'll tell you that the shoddy local care is never what a foreign visitor would see. What we do know is that Cuba has the highest abortion rates, highest suicide rates, and lowest fertility rates in our hemisphere. And we also know that any Cuban that tries to exercise free speech, like Michael Moore luxuriates in here, would soon become a non-person.

As with so much else that seems to drive the Left, it's all about making us live the way they think we should, what we should eat, drive, wear, smoke, how much we should earn and how much we be allowed to keep.

All the while, they live as they wish, in a world where some animals are more equal than others, and members of the Politburo and their apparatchiks are free to retire to their luxurious dachas.

And this piece of agitprop will convince some dismayingly large portion of the American viewing public that Moore's right.

Too bad for them. And us, if Moore and his fellow travelers win this argument.

Posted by Mike Lief at 08:50 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

June 23, 2007

Flying the unfriendly skies

I haven't flown since the Spring of 2001, when I was on the East Coast for a bar mitzvah (and pitching another book to my editor at Scribner's).

A life-long aviation buff, September 11 put me off flying. It's not that I'm afraid to fly; it's that the security is just a joke. I guess the fact that the service stinks and the flying conditions are sub-Greyhound bus quality also add to my general disinclination to fly the friendly skies.

Anyhow, we've booked an Alaskan cruise, which departs from Vancouver -- requiring I put my life in the hands of the TSA.

Oh, happy day.

If it weren't for the fact that Dad is going, too, my nearly six-year plane-free streak would continue. I've told my step-mother that if the jihadists succeed in downing our jet, they'll find my corpse with its hands wrapped around her neck.

Steven Bainbridge, a UCLA law professor, posted his reasons for quitting the United Airlines frequent flier club on his web site, the hard-to-remember ProfessorBainbridge.com.

In the comments are some interesting posts by business travelers -- and a few pilots, too. This one points out that the problems with the industry are attributable in part to us, the bargain-minded public, as well as the ever-so-efficient U.S. Government via the F.A.A.

I am a captain at a major national airline. On one hand, since I don't work for United, I could stand back and enjoy their troubles, but this story could have easily happened to a passenger on my airline, so let me offer my perspective.

First of all, the market rules ... in air travel as in anywhere else. If you look at what air travel cost a passenger 25-30 years ago, and look at what that same leg costs today, you'll see that you're paying far less, in adjusted dollars, than you were then.

If you wonder why you're getting less service today than you were 25-30 years ago, that is part of your answer. To expand on the good Prof's story, this is why there might be only one agent serving a whole lobby of awaiting passengers. If enough people take their business elsewhere, the airlines will respond with the service that our public wants (and I define "wants" as "willing to pay for".)

[...]

The Air Traffic system is congested beyond belief. The FAA has been promising improvements for decades. Some have come through (Reduced Vertical Separation Minimums comes to mind), but many have not. The end result is that we are, on many days, very near total gridlock.

Not that the airlines are entirely lily-white here (we're not), but in many ways, while blaming the airlines may be theraputic, doing so is like blaming your NYC cab driver for the traffic delays in Manhattan. What is really needed is lots more concrete. Tons and tons of it. Communities need to look forward 10, 20, 50 years and project where and how large to grow their airports and begin those plans now. Or, they can fail to plan and accept more of the delays that passengers complain about now.

I simply can't wait to see how out trip compares to the horror stories discussed in Bainbridge's comments.

Sigh.

Posted by Mike Lief at 10:46 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 22, 2007

The nightmare that is the DREAM Act

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070622/EDITORIAL/106220013

It's no secret that the Senate immigration bill rewards 12-20 million illegal aliens with immediate amnesty. What is less well known is that the bill also allows illegal aliens to receive in-state tuition rates at public universities, discriminating against U.S. citizens from out of state and law-abiding foreign students.

These provisions are buried deep in the Senate bill. They are part of the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act section.

The DREAM Act is a nightmare. It repeals a 1996 federal law that prohibits any state from offering in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens, unless the state also offers in-state tuition rates to all U.S. citizens. On top of that, the DREAM Act offers a fast track to U.S. citizenship for illegal aliens who attend college.

On its own, the DREAM Act never stood a chance of passing — even in the Senate. Every scientific opinion poll on the subject has shown over 70 percent opposition to giving in-state tuition benefits to illegal aliens.

Not surprisingly, the DREAM Act languished in committee for five years — until the opportunity arose to hitch it to the Senate's "comprehensive" immigration bill of 2006. Now, Sen. Edward Kennedy and his allies have added it to this year's amnesty bill, too. They know that the only way to slip such bad legislation past the American people is to bury it in a comprehensive bill.

To understand just what an insult to the rule of law the DREAM Act is, recall the events of the past 11 years.

In September 1996, in the landmark Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), Congress prohibited states from giving in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens. Members of Congress evidently never imagined that some states might simply disobey federal law.

But that is precisely what happened. Beginning (predictably) with California and Texas, open-borders advocates in 10 states succeeded in passing legislation that openly violated federal law by offering in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens

The list includes some states right in the heart of America: California, Illinois, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah and Washington.

In most of these states, the law was passed under cover of darkness. The governors declined to hold signing ceremonies heralding the new law — because public opinion was overwhelmingly opposed to giving taxpayer-subsidized college education to illegal aliens.

Not surprisingly, when voters themselves decide the question, a very different result occurs. In November 2006 Arizona voters passed Proposition 300, which expressly barred Arizona universities from offering in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens. More than 71 percent voted in favor.

The American people realize the injustice of giving illegal aliens a taxpayer-subsidized education when out-of-state U.S. citizens and law-abiding foreign students have to pay the full cost of their education.

This gift to illegal aliens comes at a time when millions of U.S. citizens have had to mortgage their future to attend college. From 2002-07, college costs rose 35 percent after adjusting for inflation. Two-thirds of college students now graduate with debt, and the amount of debt averages $19,200.

In a world of scarce education resources, U.S. citizens should be first in line to receive taxpayer subsidies — not aliens who violate federal law.

Worse, many of these 10 states are encouraging aliens to violate immigration laws. Their statutes actually require an alien to violate federal law before he can receive the tuition discount. Foreign students with valid visas need not apply. Talk about perverse incentives.

In July 2004, a group of U.S. citizen students from out of state filed suit in federal court in Kansas to enjoin the state from providing in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens. The case is currently before the 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. Meanwhile, in December 2005, another group of U.S.-citizen students filed a similar suit in California state court. That case is before the California Court of Appeals.

Now, just when it looks like U.S. citizens might finally bring the lawbreaking states into line, the DREAM Act provisions of the Senate immigration bill would change federal law and allow states to offer in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens currently in the country.

On top of this, DREAM Act beneficiaries would enjoy a special fast track to green-card status and citizenship. Illegal aliens younger than 30 who entered the country before age 16 and subsequently enrolled in college would be eligible for green cards in only three years — even if they haven't completed their degrees. No such fast track exists for law-abiding foreign students.

The illegal aliens would also be eligible for federal student loans and federal work-study programs — another benefit that law-abiding foreign students cannot receive. And all of it comes at taxpayer expense.

A consistent theme emerges: Illegal aliens are treated much more favorably than aliens who follow the law. There is no penalty for illegal behavior.

The Senate bill applies the same distorted logic to the 10 states that have defied federal law simply because they don't like it. The DREAM Act would overlook their offense and invite other states to follow their lead.

One thing we have learned in the struggle to enforce our nation's immigration laws is that states cannot be allowed to undermine the efforts of the federal government to enforce the law. Only if all levels of government are working in concert to uphold the rule of law can it be fully restored.

Kris W. Kobach, a law professor at the University of Missouri - Kansas City School of Law, is representing the U.S. citizen plaintiffs in the Kansas and California lawsuits. He served as counsel to U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft during 2001-2003 and was the attorney general's chief adviser on immigration law and border security.

Posted by Mike Lief at 10:26 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 21, 2007

Diversity ain't all it's cracked up to be

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/c4ac4a74-570f-11db-9110-0000779e2340.html

Study paints bleak picture of ethnic diversity
By John Lloyd in London
Published: October 8 2006 22:08 | Last updated: October 8 2006 22:08
A bleak picture of the corrosive effects of ethnic diversity has been revealed in research by Harvard University’s Robert Putnam, one of the world’s most influential political scientists.

His research shows that the more diverse a community is, the less likely its inhabitants are to trust anyone – from their next-door neighbour to the mayor.

This is a contentious finding in the current climate of concern about the benefits of immigration. Professor Putnam told the Financial Times he had delayed publishing his research until he could develop proposals to compensate for the negative effects of diversity, saying it “would have been irresponsible to publish without that”.

The core message of the research was that, “in the presence of diversity, we hunker down”, he said. “We act like turtles. The effect of diversity is worse than had been imagined. And it’s not just that we don’t trust people who are not like us. In diverse communities, we don’t trust people who do look like us.”

Prof Putnam found trust was lowest in Los Angeles, “the most diverse human habitation in human history”, but his findings also held for rural South Dakota, where “diversity means inviting Swedes to a Norwegians’ picnic”.

When the data were adjusted for class, income and other factors, they showed that the more people of different races lived in the same community, the greater the loss of trust. “They don’t trust the local mayor, they don’t trust the local paper, they don’t trust other people and they don’t trust institutions,” said Prof Putnam. “The only thing there’s more of is protest marches and TV watching.”

British Home Office research has pointed in the same direction and Prof Putnam, now working with social scientists at Manchester University, said other European countries would be likely to have similar trends.

His 2000 book, Bowling Alone, on the increasing atomisation of contemporary society, made him an academic celebrity. Though some scholars questioned how well its findings applied outside the US, policymakers were impressed and he was invited to speak at Camp David, Downing Street and Buckingham Palace.

Prof Putnam stressed, however, that immigration materially benefited both the “importing” and “exporting” societies, and that trends “have been socially constructed, and can be socially reconstructed”.

In an oblique criticism of Jack Straw, leader of the House of Commons, who revealed last week he prefers Muslim women not to wear a full veil, Prof Putnam said: “What we shouldn’t do is to say that they [immigrants] should be more like us. We should construct a new us.”

Posted by Mike Lief at 10:46 PM

What makes America America?

The Dallas Morning News has a blog for its editorial board to engage in rapidfire discussions on any number of subjects. One new feature is the Topic of the Day (TD for short), where an editor picks something for the other editors to chime in on over the course of the day.

Today's TD was "Looking for America."

Todd Roberson gave the best answer to his own question at the end of the day.

There are certain experiences I've had in this country that, no matter how hard I tried, I could never duplicate anywhere else I've lived ... When I walk into an American baseball stadium (and I'm thinking of Camden Yards in Baltimore), my heart starts pumping. I look around at the seats, the scoreboard, the hot dog stands, the skyline in the background, and the players on the field, and I know -- I really feel it with a jolt -- that I'm in America.

When a high school marching band plays at a football game on a crisp fall evening, I know that there is no other place in the world where I can duplicate that feeling. I know I'm in America. (High school marching bands are almost unique to America.)

And there's a feeling I get when the summer sun sets over a corn field on the flat plains around Lubbock, when people are finishing their day and it's time to wind down, that I simply have not been able to recreate anywhere else in the world.

There's a whole lot of stuff that goes into the making of each scenario I've mentioned. It takes a family and school to raise the marchers in the high school band. It takes devoted fans to make baseball worth its while. It's a package deal. I know it when I see it. That's why, on my very first night back in the States after 10 years on the road as a foreign correspondent, the only thing I wanted to do was go see my daughter's middle school football team play a game. You just can't get that anywhere else.

Nicely put.

Posted by Mike Lief at 10:06 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Hypothetically speaking

Want to know what law school exams are like? Prof. Orin Kerr posits an interesting legal hypo that hinges on the statute of limitations and perjury.

Bob commits crime X, which has a statute of limitations of five years. Twenty years later — fifteen years after the statute of limitations has passed — a police officer finds out about the details of Bob's crime.

The officer realizes that Bob cannot be punished for the crime because the statute of limitations has long passed. The officer decides to visit Bob at his home anyway to ask Bob about the crime twenty years earlier. The officer tells Bob what he knows about what Bob did and asks Bob if it is true that he did it. Bob lies and says he didn't do it. Bob is then charged with intentionally lying to a police officer, which in our hypothetical jurisdiction is a felony. The government's proof: twenty earlier, Bob did in fact commit crime X.

Question: Is it constitutional for Bob to be charged and punished for lying to the officer about the crime he committed 20 years earlier?

Here's an additional twist: reconsider your answer in light of Scooter Libby.

The comments that follow the post leave no argument unargued.

Posted by Mike Lief at 09:07 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Reason 5,872 the Immigration reform bill is intellectually and morally retarded

The resurrected Comprehensive (Illegal) Immigration Reform Bill (and Amnesty) currently slithering around the U.S. Senate contains countless reasons to loathe it, its relentless stupidity and dishonesty -- and its feckless crapweasel supporters in Washington, D.C.

But here's another reason, so stupendously, mind-bendingly retarded as to defy belief.

Title IX of the bill creates the possibility of reparations for Nazis and Italian Fascists interned by the U.S. during World War II.

It just keeps getting better and better.

Posted by Mike Lief at 12:46 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The body politic is sick

Ed Morrissey uses an essay by Mark Tapscott as a jumping-off point for a worried look at what the implications are when Americans and their Congresscritters appear to view each other with suspicion and contempt.

Tapscott uses the Congressional support for the Illegal Alien Amnesty to highlight the disconnect between us and our legislative representatives.

President Bush's insistence on pushing a bi-partisan immigration reform measure that is opposed three-to-one by people who are familiar with its provisions is indicative of the overall alienation of the political class from the views and concerns of everyday Americans.

The opposition to the Bush/Kennedy/McCain immigration reform appears to be hardening, too, as indicated by this UPI/Zogby International survey that finds only three percent - three percent! - of those surveyed approve of the way Congress is handling the issue. Bush gets only a nine percent approval rating on the issue in the survey, which has a 1.1 percent margin of error.

Captain Ed then broadens the discussion, highlighting the myriad ways Congress has failed to do anything other than bloviate and pass new laws -- that often remain unenforced -- adding to the general sense that the only thing the politicians are good at is pursuing power, perks and payola. And ignoring the wishes of their constiutents.

This results from more than just a bad policy choice on immigration in this session, but the immigration experience serves as a good example of what ails the political process. Congress has decided to pursue a deeply unpopular solution to a generational failure of both parties. Congress has made promises and passed laws that purported to fix the immigration problem, but usually has failed to follow up and ensure that the solutions get implemented. The border wall of last year and the visa reform of 2004 are excellent examples of why Congress has little credibility.

It doesn't limit itself to pressing issues of national security, either. Everyone in politics knows that the entitlement programs will drown the American government in red ink, both sooner (Medicare around 2016) and later (Social Security around 2025). We've known this for at least 25 years, and clearly Congress needs to act in some fashion to modify both programs to keep them solvent without bankrupting American taxpayers.

In the past 25 years, Congress has done nothing of significance to stave off the coming economic crisis, paralyzed by demagoguery on both sides.

Both parties have won control of both chambers of Congress by promising to end undue influence of lobbyists and corruption on Capitol Hill over the last 15 years. As soon as both come to power, they inevitably conclude that maintaining their power overrules their promises of clean government, although the Democrats may have set a speed record in that regard this session.

Is it any wonder that the public now rates Congress as less credible than almost any other national organization?

It's a dangerous development. Congress is, after all, the people's branch of the government. The judiciary has no accountability to the people, and the states elect the President, at least formally. Congress writes laws, determines tax policy, and in general dictates the direction of our representative government.

If we cannot trust ourselves with that power, eventually the people will turn to another, less representative form of government to get the difficult issues addressed.

What will America look like when that happens?

What does it say about Congress that its members are less popular, less respected than the ever-so-unpopular Pres. Bush?

I don't think the answer to Ed's question -- or mine -- is likely to make liberals or conservatives happy.

Posted by Mike Lief at 11:07 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 20, 2007

Who needs the network news?

Joe Sherlock rants about Dan Rather and makes a good point about the irrelevance of the networks' news shows.

Last week, Dan 'Has-Been' Rather sounded off about his replacement, Katie Couric. Puffed up his withered morgue-skin chest and beat it with arthritis-gnarled fists as he attempted a wheezy, blustery bellow, he did. And muttered about the Sad State of the Evening News. And cursed the night.

Who the #@&*! cares?! The only people who watch the evening news these days are really old people. In nursing homes. Or on dialysis machines. Or drooling all over their wheelchair tray. They think Katie is "cute" and looks kinda like that nurse who comes around bearing a tray full of suppositories. "Just lay on your side and breathe through your mouth, sweetie, while I get this thing in ya."

The only time I watch the evening news is when I'm trying to take a nap and having trouble falling asleep. Unless Larry King is on, of course. Zzzzzzzzzzz.

As for Dan Rather, he's probably mouth-breathing and laying on his side right this minute.

He's right, you know. I can't remember the last time I watched the evening news on any of the three broadcast networks, and I'm a news junkie. The amount of good reporting available on the web makes the half-hour ABC-CBS-NBC shows completely unnecessary.

"Withered morgue-skin chest ..."

That's funny the second time you read it. Although Joe deserves a smack for the visual of wrinkly Rather rolling over for his medicine.

Blech.

Posted by Mike Lief at 11:09 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

What ails Europe

Theodore Dalrymple, the eponymous English prison doctor, has penned a review of the new book by Walter Laqeur, The Last Days of Europe: Epitaph for an Old Continent.

According to Dalrymple,

There are three threats to Europe’s future. The first comes from demographic decline. Europeans are simply not reproducing, for reasons that are unclear. They seem to care more about the ozone layer and carbon emissions than they do about the continuation of their own societies. Or perhaps bringing up children interferes with what they conceive to be the real business of life: taking lengthy annual holidays in exotic locations and other such pleasures.

The second threat comes from the presence of a sizable and growing immigrant population, a large part of which is not necessarily interested in integration. As the population ages, the need for immigrant labor increases, and among the main sources of such labor are North Africa, the Middle East, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. When I recently drove to Antwerp from the South of France, I thought I had arrived in Casablanca. There are parts of Brussels where the police are enjoined not to be seen eating or drinking during Ramadan. Similar accommodations are occurring all over Europe: in the Central Library in Birmingham, for example, I found a women-only table occupied exclusively by young Muslims dressed in the hijab. (They were the lucky ones, members of liberal households that allowed them out on their own.)

The third threat comes from the existence of the welfare state and the welfare-state mentality. A system of entitlements has been created that, however economically counterproductive, is politically difficult to dismantle: once privileges are granted, they assume the metaphysical status of immemorial and fundamental rights. The right of French train drivers to retire on full pension at the age of 50 is probably more important to them than the right of free speech—especially that of those who think that retirement at such an age is preposterous. While Europe mortgages its future to pay for such extravagances—the French public debt doubled in ten years under the supposedly conservative Chirac—other areas of the world forge an unbeatable combination of high-tech and cheap labor. The European political class, more than ever dissociated from its electorate, has hardly woken up to the challenge.

[...]

As is to be expected in a relatively short book, the author does not explore matters in great depth. One interesting and important question is why Europeans have abjectly surrendered to the dishonest nostrums of multiculturalism. Why, for example, can a couple of Dutch children be told by their teacher to remove the Dutch flag from their school bags because it might offend children of Moroccan descent—who, it should be noted, are supposed to be Dutch citizens? Why, when I arrive in regional airports in Britain, do I see signs for British passport holders written in Urdu, Punjabi, Bengali, and Hindi scripts, presumably for the benefit of British citizens who cannot read the Latin alphabet? Why do German courts rule that beating women is a religious right for Turks, just as terms such as “illegitimate children” have been banned from official usage as being denigratory and stigmatizing?

[...]

This suggests—and Laqueur has no hesitation in so saying—that there is a problem peculiar to the integration of Muslims in Western countries, at any rate, when they are in such large numbers that they are able to make whole areas their own. Imbued with a sense of their own religious superiority, which considers a Muslim way of life better than any other, they are ill-prepared to adapt constructively to Western society.

Yet adapt they do, though not necessarily in the best way. The young men of the second generation adopt many aspects of American ghetto “culture,” which in conjunction with Islamic teaching and tradition, enables them to dominate women in a way that is to them extremely gratifying. This prevents the women (who, as Laqueur tells us, and I can confirm from personal experience, are vastly superior morally and intellectually to their menfolk) from achieving all they might in an open society. In turn, the cheap and unconstructive satisfactions of domestic dictatorship discourages Muslim men from real achievement and engagement in the wider society around them. For the majority of young men of Muslim descent in Europe, the chief attraction of Islam is the justification it offers for the ill-treatment of women.

Posted by Mike Lief at 10:45 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Bloomberg's candidacy hurts who?

Mike Bloomberg, the Nanny-in-Chief -- er, Mayor of New York City, has announced he's leaving the Republican Party. As you may (or may not recall) Bloomberg, a billionaire life-long lib, left the Democratic Party just long enough to win the mayor's office.

In his time as Hizzoner, he's advanced the typical Big-City Nanny-State agenda, including gun control and banning what his city's citizens can eat or smoke.

His anticipated independent run for the White House has political junkies scratching at their skin, trying to get at the spiders beneath, jittery and excited at the prospect of this "Republican" taking votes away from the GOP's nominee.

The Conventional Wisdom amongst the professional pols is that the Bloomberg candidacy clearly helps the Dems.

Jonah Goldberg offers this pungent assessment.

[I]t seems reasonable to ask: Would a four-foot-tall, lispy, Jewish New York billionaire liberal really siphon off a lot votes from a Republican in the South instead of a Democrat?

Again, I think it's too early to tell, but Bloomberg's nanny-statism is far, far, far closer to Hillary's point of view than it is to any of the Republican contenders, Giuliani included...

Splitting the limousine liberal vote in New York, New Jersey, Conn., California and Mass. could change the dynamics for a Republican quite favorably (depending on the Republican). Indeed, the Republican contender wouldn't need to actually win all or almost any of these states in this scenario. He could however force a Hillary or an Obama to spend time and money in areas a Democrat should have locked up.

Honestly, how Bloomberg hurts a Republican in the race escapes me. The question that does interest me is whether Bloomie really is four feet tall.

Posted by Mike Lief at 09:37 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 19, 2007

If you've got time for a prayer or two ...

Dad's going in for another biopsy today, again requiring general anesthesia.

All prayers and good thoughts are much appreciated.

Posted by Mike Lief at 09:09 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

On second thought ...

About that staying-out-of-the-sun business, there's this report.

In June, U.S. researchers will announce the first direct link between cancer prevention and the sunshine vitamin [i.e., vitamin D]. Their results are nothing short of astounding.

A four-year clinical trial involving 1,200 women found those taking the vitamin had about a 60-percent reduction in cancer incidence, compared with those who didn't take it, a drop so large—twice the impact on cancer attributed to smoking—it almost looks like a typographical error....

Those studying the vitamin say the hide-from-sunlight advice has amounted to the health equivalent of a foolish poker trade. Anyone practising sun avoidance has traded the benefit of a reduced risk of skin cancer—which is easy to detect and treat and seldom fatal—for an increased risk of the scary, high-body-count cancers, such as breast, prostate and colon, that appear linked to vitamin D shortages.

Sun good! Sun bad!

I defer to my earlier post on the fickle bitch that is medical knowledge and the ever-changing list of health column "nevers" and "always."

Posted by Mike Lief at 08:06 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Stay out of the sun!

A childhood sunburn isn't the worst thing that could happen to the kids, right? Well, according to a skin doc, it could be.

Dr. Michael L. Ramsey, a dermatologist at the Geisinger Medical Center in Danville, Pa., coaches his son’s Little League team these summery days when he’s not removing patients’ skin cancers.

“The last thing I want is to someday see one of my baseball players as a patient,” he remarked recently in The Skin Cancer Foundation Journal.

And so, while encouraging the players to do their best on the field, he also pays close attention to their need to protect themselves from the sun’s skin-damaging ultraviolet rays. For he knows all too well that more than 90 percent of all skin cancers are caused by sun exposure; that the risk for a future skin cancer doubles with five or more sunburns; and that while the jury is still out, the risk of future melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer, may well be increased by even one blistering sunburn in childhood.

Moreover, while children may find it hard to imagine ever being old (over 50), repeated sun exposure also ages the skin, causing premature wrinkling and a mottled, leathery hide that resembles an elephant’s. It may also be hard to impress children with the possibility of cumulative sun damage to their eyes, like cataracts.

... A child’s skin is especially vulnerable to the damaging effects of ultraviolet radiation. Most children will have had nearly a quarter of their lifetime exposure to this radiation by age 18, and the resulting damage is compounded repeatedly by subsequent exposure.

The only factoid in this article that sends my Bull-o-meter into the red is in that last 'graph. It's shocking that a kid gets almost 25 percent of his lifetime dosage of radiation by 18.

Except that if the kid lives to be about 72 -- not too far from the statistical mean on the actuarial charts -- 18 is one-quarter through the game, making the stat a rather big Duh!

Posted by Mike Lief at 07:56 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 18, 2007

New (terrorist) boss; same as the old (terrorist) boss

So, we've decided to support the more moderate terrorists dedicated to destroying Israel, giving them your hard-earned tax dollars to help pay the bills.

The United States lifted sanctions on the Palestinian Authority Monday, four days after the Islamic Hamas movement seized the Gaza Strip, leaving President Mahmoud Abbas to set up a rival Fatah-only government in the West Bank.

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said she had informed new Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad of the decision in phone call earlier Monday.

"I told him the United States would resume full assistance to the Palestinian government and normal government to government contacts," she told reporters at the State Department.

The Middle East seems to have the ability -- much like The Shadow -- to cloud men's minds, making them incapable of recognizing evil, even when it makes no effort to disguise itself.

Nice to know Sec. Rice and the Bush Administration are eager to join the long list of past pols and diplomats who have eagerly pursued their places in history, certain that throwing money at the Devil would surely bring peace to the MidEast -- or at least a Nobel Peace Prize to the mantle.

Suckers.

Posted by Mike Lief at 10:59 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Have you no shame, Lindsey Graham?

Hugh Hewitt takes Sen. Lindsey Graham to the woodshed for the kinda-sorta Republican's hysterical outburst this weekend in which he railed against those Americans opposed to the resurgent Amnesty for illegal aliens.

On ABC's This Week, South Carolina's Senator Lindsey Graham was talking immigration "reform," and after warning about letting "talk radio tale over the debate," went on to tell George Stephanopoulos:

John [McCain] is telling the Republican Party 'If you want to win 2008, you can't win with 22% of the Hispanic vote.' How are we going to be a viable party if we leave this issue behind, unresolved? How are we going to be a viable party if we tell President Bush 'Go take a hike because we don't want to deal with the 12 million?' It is hard. Our culture is under assault. People feel like that if let the 12 million in and forgive them that would be bad, and they're right. We're not forgiving anybody. We're saying you stay here on our terms. You learn English. You learn civics. Your'e going to stay here on our terms. You pay taxes. We're not going to give our culture away. But here's what's at stake. We've been down this road before. No Catholics. No Jews. Irish need not apply. That's not the America I want. I want an America that enforces its laws but also respects its culture and respects people. We can make this a win win for America, if we're courageous. If we're afraid for the next election and we govern this country on the basis of the next election, we're going to fall apart as a people.

This statement is remarkable -- deeply offensive, incoherent, internally inconsistent within the space of a few lines, self-destructive politically, and wildly hyperbolic.

Of course it offends by asserting that opponents of this bill are bigots, and there is no other way to read highlighted line.

Note that Senator Graham begins by asserting that John McCain is making an argument about the presidential election of 2008 and then goes on to condemn people who are opposing the bill because of concerns about the next election.

He says he wants an America that enforces its laws, but is arguing for a law that nullifies, even to the level of past due taxes, the non-enforcement of immigration laws for a period of two decades.

The attack on talk radio --the only part of the media in which the center-right enjoys a decisive advantage-- is a sure way to demoralize and demobilize a large segment of the base while angering influential voices that have worked for the election of conservatives for two decades.

And to declare that "we're going to fall apart as a people" if the "reform" doesn't pass is so silly as to render Senator Graham suspect on the entire issue.. A country that survived two world wars, the Soviet Union, and 9/11 will not fall apart because a bad bit of legislating fails to get out of the Senate.

My producer left invitations with both Senators Lott and Graham to appear today, and neither accepted. We'll try again tomorrow.

Are you surprised that Lott and Graham won't face a questioner like Hewitt, preferring the underhand, slow-pitch softballs from the likes of Not-So Curious George Stephanopolous or Chrissy Matthews?

Hewitt has actually read the bill they're trying to ram down our throats and knows how to cross examine the know-nothing pols who claim to have mastered the intricacies of this crap-tastic legislative mess.

Too bad the Dims and the Rinos are so obsessed with chasing the illegal voting bloc; who exactly is representing the interests of Americans?

Posted by Mike Lief at 10:45 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Good news! Another Nazi heads to Hell

Kurt Waldheim, second from left, stands at a meeting on May 22, 1943, at an airstrip in former Yugoslavia, left - Escola Roncagli, Italian commander and Col. Hans Herbert Macholtz, a German officer, second from right, and General of the 7th SS-Division, General Artur Phelps. Photo: AP

The twice-elected head of the United Nations -- and suspected Nazi war criminal -- Kurt Waldheim slithered off this mortal coil last week.

Waldheim claimed in his autobiography that he'd been wounded on the Russian Front, then sent home to recuperate in Germany, subsequently receiving his discharge from the Wehrmacht in 1942.

Unfortunately, photos surfaced proving the U.N.'s fuhrer was still in uniform in 1943 -- and engaged in a vicious campaign against partisans in the Balkans.

Waldheim, who approved propaganda leaflets calling on the Russian troops to stop targeting Germans and change sides ("enough of the Jewish war, kill the Jews, come over"), was banned from visiting the United States despite his election as the President of Austria.

Given that it was during his tenure at the U.N. that Arafat received a warm welcome and the "Zionism equals racism" resolution passed, Waldheim's wartime background made him uniquely suited to run the United Nations.

Good riddance. Too bad we can't bury the U.N. with him.

Posted by Mike Lief at 10:29 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Cell phone take a swim?

Dropped your cell phone in the pool (or worse)?

All is not lost, thanks to these tips from Life Hacker.

CrackBlackberry owners needn't despair; according to the McGuyver file, rice works, too.

Posted by Mike Lief at 10:54 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Sometimes, dreams do come true

Paul Potts, the carphone warehouse employee who stunned the audience -- and the judges -- on Britain's Got talent -- has won the competition.

What a great story.

Posted by Mike Lief at 09:52 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 17, 2007

Happy Father's Day, Dad!

A look at the best Dad a guy could have, from the 1930s through the 2000s.

Posted by Mike Lief at 11:59 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

FNS Panel: Israel, Gaza, murderous bastards Hamas

Discussing the coup in Gaza, wherein masked, AK-47-bearing Hamas gunmen routed the forces and government of Fatah leader Abbas -- and executed numbers of the Fatah members -- Juan Williams discovers who is to blame.

Juan Williams: What really concerns me is that the U.S. was in the business of supporting and promoting Abbas, and even with our support, we couldn't stop this from happening.

He continues that U.S. prestige takes a hit in the Middle East, emboldening our enemies, because the leader we were backing -- the not-quite-as-bad Abbas -- was chased out of Gaza by the Islamic fundamentalist, Iranian-backed terror group, Hamas.

But just when you think Williams is done, having laid the blame for the debacle at the feet of the U.S., he has second thoughts.

The conversation turns to the implosion of Gaza, the savage Arab-on-Arab violence, and what it means.

JW: (paraphrasing) It's the Israelis' fault. The Palestinians were occupied. They were oppressed. You can't blame them for acting this way.

Brit Hume: Juan, the Israelis left Gaza two years ago. Have things gotten better for the Palestinians since they gained control of Gaza?

JW: Israelis! Oppression! Injustice! Stop changing the subject!

BH: (irritated) Juan, have things gotten better?

No answer is forthcoming to Hume's question. Hume then comments that the Gazans are doomed to a miserable, hardscrabble existence as their "society" falls to pieces, noting that it's not in the self-interest of the Israelis to cushion the blow, nor is it in our self-interest for the U.S. to send aid to Gaza.

JW: (paraphrasing) How can you refuse to help the Palestinians, who are acting in a self-destructive manner because of the years of oppression under the rule of the Israelis?

Because, you see, they're like abused children, who simply cannot be held responsible for their actions, and must not be forced to live with the consequences of their self-destructive choices.

Honestly, Williams contributes nothing to the discussion, other than to serve as an exemplar of the stupidity of the American libtard journalist.

Posted by Mike Lief at 08:47 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

FNS Panel: Illegal Immigration

Discussing the back-from-the-dead Illegal Alien Comprehensive Amnesty bill in the Senate, Juan Williams fulfills his weekly obligation to convince us that he is, in fact, retarded.

Criticizing Americans who are opposed to the Amnesty, Williams notes with disdain and contempt in his voice that in the public's misguided, talk radio-fed anger, we're making a terrible mistake because we're

Juan Williams: Acting as if they're criminals.

Uh, Juan, they're here illegally. They violated U.S. law. They are criminals.

Proving my point, Williams responds to Charles Krauthammer, who has just said that Americans don't want an amnesty for the illegal aliens; Americans want border enforcement.

JW: It's not about amnesty ... There are millions of people in our country who should be made into law-abiding citizens.

Using my finely-honed, legally-trained mind (Sharp like a Bic disposable razor!), ahem, turning someone into a "law-abiding citizen" requires as a predicate that he is not currently law abiding.

That means he's a crook. A criminal. A law-breaking foreign national present in our nation because he doesn't give a damn about our laws.

And changing his status via this legislation is amnesty.

Posted by Mike Lief at 08:38 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Peeking behind the curtain

Scott Johnson, one-third of the triumvirate that powers Power Line, convinced a reader of his blog to write about working on the Tonight Show. If you miss Johnny Carson, as I do, it makes for some interesting reading

"Tonight" had a reputation as an unpleasant, cold place to work. That was accurate. The staff was competitive, and some of its members had personalities even their mothers would reject. Johnny Carson wasn't particularly cold, but was distant. Staff morale was not his priority.

When people left the show, they found they'd made no friends. And yet, you could find wonderful moments with some of the guests, and in discovering new talent. It was important, however, to watch your back.

[...]

On Johnny Carson: He had natural talent. As I said, he was distant, yet could make you laugh at a staff meeting. Among his gifts was remarkable self-discipline and a clear sense of who he was and what he wanted to do. Carson would tell us that "Tonight" wasn't a talk show, but a variety show. And he was right. Every part of the show had to be strong, not just the chats.

In the middle of the afternoon, no matter what he was doing, Carson would get up and say, "I've got to do the monologue," and return to his office. There he'd select the jokes submitted by his writers, write some of his own, and learn them. When the show went on the air, I would look at "the board," a series of cue cards laid out left to right on a panel placed in front of him for the monologue. All it had on it were key words and phrases. Carson had essentially memorized the jokes. He did this every day. One of the many things I learned from Johnny Carson was the importance of memory in making presentations. Learn the material. Don't depend on a written text.

Carson also taught, "Buy the premise, buy the bit." It's another good lesson, applicable to presidential candidates as well as comedians. If people don't buy the premise of a comedy sketch, or a speech, or an immigration proposal, they'll never buy the rest.

[...]

If there was a steady influence on The Tonight Show then, it was Jack Benny ... Jack taught Johnny a fundamental lesson - to be generous with guests, to make them look good. Jack would say, "I don't care who gets the best lines. I just want people to stand around the water cooler the next morning and say, 'Wasn't the Jack Benny Show good last night.'" Johnny adopted that approach. It always worked.

[...]

Most of my work was with the guests. In my next memo I'll tell you some stories – Duke Ellington, Ginger Rogers, Gene Kelly, Rita Hayworth, Buddy Rich, and the sweetest woman in history, Betty Grable. And more.

I'm looking forward to his next dispatch. In the meantime, head over to Power Line and read the whole thing.

Posted by Mike Lief at 07:24 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 16, 2007

What does Arnold know?

Instapundit offers an astute comment on the brickbats thrown at the California governor after he said that Spanish-speaking immigrants would best served by turning off Spanish-language TV and radio programs.

SO IF YOU BASH ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER'S ADVICE ON LEARNING ENGLISH, aren't you engaging in immigrant-bashing yourself?

Most amusing line:

A Hispanic advocacy group said Schwarzenegger's comments show his "ignorance on immigration issues."

Because what would Arnold know about people who come from a different land, raised in another language, who want to make a life for themselves in America?

Indeed.

Posted by Mike Lief at 02:58 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Build the fence!

Build the fence

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDY3OWQ0ZjRmMWY0MzI0MzdjYjNhOTJmYjc1NmMzZDg=

Comprehensive immigration reform is in jeopardy because it is a complex compromise with too many moving parts and too many competing interests. Employers want a guest-worker program; unions want to kill it. Reformers want to introduce a point system that preferentially admits skilled and educated immigrants; immigrant groups naturally want to keep the existing family-preference system. Liberals want legalization now; conservatives insist on enforcement “triggers” first.

Fence Me In 06/15

Endless Campaign 06/08

It Doesn't Take Einstein to See What's Wrong with This Bill 06/01

Malign Neglect 05/25

Six Days that Changed Everything 05/18

Roeing Out of a Muddle 05/11

Interview: Dad in the City

Zalenski: June 17, 2007

Spruiell: Passport Incompetence to the Slaughter

Factor: Countdown to a Whopper Tax Increase

Symposium: The Good Father

Editors: Terror State

Verdery: Doubling Down on Real ID

Suderman: Zombie! Fetch!

Letters: UnFAIR

Chavez: Here I Stand

Romney: A Stem-Cell Solution

Hibbs: Lost in Translation

Goldberg: Misguided Hero Worship

Krauthammer: Fence Me In

There is only one provision that has unanimous support: stronger border enforcement. I’ve seen senators stand up and object to the point system, to chain migration, to guest workers, to every and any idea in this bill — except one. I have yet to hear a senator stand up and say she is against better border enforcement.

Why not start by passing what everyone says they want? After all, proponents of this comprehensive reform insist that the current situation is intolerable and must be resolved. It follows, therefore, that however much they differ in the details of how the current mess should be resolved, they are united in the belief that such a mess should not be allowed to happen again. And the only way to make sure of that is border control.

So why not pass it, with the understanding that the other contentious provisions would be taken up subsequently? Because for all the protestations, many of those who say they are deeply devoted to enforcement are being deeply disingenuous. They profess to care about immigration control because they have to. But they care so little about the issue that they are willing to make it hostage to the other controversial provisions, most notably legalization.

Why am I so suspicious about the fealty of the reformers to real border control? In part because of the ridiculous debate over the building of a fence. Despite the success of the border barrier in the San Diego area, it appears to be very important that this success not be repeated. The current Senate bill provides for the fencing of no more than one-fifth of the border and the placing of vehicle barriers in no more than one-ninth.

Instead, we are promised all kinds of fancy, high-tech substitutes — sensors, cameras, unmanned aerial vehicles — and lots more armed chaps on the ground to go chasing those who get through.

Why? A barrier is a very simple thing to do. The technology is well tested. The Chinese had success with it, as did Hadrian. In our time, the barrier Israel has built has been so effective in keeping out intruders that suicide attacks are down over 90 percent.

Fences work. That’s why people have them around their houses — not because homeowners are unwelcoming, but because they insist that those who wish to come into their domain knock at the front door.

Fences are simple. They don’t require much upkeep. Two fences with a patrol road between them across the length of the U.S.-Mexico border would be relatively cheap, easy to build and simple to maintain.

Why this preference for the fancy high-tech surveillance stuff that presents no physical impediment to illegal entry but instead triggers detection — followed by alarm, pursuit, arrest and possible violence? It makes for great TV. But why is that good for the country?

It is certainly good for the Border Patrol, ensuring a full employment program till the end of time. But why for the rest of us? Fences have no retirement benefits.

The final argument against fences is, of course, the symbolism. We don’t want a fence that announces to the world that America is closed. But this is entirely irrational. The fact is that under our law, America is indeed closed — to all but those who, after elaborate procedures, are deemed worthy of joining the American family. Those objecting to the fence should be objecting to the law that closes America off, not to the means for effectively carrying out that law.

A fence announces to the world that America is closed to ... illegal immigrants. What’s wrong with that? Is not every country in the world the same? The only reason others don’t need such a barrier is because they are not half as attractive as America, not because we are more oppressive or less welcoming.

Fences are ugly, I grant you that. But not as ugly as 12 million people living in the shadows in a country that has forfeited control of its borders.

Comprehensive immigration reform has simply too many contentious provisions to command a majority of Congress or the country. We all agree on enforcement, don’t we? So let’s do it. Make it simple. And do it now. Once our borders come visibly under control, everything else will become doable. Including amnesty.

Posted by Mike Lief at 01:51 PM

What ails liberalism?

What's wrong with American liberals? Matt Taibbi -- a contributing editor to Rolling Stone and self-described lib, er, progressive, thinks he has the answer, buried d-e-e-p in his very l-o-n-g article, of which the portion excerpted below is (believe it or not) just a smidgen of the whole thing.

[H]aving rich college grads acting as the political representatives of the working class isn’t just bad politics. It’s also silly. And there’s probably no political movement in history that’s been sillier than the modern American left.

What makes the American left silly? Things that in a vacuum should be logical impossibilities are frighteningly common in lefty political scenes. The word “oppression” escaping, for any reason, the mouths of kids whose parents are paying 20 grand for them to go to private colleges. Academics in Priuses using the word “Amerika.”

Ebonics, Fanetiks, and other such insane institutional manifestations of white guilt. Combat berets. Combat berets in conjunction with designer coffees. Combat berets in conjunction with designer coffees consumed at leisure in between conversational comparisons of America to Nazi Germany.

We all know where this stuff comes from. Anyone who’s ever been to a lefty political meeting knows the deal – the problem is the “spirit of inclusiveness” stretched to the limits of absurdity. The post-sixties dogma that everyone’s viewpoint is legitimate, everyone‘s choice about anything (lifestyle, gender, ethnicity, even class) is valid, that’s now so totally ingrained that at every single meeting, every time some yutz gets up and starts rambling about anything, no matter how ridiculous, no one ever tells him to shut the fuck up.

Next thing you know, you’ve got guys on stilts wearing mime makeup and Cat-in-the-Hat striped top-hats leading a half-million people at an anti-war rally. Why is that guy there? Because no one told him that war is a matter of life and death and that he should leave his fucking stilts at home.

[...]

But to me the biggest problem with American liberalism is that it hasn’t found a new legend for itself, one to replace the old one, which is more and more often no longer relevant. I’ve got no problem with long hair and weed and kids playing “Imagine” on acoustic guitars at peace marches. But we often make the mistake of thinking that the “revolution” of the sixties is something that rightly should continue on to today.

While it’s true that we’re still fighting against unjust wars and that there’s unfinished business on the fronts of women’s rights, civil rights, and environmental preservation, there’s no generational battle left for America’s rich kids to fight.

[...]

But American college types don’t have to fight for shit anymore. Remember the Beastie Boys’ Licensed to Ill album? Remember that song “Fight for Your Right to Party”? Well, people, that song was a joke. So was “We’re Not Gonna Take It” and “And the Cradle Will Rock.” The only thing American college kids have left to fight for are the royalties for their myriad appearances in Girls Gone Wild videos.

Which is why they look ridiculous parading around at peace protests in the guise of hapless victims and subjects of the Amerikan neo-Reich. Rich liberals protesting the establishment is absurd because they are the establishment; they’re just too embarrassed to admit it.

When they start embracing their position of privilege and taking responsibility for the power they already have – striving to be the leaders of society they actually are, instead of playing at being aggrieved subjects – they’ll come across as wise and patriotic citizens, not like the terminally adolescent buffoons trapped in a corny sixties daydream they often seem to be now. They’ll stop bringing puppets to marches and, more importantly, they’ll start doing more than march.

That, in sum, is why I don’t call myself a liberal. To me the word “liberalism” describes an era whose time is past, a time when a liberal was defined more by who he was fighting against – the Man – than what he was fighting for.

A liberal wielding power is always going to seem a bit strange because a liberal always imagines himself in an intrepid fight against power, not holding it. I therefore prefer the word “progressive,” which describes in a neutral way a set of political values without having these class or aesthetic connotations. To me a progressive is not fighting Mom and Dad, Nixon, Bush or really any people at all, but things – political corruption, commercialism, pollution, etc. It doesn’t have that same Marxian us-versus-them connotation that liberalism still has, sometimes ridiculously. It’s about goals, not people.

Taibbi also makes some interesting points about the underlying disconnect between the American Left and the blue-collar, NASCAR and hunting & fishing, go-to-church-on-Sunday between-the coasts portion of the electorate.

The reactions of his fellow travelers in the comments following his essay is four-parts vitriolic abuse to one-part Amen, bruddah!.

Not that I'm gloating; the conservative movement is currently adrift, with no political representation in the U.S. Senate, as can be seen by the grand alliance pushing the Amnesty Bill led by Ted Kennedy and his sycophantic Republican boot-lickers.

Posted by Mike Lief at 12:39 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 14, 2007

Wow. Just, wow.

This fellow, a contestant on "Britain's Got Talent," is simply astonishing. If you're not moved to tears -- or at least raise a few goosebumps -- by his performance, then you've lost the capacity to enjoy one of life's most prized moments: when you're gobsmacked by brilliance in the most unlikely place.

Watch the judges' faces change from skepticism, when they see him for the first time and hear what he intends to perform, to ... well, let's just say that they knew they'd seen something special, too.

Posted by Mike Lief at 06:53 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Suicide of the Arabs

Rod Dreher, one of the editors at the Dallas Morning News blog, has a provocatively-titled post, The suicides of the Arabs.

Gaza is in civil war now, and contrary to what you might have heard, it's not the fault of the Israelis.

The Palestinians had a chance to build a decent government, and look what they've done. Meanwhile in Iraq ... same deal.

I am reminded of what an American scholar based in Damascus told me a year and a half ago: that Syrians may not like their dictatorial government, but when they look at Iraq and see what democracy has unleashed, they want no part of it.

It's now painfully clear that the Arabs of that region have no capacity at this time for democratic self-government.

Where is this going? What can we Americans possibly to about it? We are looking at the abyss now.

I didn't even mention Lebanon's agony, or the Kurdish provocations against Turkey that portend a possible Turkish invasion of northern Iraq, which would be catastrophic, and could lead to a regional war.

Fouad Ajami just said on CNN, of the Middle East: "Order hangs by a very slender thread." Ajami further said that the US is in an impossible position: if we leave the Middle East, the place goes completely to hell, but if we remain, we become a target for all the crazies.

It's been pretty clear for a while now to you all that I favor US withdrawal, on the same grounds that the great 18th-century British historian and Tory member of Parliament Edward Gibbon gave for changing his position on the Crown's fighting the rebellious American colonists:

I shall scarcely give my consent to exhaust still farther the finest country in the World in the prosecution of a War, from whence no reasonable man entertains any hope of success. It is better to be humbled than ruined.

I've disagreed with Dreher's get-out-of-Iraq stand -- a road-to-Damascus conversion for him, after his earlier support for the war -- but given today's events in Gaza and the recent history of the region, it is becoming harder to find reasons to disagree with his analysis.

Posted by Mike Lief at 10:52 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

June 13, 2007

Andy Garcia's must-see movie

I just finished watching Andy Garcia's bittersweet film, The Lost City, a moving, beautiful portrayal of a family, a city, and a nation -- all laid low by the scourge of the Communist Fidelistas.

Garcia -- who acted and directed -- is tremendous both behind the camera and in front; his portrayal of the eldest son, Fico, a nightclub owner in Havana, is raw and honest. The intensity of Fico's love -- love of family, of Havana, of Cuba -- is almost too much to bear; at times I wanted to look away, so strong was the sensation that I was intruding on the most deeply felt, private moments of a real person.

The film is beautifully lensed; I watched in Hi-Def, standing for more than an hour within a couple of feet of the flat-panel display, lost in the the story, the music and the images, never noticing (until the credits were rolling) that the hour was so late, the ache in my feet from standing on the tile floor.

The soul-destroying nature of the People's Revolution is on display; so too the never-ending sorrow of the refugee, who fiercely, desperately wants nothing more than for time to run backwards, for things to be as they once were.

Fico tells his American friend that if he had one wish, it would be to live his life over again, to enjoy all that was good -- before the bearded bastard and his acolytes turned it all to ashes.

I wote about the film last year, when it was released on DVD. At the time, I said I'd watch it then (mea culpa), but having finally done so, I can't recommend it highly enough.

Here's what I said in August 2006.

Andy Garcia's The Lost City hit the shelves today, after receiving a limited release in theaters -- and lukewarm praise from the nation's movie critics. But after reading several articles, including Kathryn Jean Lopez' (excerpted below), I'm going to pick up a copy and watch it this weekend.

It seems apropos, given the possibility that Castro may finally join his late, unlamented homicidal friend -- Che Guevara -- in the Hell that awaits those who bring such misery to their countrymen.

The Lost City is an intensely personal project for Garcia. An ode to his homeland, Cuba, it’s full of the passion Hispanic culture is known for—as he portrays family life, the social scene, and, of course, the politics of a troubled island.

The film is set in late-1950s Cuba, right on the eve of la revolución, and Garcia, who directed and stars, crashes straight into the myth of Che Guevara—¡Gracias a Dios! The Lost City has something for everyone: contagious music, a love story, family drama—and familiar faces in Bill Murray, playing to type, and Dustin Hoffman, playing a mobster. But it’s a love story unlike anything Meg Ryan and Tom Hanks or any chick-flick might bring you—here the love between a man and woman can’t escape the brutality of sacrifice and tyranny, and is but one love, where democracy is a deep and abiding one.

[...]

Movie reviewers—a club of which I most definitely am not a member—have taken issue with The Lost City: It is, they point out, too long. But viva The Lost City anyway—it more than makes up for its flaws in its myth-busting cultural contributions.

Here in the U.S., where Che Guevara T-shirts are a staple at most soccer-mom shopping malls and on college campuses, it’s a countercultural revolution of a movie ... It provides a much-needed respite of moral clarity in between Robert Redford’s Oscar-winning Motorcycle Diaries (which portrayed a young Guevara—doctor and freedom fighter—as a secular saint) and the upcoming Steven Soderbergh Che-fest starring Benicio Del Toro (both Soderbergh and Del Toro are Oscar winners).

Che—a Communist responsible for Castro’s gulags—was a monster. But nothing I could tell you about him could do him the kind of justice that Garcia’s film does. You see some of Guevara’s brutality, but Garcia’s most powerful scene may be the one where Fico himself faces Che. When Fico is forced to confront the executioner on prison grounds on behalf of a friend, the viewer feels not only Garcia’s anger and disgust (he himself, as a child, fled this tyrant’s thuggery), but the pain and hatred of an entire people whose lives were irrevocably changed by the Castro-Guevara nightmare. This is Garcia’s moment: You watch a race of overwhelming emotions in the character, and you have the palpable sense it’s not all acting.

There is another haunting scene as you take the heart-wrenching walk with Fico when he embarks on his journey out of Cuba to Lady Liberty’s arms, you might as well be watching home movies from the Garcia family’s own exit; the emotion is that raw.

Garcia’s movie has clearly touched a nerve already: It has been banned in several South American countries. No surprise, given that “Viva Che” is a natural mantra for the likes of Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez. And we can’t forget, of course, about Fidel Castro, in power since 1959, with doctors threatening he could live to be 140—60 more years.

Garcia has said in response to the controversy about his movie: “Some people think Castro is a savior, that he looks out for kids and the poor. It's a bunch of hogwash. In the 45 years since Castro has been in power, Cuba has been in the top three countries for human rights abuses for 43 of those years. People turn a blind eye to his atrocities.” Not Andy Garcia though.

... The Chicago Tribune's critic said:

Throbbing with music, seething with anger and romance, "The Lost City" is a film that breaks your heart, bewilders, alienates and ravishes you by turns.

How can you not want to see a movie that does all that?

Well, how can you not?

Viva Cuba Libre!

Posted by Mike Lief at 12:47 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

June 12, 2007

It's not over

You do know the Illegal Alien Amnesty Immigration Reform Bill is showing signs of life in the Senate, don't you? Michelle Malkin points out a few reasons why it's still a bad idea -- and just how screwed up the immigration system has become.

As you follow the debate over the Bush-Kennedy immigration bill, keep this cardinal rule in mind: 99.99 percent of the lawmakers who promise you that they’ll ensure the deportation of anyone who doesn’t follow their new “guest-worker” regulations are either A) lying or B) completely clueless.

Rule No. 2: Anyone who plays the Enforcement equals Kicking-Down-Doors-And-Depriving-Babies-of-Mother’s-Milk card (yes, that’s you, Geraldo Rivera) is either A) lying or B) completely clueless.

As I’ve reported many times over the last several years, the nation’s deportation abyss is governed by one reality: “It ain’t over ‘til the alien wins.”

Immigration lawyers and ethnic activists run a massive, lucrative industry whose sole objective is to help illegal aliens and convicted criminal visa holders evade deportation for as long as possible. Entry into this country should be a privilege, not a right. The open-borders lobby has turned that principle on its head.

Look no further than New York, where four convicted criminal aliens — a child molester, two killers, and a racketeer — just won a federal lawsuit to remain in the country after all being ordered deported. The stunning decision from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, Blake v. Carbone, came down on June 1 as the shamnesty debate was bubbling in Washington.

The ruling, which hinges on convoluted due-process arguments, will greatly expand the number of criminal aliens convicted of certain aggravated felonies who can now receive relief from deportation. This is happening despite the passage of two federal immigration reform laws in 1996 severely restricting deportation waivers for criminal aliens convicted of aggravated felonies.

Yeah, because we don't have enough home-grown child molesters, murderers and racketeers, so we have to import foreigners to do the (illegal) work that Americans just won't do.

Read the rest of Malkin's post for the sordid details of the crimes that still won't get a murdering, theiving, child-molesting scumbag deported.

Posted by Mike Lief at 11:02 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Get outta my damn way!

Is there anything more aggravating than some jackass setting up shop in the fast lane on a two-lane highway, cruising along at 65 mph, as car after car passes on the right -- each driver glaring at the idiot who refuses to MOVE OVER?

It's a rhetorical question; nothing is more aggravating (except those who defend the fast-lane cruisers on the grounds that they're doing the speed limit).

GRRRRRRRR.

Anyhow, you really can find anything on the web.

Like an organization devoted to clearing out the fast lane.

The decal -- printed backwards for easy reading in rear-view mirrors -- sends a hard-to-ignore message; if it doesn't work, I think the PIT maneuver is legally justified.

Via Autoblog.

Posted by Mike Lief at 10:02 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

June 11, 2007

Thank you ...

For the kind words about Squiggy. As you can see from the pictures, he liked being close to Bogie -- something he avoided with Pepper, our other cat. Squiggy was more like a dog than a feline, always following me around the house, meeting us at the door, and just engaging in un-cat-like behavior.

We really thought he'd pull through this illness. His passing reminds us of the inevitability of the end that awaits us all, and the importance of friends, family and, yes, critters, too. We're thankful for the happiness he brought to our home, and treasure the time we had with him -- and the memories we shall have always.

We're not the only ones who have lost a friend. Bogie knows something's amiss; his pal has gone missing and the humans are moping listlessly around the house. Part of my morning ritual involved Bogie and I getting up to make coffee; Squiggy greeted us at the door and kept a close eye on the hound, settling next to him on the rug, basking in the morning sun.

I'd drink my cuppa Joe and watch the two of them snuggle until the sound of my wife getting up roused them both; they'd sit together at the bedroom door, anticipating her arrival.

This morning was the first time since we brought the cats home that it was just me and Bogie; it felt strangely incomplete.

Anyhow ... a couple of notes about the folks who did their best for Squiggy. The Veterinary Medical and Surgical Group (VMSG) is a top-notch clinic, with state-of-the-art equipment and an incredible staff. Not only available for more complex treatment than the local vet can provide, VMSG is also open 24/7 for emergencies. We were amazed how quickly we were able to see the doctor on Sunday night.

Dr. Brooke Jensen and the staff at VMSG made an awful day a tad easier to bear; they were courteous, solicitous and respectful. Special thanks to Dr. Jensen, who sat with us, commiserated with us, and helped end Squiggy's suffering; her concern and kindness were much appreciated.

And many thanks to Dr. J. Burner and the staff at Anacapa Animal Hospital, who did everything they could for Squiggy -- and continue to care for Bogie and Pepper.

If you're in the Ventura area, I highly recommend both of these animal care facilities.

Posted by Mike Lief at 09:00 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 10, 2007

Squiggy Cat, 1993-2007

Posted by Mike Lief at 09:54 PM | Comments (8) | TrackBack

FNS Panel: Illegal Immigration

Mara Liasson echoes the canard that "polls show that the vast majority ofthe American People support this compromise."

Which is only true when the poll consists of the most leading, suggestive questions imaginable.

Bill Kristol: Happy to point fingers at the Senators who drafted the bill. As someone who supports the idea of regularizing the statues of those here illegaly, the more you looked at the substance of the bill, the worse it got. They cobbled this thing together and then said "Take it or leave it."

Juan Williams: What's really going on here The reality

Hume: Pres. Bush has little or no infulence left. The few attempts he made to push the legislation along didn't work, and in one instance made things worse, when he attacked members of his own coalition -- conservatives.

Bill Kristol:

Juan Williams: This was a comprehensive bill that included more Border Agents, more fuding for building a wall -- which I think is useless.

Posted by Mike Lief at 08:34 AM

FNS: Dick Durbin

On Fox News Sunday, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Illinois), blaming the collapse of the Illegal Immigration Amnesty Bill on the Republicans.

In his usual, mealy-mouthed, soft-spoken way, Durbin lets us know that it was those ghastly conservatives who stood in the way of solving this most vexing and important problem.

And what, exactly, was at the root of the GOP's unreasonable, obstructionist actions?

They refused to limit the number of amendments to be voted on to eight or nine.

Because anything more than that isn't debate; isn't a legitimate operation of the legislative process; isn't a means of seeking up-or-down votes on substantive changes to a piece of legislation that was cooked up behind closed doors without the input of the Senate's full membership.

No, further debate was useless, you see, because Ted Kennedy and Arlen Spector said so.

Chris Wallace points out that Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nevada), the Majority Leader, allowed three votes on the Dorgan amendment, considered by many to be a poison pill -- and one created by a Democrat.

"So's your mother!" responds Durbin, quickly moving past this inconvenient fact.

What a gasbag.

Posted by Mike Lief at 08:21 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 08, 2007

Dispatch from Not-So-Great Britain, Part the Fifth

Came across a headline that made me say, "What the hell!?"

Paedophile rape report suppressed to protect a killer’s right to privacy

"That can't be as bad as it looks," I thought, so I read the article.

I was right.

It was worse.

The findings of an inquiry into why a convicted murderer freed from prison was able to abduct and rape a ten-year-old boy will remain secret because its publication would infringe the killer’s right to privacy.

The Parole Board cites the Data Protection Act to justify its refusal to make public the findings of an internal review into its 2005 decision to free Stephen Ayre.

Because, you see, it would be a gross injustice to embarass a kiddie-raping killer.

Winston weeps.

Posted by Mike Lief at 12:44 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Now that's bloody good writing!

The U.K.'s Times offers choice snippets from the acidic pen of automotive writer Jeremy Clarkson, and they're so damn good I defy you to resist reading the rest of the reviews.

Here's a few of my favorites.

Volkswagen Jetta

"I’d love to meet the man who styled the exterior, to find out if he’d done it as some sort of a joke. But mostly I’d like to meet the man who simply didn’t bother at all with the interior. Because looking at that dashboard gives you some idea of what it might be like to be dead."

Perodua Kelisa 1.0 GXi

"This is without doubt the worst car, not just in its category but in the world. It has a top speed of 88mph but takes so long to reach it that no one has ever lived long enough to verify the claim, the inside is tackier than Anthea Turner’s wedding and you don’t want to think what would happen if it bumped into a lamppost.

"Also its name sounds like a disease."

Kia Rio

"You may have seen The Fly II, in which a scientist attempts to teleport a dog. In one of the most gruesome scenes I've seen in a film it arrives at its destination completely inside out. Well the Rio is uglier than that. Inside, things get worse.

"Small wonder Kia's importer in Britain is sponsoring the Pedestrian Association's Walking Bus scheme. The idea is that parents take it in turns to walk a group, or "bus", of children to their school in a morning. After three days of being transported in the Rio, my kids thought it was a brilliant idea to walk instead. Even though their school is 18 miles away and it was blowing a gale directly from the Canadian tundra."

There are a total of twelve write-ups of truly terrible cars, each one lovingly described in pungent prose far better than the rides deserve.

Good stuff.

Posted by Mike Lief at 12:31 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

The how and why of the Senate win (for us, loss for them)

Interesting post by John Hawkins on the mechanics of the Senate immigration meltdown, based on information passed on to him by someone who works for a Senator.

He also offers an interesting theory on why some Republicans backed the bill.

I also asked my source why he thought so many Republicans had been supporting such an incredibly unpopular bill. He gave three reasons:

First off, there was what he referred to as the "Rovian School of thought," which says that passing this bill would capture the Hispanic vote for the GOP for decades to come.

Next up, there's the "Chamber of Commerce" vote. He says these Republicans were heavily influenced by business groups that want cheap labor no matter what the cost is for the rest of the country.

Then there was the last group, the smallest group in his opinion, who were willing to sign onto a terrible bill just so they could say they were part of a big reform that had bipartisan support.

Pathetic.

Posted by Mike Lief at 12:11 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 07, 2007

Why would we trust them?

Want to know why I -- like so many other Americans -- am NEVER going to support "Comprehensive Immigration Reform"?

I'm so glad you asked.

The answer can be found during today's floor vote on amendments to the Senate Amnesty, specifically the Coburn Amendment.

Sen. Thomas Coburn (R-Oklahoma) sponsored amendment 1311, requiring all existing laws concerning immigration be enforced before any new legislation takes effect.

The proposed amendment would have inserted this language into the bill.

(2) EXISTING LAW.--The following provisions of existing law shall be fully implemented, as previously directed by the Congress, prior to the certification set forth in paragraph (1):

(A) The Department has achieved and maintained operational control over the entire international land and maritime borders of the United States as required under the Secure Fence Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-367)

(B) The total miles of fence required under such Act have been constructed.

(C) All databases maintained by the Department which contain information on aliens shall be fully integrated as required by section 202 of the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002 (8 U.S.C. 1722).

(D) The Department shall have implemented a system to record the departure of every alien departing the United States and of matching records of departure with the records of arrivals in the United States through the US-VISIT program as required by section 110 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1221 note).

(E) The provision of law that prevents States and localities from adopting ``sanctuary'' policies or that prevents State and local employees from communicating with the Department are fully enforced as required by section 642 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1373).

(F) The Department employs fully operational equipment at each port of entry and uses such equipment in a manner that allows unique biometric identifiers to be compared and visas, travel documents, passports, and other documents authenticated in accordance with section 303 of the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002 (8 U.S.C. 1732).

(G) An alien with a border crossing card is prevented from entering the United States until the biometric identifier on the border crossing card is matched against the alien as required by section 101(a)(6) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(6)).

(H) Any alien who is likely to become a public charge is denied entry into the United States pursuant to section 212(a)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)).

Let me be perfectly clear; the citations in parenthesis at the end of each paragraph are the laws already passed by Congress regarding illegal immigration. So the only thing this amendment requires is that the Federal Government follow, obey and enforce the law.

The Senate defeated this amendment, 42-54.

Michelle Malkin underlined the Republicans who -- when forced to cast a Yea or Nay vote on whether to enforce the law -- sided with Ted Kennedy in answering, "No way, Jose!"

This is the very heart of the problem. If the Senate, and by extension the House, the Congress, the Executive Branch, and hence, the Feds are unwilling to enforce current laws, and local governments are prohibited from trying to implement anti-illegal immigration statutes because it's not their place, then why would anyone believe that a new set of laws will be any more likely to be enforced?

Layering another set of meaningless regulations atop the earlier, dusty, unused rules and penalties merely creates a 21st-Century legal Potemkin Village, a charade designed to quiet the rubes who want the U.S. to regain control of our borders.

We've got approximately 12 million illegal aliens in the U.S., with all the laws we need to address the problem -- if only we decided that it was a problem that needed addressing.

Posted by Mike Lief at 09:39 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Examining the aftermath

Michelle Malkin -- who has been a great source for anyone interested in the progress of the Amnesty -- provides as good a summary of the aftermath of this mess as any I've seen, and she doesn't shy away from laying the blame where it belongs.

As annoying as Reid's refrain was, he is right: This was the president's bill. This was the monstrous sham that President Bush tried to ram through the Senate with his pal Teddy Kennedy--subverting the committee process, attempting to cram it in before the Memorial Day holiday, rushing to limit debate, and then complaining about delays. This was the bill President Bush sent conservative-bashing bureaucrats like DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff to peddle on CNN. This was the bill President Bush championed while deriding critics as fearful bigots and running away from building the fence he promised to build.

If the White House thinks conservatives are going to forget whose bill this was and the tactics the White House used in its failed attempt to ram it through Congress, they better think again.

If Lindsay Graham and John McCain think their abominable behavior is going to be forgotten, they better think again.

All is not lost within the Republican Party, though. Watching the floor debate closely the past week, I can tell you that we have three staunch, eloquent conservative defenders in Sens. Sessions, DeMint, and Coburn (though I'm not sure why Coburn didn't vote on cloture). Unlike President Bush and the pro-amnesty Republicans, these three Republican senators stand out in their understanding and appreciation of the rule of law, the past historical failures of shamnesty bargains, and the vital nexis between border security and homeland security.

I can't let the night end without also noting the Democrats who defied Reid. Without their votes, shamnesty would be alive and thriving. Whatever their reasons, they chose the right side.

The best reason to suppose those Democrats crossed the aisle? How 'bout the traditional Democratic Party concern for blue-collar Americans? Anything that encourages -- heck, rewards -- illegal immigration is bound to take jobs away from working-class citizens, and depress wages to the point that only an illegal alien would work for them.

Whatever the reason, it's nice to know that the good guys won for a change. But vigilance is needed; the Amnesty Gang will be back.

Posted by Mike Lief at 09:28 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Stupes mourn failure of Amnesty Bill

The supporters of the just-killed (Illegal) Immigration (Amnesty) Bill are on the floor of the Senate boo-hoo-ing to beat the band, and it's just nauseating.

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Illinois, Majority Whip), is going on in honeyed tones about the importance of immigrants. He's talking about the idiotically dunderheaded named "Dream Act," a piece of legislation that he sponsored that would allow the children of illegal aliens the right to stay in the U.S.

Of course he falls back on the WMD of political argument: Think of the children!

He just promised that "The Dream Act will become the law of the land, I promise."

Sen. Durbin, I say this with all due respect: Screw you and screw your attempt to Mau-Mau us with the children of law-breaking foreign nationals.

Now he's thanking all the turncoat-Republicans who helped; Lindsey Graham, John McCain, Arlen Spector -- a regular rogues gallery of weak-willed, MSM-loving, attention whores willing to do anything for the approval of the New York Times and bloated shambolic mess the Senior Senator from Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy.

Lost in all this blame-the-GOP caterwauling is the fact that 10 Democrats refused to vote for cloture; the Republicans couldn't have stopped this mess without those Dems who crossed the aisle.

My gawd, the hand-wringing, the self-righteous breast-beating, it's too, too much to bear.

Now Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Alabama) steps up to the microphone. Sessions was the victim earlier today of a powerplay by Senate Majority Leader Dingy Harry Reid (D-Nevada), who tried to pressure him into signing onto a unanimous consent motion to short-circuit the amendment process on the floor.

When Sessions politely declined to do so, Reid enlisted the Republican Senior Senator from Pennsylvania, the reptilian Arlen Spector, who proceeded to arm-twist the courtly Alabaman, posing a series of questions, in the most unctuous tones wondering what it would take to convince his recalcitrant Southern colleague to cease his unreasonable delaying tactics.

Again, Sessions refused to be cowed, and Spector and Reid retreated.

And, as it turned out, Reid couldn't muster the 60 votes needed to cut off debate.

Why do I suspect this isn't the last we've heard of the amnesty?

Posted by Mike Lief at 07:01 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 06, 2007

Venturans speak out

The local paper ran a story this morning sampling the opinion of a few Ventura County residents on the issue of illegal immigration.

It was a surprisingly well-written and balanced piece of reporting, penned by Tom Kisken.

I particularly enjoyed some of the comments posted by readers.

This one is offered in its entirety for your reading pleasure; I haven't altered -- or corrected -- one word.

Posted by coach04 on June 6, 2007 at 6:59 p.m.

ALL YOU HAITERS THAT ARE AGENTS US YOU WILL NOT WIN. LIKE OLD MARTIN LUTHER KING ONCE SAID "I HAVE A DREAM". MY DREAM IS FOR ONE DAY MY PEOPLE i,e MEXICANS WHO ARE AMERICANS AND WILL BE AMERICANS TO BE ABLE TO BE FREE JUST LIKE ALL YOU HAITERS.

WHY HASNT ANYONE SAID ANYTHIND ABOUT ARNOLD SWANTZINAGER. DO YOU REMEMBER THAT HE CAME ILLEGAL? NOW HE IS ONE OF OUR GOVENERS. MY PEOPLE WILL ONE DAY RAISE UP AND OUR VOTES WILL MAKE A DIFFERENCE. I THINK THATS WHY ALL YOU HAITERS ARE AGENTS US. WE WILL MAKE A DIFFERENCE.
VIVA LA RAZA!!!

Well, "coach04" certainly changed my mind, 'cause I definitely don't want to be thought of as a "HAITER."

Heh.

Posted by Mike Lief at 08:56 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

The Senate is filled with fools

Want proof that the Senate Democrats (and a few RINOs) don't give a darn about the economic health of the United States?

Consider the vote on the Ellis Amendment to S. 1348, the (Illegal) Immigration Bill, taking place right now. Sen. Ellis proposes that the point system used in the proposed (Illegal) Immigration (Amnesty) Bill be changed to favor admitting foreign nationals with advanced medical, technical or scientific education or skills over unskilled, uneducated aliens.

Stop and consider that for a moment. All things being equal, would it be better for the United States to admit well-educated, high-earning, tax-paying people, instead of those immigrants most likely to receive government assistance (that's your taxes, folks!) and pay nothing into the system?

The founding member of the Chappaquiddick Swim Team just delivered an arm-waving (Careful, fella; you're gonna spill your drink!), spittle-flecked, shouting denunciation of this amendment, because it won't allow enough poor people into the country.

Apparently, Kennedy thinks we just don't have enough poor folks right now, so we need to import some more.

Where's my Excedrin?

The Ellis Amendment was just defeated 42-55.

Now the Senate is voting on the Salazar Amendment, sponsored by the Democrat from Colorado. This one purports to promote the importance of English as the "common" language of our country, without making it the "official" means of communication. The reality of the Salazar Amendment is that it will give any alien receiving government assistance (your tax dollars, again, people!) the right to also receive whatever paperwork comes with the money in the language of their choosing.

8 p.m. PDST

It just passed, 57-35.

Now Sen. Inhofe (R-Oklahoma) is speaking about his amendment, making English the official language of the United States.

Well whattaya know? It passed 64-33. Of course it directly conflicts with the Salazar Amendment that passed just minutes before.

What a bunch of maroons.

Posted by Mike Lief at 07:40 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Squiggy update

We left Squiggy at the animal hospital yesterday, for what may be his last treatment. The past few days have been discouraging, watching the guy waste away to skin and bones as he slowly walked up to what had in earlier times been irresistible treats like fish and chicken, only to turn away, his appetite gone.

He suddenly found the quiet, dark spaces in the Kitty Condo appealing, where before he rarely ventured within -- preferring to laze about on top. Monday he took a turn for the worse, without the energy to greet me at the door when I arrived home from work.

I tracked him down, fearing the worst; I'd rushed home before my wife, just in case he'd succumbed to the cancer, so she wouldn't find him. He was in the garage, sleeping in my old jeep, too weak to climb down.

After a moment, he rose on unsteady legs and s-l-o-w-l-y made his way out of the jeep and into the house, where he settled on the rug near the front door, under the watchful gaze of the Kinagin man.

Squiggy stayed there all night; when we took him to the vet, we expected that we'd be putting an end to his ordeal.

But the soft-spoken doctor said that if he could make it through the night, he just might regain his appetite and begin recovery; the tumors in his gut had responded to the drugs and the prognosis was not as grim as we thought.

If he made it through the night.

We signed a "Do Not Resuscitate" order for the little guy, figuring it was time let him go if that was what was in the cards, and left him in the vet's care.

We'll know later today if Bogie'll have a chance to spend a little more time with his pal.

Posted by Mike Lief at 12:24 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

June 05, 2007

Where have all the men gone?

Want a great example of everything that's right with Americans born before the Baby Boomers -- and everything that's wrong with the Boomers and their metro-sexual, feminized, violence-never-solved-anything successors?

Check this out.

Shortly before landing, Bob Hayden and a flight attendant had agreed on a signal: When she waved the plastic handcuffs, he would discreetly leave his seat and restrain an unruly passenger who had frightened some of the 150 people on board a Minneapolis-to-Boston flight Saturday night with erratic behavior.

Hayden, a 65-year-old former police commander, had enlisted a gray-haired gentleman sitting next to him to assist. The man turned out to be a former US Marine.

"I had looked around the plane for help, and all the younger guys had averted their eyes. When I asked the guy next to me if he was up to it, all he said was, 'Retired captain. USMC.' I said, 'You'll do,' " Hayden recalled. "So, basically, a couple of grandfathers took care of the situation."

[...]

Hayden's wife of 42 years, Katie, who was also on the flight, was less impressed. Even as her husband struggled with the agitated passenger, she barely looked up from "The Richest Man in Babylon," the book she was reading.

"The woman sitting in front of us was very upset and asked me how I could just sit there reading," Katie Hayden said. "Bob's been shot at. He's been stabbed. He's taken knives away. He knows how to handle those situations.

"I figured he would go up there and step on somebody's neck, and that would be the end of it. I knew how that situation would end. I didn't know how the book would end."

The men castrati who avoided eye contact with the men who handled the situation should be ashamed of themselves.

As the Bard said in Henry V,

We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition;
And gentlemen in England now-a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.

It really is a marvelous speech, especially when delivered by a brilliant actor like Kenneth Branagh.

Anyhow, Shakespeare was right more than 400 years ago; those male passengers who allowed these two graybeards to fight for them while they cowered in their seats must surely hold their manhoods cheap -- if they even know where said manhoods can be found.

Posted by Mike Lief at 10:17 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

Deadeye for the gay guy

Via Clayton Cramer comes this account of how a gay, gun-fearing Ohio man finds that firearms aren't all that scary -- and he's a good shot, too.

Posted by Mike Lief at 10:02 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

For Pres. Bush, loyalty is a one-way street

A federal judge sentenced Scooter Libby to prison today, for lying to an investigator looking into the Plame Kerfuffle -- meanwhile, Richard Armitage, the favorite State Department official of Democrats and the Press, the guy who really did leak Valerie Plame's name to the press, goes unindicted.

What did the White House have to say about the prospect of Libby going to prison?

"The President said that he felt terrible for the family, especially his wife and his kids."
--Deputy White House press secretary Dana Perino, with Pres. Bush on Air Force One, Tuesday

Bill Kristol, the editor of the Weekly Standard, delivers a stunning rebuke and a scathing indictment in response.

I FEEL TERRIBLE for Scooter Libby's family. Millions of Americans feel terrible for Scooter Libby's family. But we can't do anything about the injustice that has been done. Nor can we do anything to avert a further injustice looming on the horizon--Judge Reggie Walton seems inclined not to let Libby remain free pending appeal.

Unlike the rest of us, however, George W. Bush is president. Article II, Section Two of the Constitution gives him the pardon power. George W. Bush can do something to begin to make up for the injustice a prosecutor appointed by his own administration brought down on Scooter Libby. And he can do something to avert the further injustice of a prison term.

Will Bush pardon Libby? Apparently not--even if it means a man who worked closely with him and sought tirelessly to do what was right for the country goes to prison. Bush spokeswoman Dana Perino, noting that the appeals process was underway, said, "Given that and in keeping with what we have said in the past, the president has not intervened so far in any other criminal matter and he is going to decline to do so now."

So much for loyalty, or decency, or courage. For President Bush, loyalty is apparently a one-way street; decency is something he's for as long as he doesn't have to take any risks in its behalf; and courage--well, that's nowhere to be seen.

Many of us used to respect President Bush. Can one respect him still?

It's become increasingly difficult to remember why I liked Bush; in retrospect, the best reason for having cast a ballot for him was the fact that it was a vote against the other guy.

As Dean Barnett notes, Bush is a guy whose emphasis on loyalty prevented him from firing an incompetent Attorney General; led him to nominate an unqualified friend to the Supreme Court; and I must also add, reward the horrendous director of the CIA with the Medal of Freedom. Barnett calls the impending incarceration of Libby a national disgrace, and I can't think of a reason to disagree.

Posted by Mike Lief at 05:24 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

When sucking up backfires

Mickey Kaus takes a look at the latest poll numbers, and finds that McCains' courageous idiotic co-sponsorship of the Illegal Alien Amnesty Bill has not only [ahem] alienated the GOP base, but also angered Hispanic members of the party.

Endangered Pander? McCain supports legalization of illegal immigrants, loses 5 points over the month among Hispanic Republicans in California, according to SurveyUSA.

Fred Thompson blasts the legalization bill from the right and his support among Hispanics quintuples, putting him ahead of McCain (and Giuliani) among Hispanics. ...

P.S.: These are Hispanic Republicans, of course. But they are not insignificant, making up 17% of "likely Republican Primary voters" in Survey USA's model. ... P.P.S.: McCain's loss (and Thompson's gain) was actually greater among Hispanics than among GOP voters generally. ... P.P.P.S.: You don't even want to see what happened among black Republicans. ..

It's a measure of how distanced the Washington pols are from their constituents that they actually believe that supporting this mess of an amnesty is popular back home.

The more Americans learn about the bill, the more they oppose it -- and stupes like McCain (and Pres. Bush) react by telling us that we're too ignorant-racist-selfish to appreciate the brilliance and merit of their plan.

I've been wondering how long it'll take for the Black Congressional Caucus to break with the Dems over this issue; 12 million illegal, low-wage workers gaining citizenship will go a long way toward diluting the political power of the Caucus, not to mention the downward pressure on wages caused by the influx, which disproportionately affect those blacks at the bottom of the economic ladder.

Posted by Mike Lief at 03:43 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

June 04, 2007

Auto-Erotica

The Los Angeles Concours d'Elegance features some of the most beautiful examples of art on wheels (check out this gallery), but my vote for the sexiest, jaw-dropping, conversation-stopping, Didja see that!-exclaiming set of wheels is this Rolls Royce, apparently the product of a one-night stand involving Darth Vader, a Double-R Phantom Coupe, scads of money, and mind-altering substances.

This beauty is more than 70 years old, but she's ageless.

Check out those curves. Gadzooks!

Posted by Mike Lief at 10:00 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Honda and Diesels: Happy, happy, joy, joy!

Autoblog reports that Honda is on track to bring California emissions-compliant diesels to the U.S. in late 2008, which is great news for those of us who like an engine that combines extremely long life and durability, coupled with tons of torque and great fuel efficiency.

And the Accord hybrid? History.

Honda has marketed diesels in Europe for years, where the crude-powered cars outsell gasoline versions by more than 2-1.

To get you in the mood for a very different diesel from the dreck inflicted on us by American automakers in the 1980s, check out this ad from Honda U.K.; it gives us a taste of what's coming our way.

Posted by Mike Lief at 09:49 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

AAA-OOOO-GAH! Dive! Dive! Dive! (if only)

I thought my time on the bridge of the diesel submarine USS Blueback (SS-581) -- when equipment failures kept us from submerging and diving below typhoon-force winds and waves -- was scary, but this account of a maneuvering watch gone bad in San Francisco bay aboard a nuke boat sounds even worse.

Check it out.

Posted by Mike Lief at 07:43 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

News from the front

U.S. Army Lieutenant Michael Bradbury (second from left) somewhere in Iraq.

A friend's nephew is currently serving with the U.S. Army in Iraq; he periodically updates his loved ones on the progress being made on the ground. Here's his latest report.

The past few months have been interesting, to say the least. As expected, the rising temperatures have brought increased activity from the bad guys (hereafter referred to as “Abu”); we have now entered what is referred to as “sniper season,” but as always Abu’s self esteem issues have proven detrimental to his accuracy.

Due to a cultural belief that having a stock on a weapon makes it a “woman’s rifle,” the AIF remove them from their rifles, making the weapons almost impossible to aim. Actually, the culture of the region has worked to our benefit in several other ways, usually resulting from the concept of “enshallah,” or “as God wills it.”

Since nothing can happen unless God decrees it, it is an exercise in futility to actually take the time to aim a weapon, and although firing a fully automatic rifle (minus stock) with one hand from a moving vehicle at a patrol of 20 heavily armed Soldiers in four up-armored HMMWVs might seem to be a touch risky to some of us, it seems to make perfect sense to Abu.

Although I agree with him about God’s supremacy, I also believe He gave me the good sense to use the tools I have, but my theological debates with the enemy have been less than frequent.

The OPTEMPO, or Operational Tempo (basically how much we are expected to do in the fight), of the past three months has led to a serious lack of opportunities to get myself into the same amount of trouble I normally do. However, it did not prevent me from falling into an open sewer while I was out playing with Abu, much to the delight of my “friends” in the company.

The Hollywood depictions of firefights failed completely to prepare me for reality, as never once did I see the hero in the movie running through the night after the enemy suddenly disappear up to his waist in an open manhole, nor did they show him sliding on wet tiles and doing a face plant into a wall after the bad guys fired an RPG at him.

Those of you who knew me while I was growing up are probably not very surprised about these adventures. Maybe it is time I realized that I may be the Hollywood sidekick with the funny name instead of the steely-eyed movie lead.

LT Bradbury snapped this picture on the ride back to base after a day spent hunting terrorists.

Even with the setbacks we have suffered recently, there are always reminders of the reasons we had to come to this country, and reasons why I continue to be proud of what we are doing here.

We are fighting an enemy who has no qualms about targeting civilians, whose deaths are seen as simply a means to an end, namely destroying the reputation of the fledgling government.

Two weeks ago, nine SVBIEDs (Suicide Vehicle Borne Improvised Explosive Devices, or car bombs) were detonated in my sector within 30 minutes of each other, all targeting Iraqi Police compounds. In order to clear a path to these compounds, a series of VBIEDs were used to wipe out a market that straddled one of the avenues of approach to one of the compounds, and at a second site, a VBIED destroyed two schools that happened to be adjacent to a police station, killing two young girls.

Although I generally try to gloss over the atrocities and brutalities I have seen here, it is becoming more difficult to do so, as I fear that distance has made it far too easy for many back home to minimize these acts or to convince themselves that things were not really as bad as they were made to seem.

I do not wish to emphasize the negative, as many in the media make a living doing, but I believe it is necessary for my fellow Americans to understand that we are not just riding around Iraq getting blown up and shot at; we are combating an ideology that teaches the murder of innocents, and the more we shirk from that fight, the more innocents we will allow to die, and I personally believe that doing so would in fact make us in part culpable in their deaths.

Although not all of you (or the rest of America) may agree with me about the justness of our presence in Iraq, we are here now, and we have the opportunity to make a difference for the better in the lives of these people, and in my belief it would be more than shameful to fail to take advantage of this opportunity.

The Army continues to surprise me with the opportunities it has afforded me. I have now gone into battle (or to be correct, I have “conducted combat operations”) in HMMWVs (humvees), M1A2 SEP Abrams tanks, M2A2 Bradley Fighting Vehicles, a Blackhawk helicopter, Strykers, an LMTV, my boots, and a Cessna.

The greatest surprise came two days ago when my battalion commander informed me that he was giving me an Infantry platoon, which, being an Artilleryman, I was not expecting. This means that as of September 1st, I will be leaving my family in Demon Company and joining Third Platoon, Apache Company. Obviously, it will be an enormous responsibility, and I am going to spend the next three months attempting to learn everything that is Infantry, but it is also a dream come true, and it is difficult to describe how excited I am about it.

I am sure you have all heard on the news that we Active Duty fellows are going to be spending a few more months here in the Middle East than we had originally planned, so it may be a bit longer before I see some of you again, but I want each of you to know that you are in my thoughts and prayers, and I look forward to seeing you all again, take care of yourselves,

One love, homies,

Mike

We have a thousand reasons for failure but not a single excuse.
-Rudyard Kipling

Good luck to LT Bradbury in his new assignment; may G-d keep him and his men safe.

If you'd like to tell him his efforts are appreciated, you can e-mail him at michael.bradbury@us.army.mil.

LT Bradbury's previous message can be found here.

Posted by Mike Lief at 07:54 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

June 03, 2007

FNS Panel: Illegal Immigration

Chris Wallace: Was it smart for the president to go after conservative opponents of the illegal amnesty legislation?

Hume It was ridiculously stupid.

Kristol: I'm a liberal on immigration ... Where is the substantive defense of the bill? The more you look at it, the worse it looks.

Juan Williams: I think there is logic in what he says -- there are people out there who don't want to do what's best for America.

Kristol asks Williams if we ought to allow gang members who are illegal immigrants to be allowed to stay, if they simply sign a piece of paper promising to quit their evil ways.

Williams refuses to answer, saying, "We've got American gang members."

Huh?

Posted by Mike Lief at 08:46 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 02, 2007

Saturday Squiggy

Squiggy, determined to show that even cancer can't keep a good cat down, leaps onto the backyard fence and displays some feline fancy footwork.

Posted by Mike Lief at 05:20 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

I knew things were bad ...

At the L.A. Times, but I hadn't realized it was quite this bad.

This is the day for farewell messages down at the Times ... the newspaper losing 57 reporters, editors, columnists and photographers in one day.

It's not a surprise, given the terrible reporting at the paper of record for the West Coast, as documented ad nauseam by Patterico, who notes:

Regular readers know that while I despise this paper, I take no joy in watching people leave their jobs — and in this case, the paper is losing some of its best people (as well as some others whom I have harshly criticized in the past).

[...]

This paper is slowly dying in front of our eyes. This is just the latest wound.

I've none of Pat's regrets; the Times is simply terrible, a fact recognized by the readers, who have been fleeing in droves.

Keep up the good work, my friends -- cancel your subscriptions here or by calling (800) 252-9141.

Posted by Mike Lief at 04:50 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

June 01, 2007

The leaders of tomorrow's Air Force

Gawd help us all.

But Cadet Jeff Pelehac does have some groovin' moves, eh?

Posted by Mike Lief at 10:48 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Patterico delivers on Flight 327

Patterico does something the newspapers couldn't: he gets a Federal Air Marshal to go on the record and confirm that in his opinion the thirteen Arabs on Northwest Flight 327 were conducting a dry run for the next attack, probing our defenses.

And the reaction from the TSA? Denials, incompetence, cover-up.

Happy Friday.

Posted by Mike Lief at 07:12 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack