So that's it: Why the president is in a hurry for immigration reform

At last, an explanation.

If you've been trying to find the reason that a president with a thirty percent approval rating would try to force a wildly unpopular immigration reform proposal down the throat of the Republican Congress six months before an election, search no more.

The answer comes to us from Reuters reporter Frank Jack Daniel, writing in Mexico City:

"Mexican President Vicente Fox's ruling party could be the big winner of an immigration overhaul passed in the U.S. Senate as it tries to hold on to power in July elections," he wrote on Friday.

Mr. Daniel goes on to report that while the bill may never become law due to significant opposition in the House of Representatives, President Fox declared that it was a victory won by his government.

"It is a truly joyous day, a historic day," Fox told reporters on his presidential jet. Mr. Daniel noted that he raised his fist in triumph.

Vicente Fox cannot run again for president, but on July 2 his party's candidate, Felipe Calderon, will run against leftist Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, who has been hammering Fox for the failure of what he calls his "free market economic policies."

In fact, Mexico's economy is dominated by a combination of government-owned monopolies and crony-owned monopolies. But never mind. If Lopez Obrador wins, it is likely that the Mexican government will take a sharply socialist turn, joining Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, and possibly Peru--not to mention Zimbabwe--in a self-destructive cycle of property seizures and economic failures.

Let's assume that whatever debts Mexico owes to U.S. banks and international bondholders will be the first thing the new leftist government disavows.

That kind of thing is really bad news on Wall Street.

Really bad news on Wall Street, especially between July and November of an election year, is really, really bad news in Washington.

Can Vicente Fox sell the people of Mexico on the idea that the U.S. Senate bill is a great victory that he has won for them?

"This is the only good news we have had in a long time," Guatemalan migrant Alexander Chung, 21, told Reuters in a Catholic church shelter in the Mexican border town of Reynosa as he waited to cross illegally into Texas.

Sounds like he can, but then, Guatemalans probably can't vote in Mexico's election. Mexico's a lot stricter than we are about that kind of thing.

We will know that this is the real story behind President Bush's passion for immigration reform if the House and Senate bills go into conference and we never hear another word about it after Mexico's July 2 election.

Then President Bush will have four months to persuade the American people that it never happened.

We'll see if he can.


Copyright 2006

Editor's note: For a completely different approach to solving the problem of illegal immigration, see "How to Get Congress to Foot the Bill for Illegal Immigration, and Fast" at www.SusanShelley.com.

.

What some people won't do to save energy

Hillary Clinton gave a speech at the National Press Club about energy on Tuesday.

It was the usual wide-eyed call for efficiency and conservation and reducing our dependence on foreign oil, plus a proposal to slap an extra tax on the only people who actually know how to get the stuff out of the ground and into your engines and appliances.

Here are a couple of ideas to save energy that Senator Clinton didn't mention.

Eliminate cross-town school busing for racial integration. In Los Angeles, nobody ever talks about how much fuel is used to drive children thirty miles from one majority-Hispanic public school to another, or why it's worth the fuel cost--not to mention the cost of the drivers, the equipment, the maintenance and the insurance--to do it.

Eliminate curbside recycling programs. For the dubious goal of reducing landfill volume, giant fuel-sucking trucks drive up one side of the street and down the other across American cities every week, picking up barrels of unsorted recyclables so they can be put through a fuel-sucking manufacturing process that pollutes the air and water and increases the greenhouse gas emissions blamed for global warming.

Wouldn't our energy and money be better spent educating kids in the schools close to their homes and paying a premium for landfill space? Shouldn't we at least run the numbers and make an informed decision?

Ask your favorite candidates. Watch them go pale under their suntans.

They're so quick to criticize your decisions about energy use. How rational are theirs?

By the way, Senator Clinton told the National Press Club that we are watching "as the Earth warms faster than it has at any time in the past 200,000 years." That's in case you thought being married to Bill Clinton didn't age you.


Copyright 2006


.

Spitting on excellence

Why shouldn't students who failed California's high school exit exam be allowed to graduate? What's the harm if twelfth-graders who cannot pass a statewide test of eighth-grade math and tenth-grade English walk across a stage and receive a diploma?

That's the question the California Supreme Court has been asked to consider, and quickly, because eleven percent of the Class of 2006 -- about 47,000 students -- are at this moment deciding whether they really have to attend summer school or whether Superior Court Judge Robert Freedman's injunction halting the exit exam is going to stand.

When considering whether there is any harm caused by striking down the exit exam, the court should think about the students who passed it.

If the exit exam stands, a California high school graduate from the Class of 2006 can walk into a human resources office and write down on an application that he or she has a high school diploma, and everyone will know that, at a minimum, that applicant has passed a test of tenth-grade English and eighth-grade math.

If the exit exam is struck down, that same high school graduate will walk into a human resources office and face the reality that everybody believes a California high school diploma is utterly and completely meaningless.

Reality doesn't go away just because judges think it's unfair.

But why is it fair to strike down the reward for achievement, a credible diploma, to preserve a reward for failure, the right to graduate with classmates as if nothing was wrong at all?

What kind of a society will we have if we tell high-achieving students that they're suckers for working hard and studying, when they could be doing drugs and drinking, with exactly the same outcome?

Of course, the outcome is not the same for long. Students who have high-achieving parents learn that lesson at home.

The real harm will be done to intelligent, hard-working students -- including some who have not yet passed the exit exam -- who don't have anyone pushing them on to college and high-paying careers. They are the victims who will pay a lifelong price for the devaluing of a high school diploma, for the damaging message that studying is foolish, for the reckless decision to prize the feelings of the failures above the achievements of the excellent.


Copyright 2006

.

Paul McCartney's secret

Just when everybody thought it was big news that Britney Spears' car seat was facing the wrong direction, Paul McCartney announced that he has separated from his second wife.

That's more like it.

Panting divorce lawyers rushed into the streets to tell reporters that Sir Paul should not let the soon-to-be-former Mrs. McCartney take him to the cleaners. "If I was acting for Sir Paul and he wanted a fight--and he can certainly afford one," London attorney Alan Kaufman volunteered, "I would take it all the way through the courts and argue that a fair settlement would be a lot less than 200 million pounds."

You see, Paul McCartney, whose net worth is written in numbers usually seen only in federal budget deficit reports, did not ask Heather Mills to sign a pre-nuptial agreement.

Ah, nothing's free. Especially talent.

You can't write those transcendant love songs unless you really, truly, down to your bones, believe in love.

So when Paul McCartney writes that check, he shouldn't regret one penny of it. It's not the price of a mistake. It's the price of the gift.


Copyright 2006

.

President Bush endorses slavery

President Bush's Oval Office address to the nation Monday night might as well have been the starting gun in a marathon run from Mexico City to San Diego.

"There are differences between an illegal immigrant who crossed the border recently and someone who has worked here for many years," the president said.

How recent is recently? How many is many? Never mind, get here and get here quick, and try to have a baby, premature if possible. The president gives extra points for "a home, a family."

President Bush tried to argue that border security cannot succeed unless every non-criminal who wants to cross illegally is offered a method to come in legally. "The reality is that there are many people on the other side of our border who will do anything to come to America," he said. "A temporary worker program would reduce the appeal of human smugglers and make it less likely that people would risk their lives to cross the border."

The president said "temporary workers must return to their home country at the conclusion of their stay." He didn't explain how people who are willing to "walk across miles of desert in the summer heat, or hide in the back of 18-wheelers" would be persuaded to go, especially if they had established "a home, a family."

Apparently the plan is to work them twenty-four hours a day so they don't need a place to live.

President Bush said a temporary worker program is essential to "meet the needs of our economy." There's no question that cheap, abundant labor is good for business. Anything that holds down costs is good for business. Whether it's good for you depends on what you do for a living. It's good for President Bush. He's got the only job in America that the Constitution bars foreign-born people from taking.

The president went on to offer a plan for I-swear-it's-not-amnesty. "We must face the reality that millions of illegal immigrants are already here," he explained.

You don't say. Who knew?

"I believe that illegal immigrants who have roots in our country and want to stay should have to pay a meaningful penalty for breaking the law, to pay their taxes, to learn English and to work in a job for a number of years," the president said. "People who meet these conditions should be able to apply for citizenship but approval would not be automatic, and they will have to wait in line behind those who played by the rules and followed the law."

Now this is really evil. When the president says he would require immigrants to "work in a job for a number of years," he calls to mind the post-Civil War laws that required newly-freed slaves to sign long-term contracts to work in the fields, contracts that said they would lose everything if they quit early.

The Fourteenth Amendment made laws like that unconstitutional.

The president's proposal would divide the immigrant community into a four-level caste system: temporary workers (who must eventually return to their home country), recent illegal immigrants (who presumably could be deported), illegal immigrants with "roots" (who qualify to apply for citizenship), and legal immigrants.

He's got to be kidding.

He must be kidding because he spoke of a tamper-proof ID card, and that's a joke.

There was some good news in the president's speech. He had lots of ideas for securing the border. Let's do that.


Copyright 2006

Editor's note: You can read more about the post-Civil War "Black Codes" in the appendix to The 37th Amendment, "How the First Amendment Came to Protect Topless Dancing," online at http://www.ExtremeInk.com/appendix.htm. You might also be interested in the recent post, "Decoding the Immigration Debate."

.

Jose Canseco's interesting threat

The Los Angeles Times caught up with Encino resident and former Oakland A's star Jose Canseco this week and interviewed him about Major League Baseball's steroid investigation, headed by former U.S. Senator George Mitchell.

Canseco told Times staff writer Bill Shaikin that "nothing positive" will result from the investigation. "I think [Baseball Commissioner] Bud Selig has to be very careful what rocks he overturns," Canseco said. "The players, right now, are trying to help Major League Baseball clean up the game. If Major League Baseball pushes too much, the players will talk against Major League Baseball. And that's when Major League Baseball is going to go down."

Canseco said Bud Selig "is treading on very thin ice."

Hmmmm. The players will talk against Major League Baseball and baseball will go down. That's an interesting threat. What could he mean? More about steroids? Gambling? Tax fraud? What is it that the players know and the fine journalists who cover baseball haven't yet found out?

This is especially interesting given that the Major League Baseball Players Association is currently negotiating a new labor agreement with the owners, and if a new contract is not in place by August 1, the players' union has the right to call off the new drug-testing policy. House Government Reform Committee chairman Tom Davis has already written to Commissioner Bud Selig, threatening to revive steroid-testing legislation if baseball reverts to its earlier, weaker regime of drug tests.

Actually, the last thing the lawmakers want to do is revive that legislation. To find out why, read the earlier post, "Barry Bonds' big asterisk."

Even if the threat of steroid legislation is toothless, baseball owners can't be happy at the prospect of televised scrutiny from politicians in the middle of a re-election campaign.

It sounds like the players have enough leverage to get the contract they want without a strike. That's good news for the Republicans. The last time there was a baseball strike, the "angry white male" vote threw the incumbents out of Congress. When there's nothing to read in the sports pages, people read the front page, which is enough to get anybody angry.

Incidentally, Barry Bonds was asked last week if he has been contacted by anyone from Senator Mitchell's investigation, and he said no.

Jose Canseco also said he hasn't been contacted by Senator Mitchell or anyone from his investigation, which shouldn't surprise anybody. The former Senate Majority Leader is not the guy you call if you want to know what happened. He's the guy you call if you know what happened and you don't want anybody else to find out.

If you want to know what happened, the guy to hire is Mark Fuhrman. Be sure to give him Jose Canseco's phone number.


Copyright 2006

.

Hillary Clinton is hiring!

Senator Hillary Clinton whined to the annual U.S. Chamber of Commerce convention in Washington Thursday that kids today "think work is a four-letter word."

She complained that kids "think they're entitled to go right to the top with $50,000 or $75,000 jobs when they have not done anything to earn their way up."

The senator theorized that a culture of instant gratification "argues against hard work." She blamed cable TV, high-speed Internet, cell phones and iPods. She told the audience that when she was young, her family had only one television set, and it only had three channels, and she learned valuable negotiating skills by debating which channel the family was going to watch.

This can only mean she's trying to hire a campaign staff. Only a person who was hiring would think high salary demands marked the end of civilization. Anybody else would be happy that kids coming out of college can get jobs at all, especially jobs that pay enough to cover their student loan payments.

No doubt the senator would like to keep campaign costs down by hiring ambitious, young newcomers to the work force. No doubt she expected them to be lined up outside her offices, ready and eager to "earn their way up" by working long hours for low salaries, just to gain valuable experience and invaluable contacts.

Well, to quote Gomer Pyle, "Surprise, surprise, surprise!"

If she was planning to run for president by declaring that President George W. Bush and the Republican Congress have wrecked the economy, she'd better get rewrite on the phone.

She might also want to consider, as long as she's rewriting, that when she declares a whole generation to be lazy, spoiled brats, she sounds like a woman who does not have even a single acquaintance whose kids go to a community college or state university. She sounds like someone who doesn't know anybody whose kids didn't at least apply to Harvard, even if they ultimately were forced to go to Stanford.

It's hard to imagine her husband making a mistake like that.

Copyright 2006

.

Revealed: What the NSA is doing with your phone records

It's a database.

USA Today reported Thursday that the NSA has three major phone companies under contract to provide data on phone numbers called within the United States.

"The agency's goal is 'to create a database of every call ever made' within the nation's borders," the paper reported.

So that's it.

That's why they won't seek warrants for what they're doing. They're compiling all the information they can possibly get and one day, when they have evidence that somebody did something worth investigating, they will go to a judge and get a warrant (or not) and pull everything connected to every phone number that person ever called, and everything connected to every phone number that was ever used to call that person.

That's very different than getting a warrant based on probable cause, as required by the Fourth Amendment, and then collecting data on a person's phone calls and contacts.

Whether the NSA's program is legal is a question that can't be answered, because the administration refuses to tell a court anything about it. We only know as much as we know because reporters at the New York Times and USA Today dug it out by talking to people who clearly are uncomfortable about the program.

Even if the NSA program is legal, we have it in our power to amend the Constitution so that it isn't. The question for us, then, is this: Should we allow the federal government to collect, in secret, information on innocent Americans that can be analyzed later when someone is suspected of a crime?

Of course not.

The potential for abuse is enormous. People in the administration could dig for dirt on protesters and political opponents and businesses that lobby against the president's proposals. And they could do this in absolute secrecy. Laws intended to protect the national security of the United States would instead protect dirty tricks, blackmail and intimidation.

It's not as if phone records can't be obtained any other way. If the government gets a warrant, they can get their hands on detailed phone records of past calls as well as authorization to wiretap current calls.

What about the argument that warrants take too long and terrorists act too quickly?

Well, to accept that argument you would have to believe that the federal government can analyze the information they're collecting and accurately target terrorist plots in time to stop them.

There is quite a bit of evidence to suggest that this is not the case.

For instance, the government relied on erroneous information in a law enforcement database in the infamous Ruby Ridge case, when FBI snipers were told that an armed and dangerous man was lurking behind the door of a cabin. They fired, and hit a woman holding a baby.

The government acted on erroneous information in Waco, Texas, when law enforcement personnel attacked and accidentally incinerated a house full of cult members because they were told that cult leader David Koresh was molesting children.

The government's FBI profilers thought the Washington-area snipers were two white guys in a pick-up truck when in fact they were two black guys in a Chevy.

The government ruined the lives of Richard Jewell and Stephen Hatfill by leaking that they were "persons of interest" in the Atlanta Olympics bombing and the anthrax letters, respectively, when both men were absolutely innocent.

Of course, sometimes the government's information is accurate. A timely memo from an FBI field office warned that terrorists were learning to fly planes in U.S. flight schools. When the government has information on terrorists and chooses to ignore it, does it solve the problem to let them track your phone calls?

We should be very, very cautious about allowing the federal government to collect information on Americans who are not suspected of any crime. In fact, we should be more than cautious.

We should be outraged.


Copyright 2006


.

The farewell gaffe of HUD Secretary Alphonso Jackson

The latest demonstration of Michael Kinsley's Law -- a gaffe is when you accidentally tell the truth -- comes to us courtesy of the Dallas Business Journal, which reported in its May 5-11 edition that the U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development bragged of calling off a government contract with a company after one of the executives told him he didn't like President Bush.

Here's the Associated Press account of HUD Secretary Alphonso Jackson's comments:

Jackson, speaking at an April 28 forum sponsored by the Real Estate Executive Council, told about a minority contractor who had finally landed an advertising contract with HUD after trying for 10 years, according to an article in the Dallas Business Journal.

"He came to see me and thank me for selecting him. Then he said something ... he said, 'I have a problem with your president,'" Jackson told the group, according to the newspaper.

"I said, 'What do you mean?' He said, 'I don't like President Bush.'" Jackson told the group, which promotes business opportunities for minorities in the real estate industry.

"He didn't get the contract," Jackson said. "Why should I reward someone who doesn't like the president, so they can use funds to try to campaign against the president? Logic says they don't get the contract. That's the way I believe."

HUD spokeswoman Dustee Tucker said Tuesday that the story told by the secretary isn't true. "The secretary's story was anecdotal. He is not part of the contracting process," she said. "He was trying to explain to this group how politics works in D.C."

File that under "Don't help me."

On Wednesday, Secretary Jackson expressed deep regret for the "anecdotal remarks" he made, and Dustee Tucker was on leave from the department.

Meanwhile, a report surfaced on Wednesday that HUD gave a $142,000 contract to Shirlington Limousine, the company recently accused of providing prostitutes to congressmen at the expense of defense contractors.

And while this is going on, President Bush and a good-sized group of other Republicans are quietly giving up some contributions they received from Neil Volz, the former House aide and lobbyist who just pleaded guilty to conspiring to bribe his former boss, Ohio Republican congressman Bob Ney.

Then there's Jack Abramoff.

A grimy picture is emerging of, in Dustee Tucker's words, "how politics works in D.C." A president who seeks to keep more and more of the public's records secret from the public really can't afford to look so untrustworthy.

It's lucky for President Bush that his approval rating has been torpedoed by immigration and Iraq or this kind of thing might really hurt him.


Copyright 2006

.

John Kerry's slow reflexes

Senator John Kerry told a crowd in Iowa Saturday that the Bush administration is promoting a "spirit of intolerance" by questioning the patriotism of anyone who criticizes the Iraq war policy.

"Although no one is being jailed today for speaking out against the war in Iraq, the spirit of intolerance for dissent has risen steadily, and the habit of labeling dissenters as unpatriotic has become the common currency of the politicians currently running our country," the senator said.

Senator, catch up.

The president's approval rating is in the low thirties. Congressman John Murtha's phone lines overheated with calls of support when he called for troop redeployment. "Labeling dissenters as unpatriotic" hasn't worked since 2004.

Iraq is not the only issue that sends Senator Kerry into auto-pilot.

CSPAN covered one of John Kerry's appearances in one of the early primary states not too long ago, and he was telling the same stories about the same people with the same difficulties over health insurance. He spoke of the woman who had to stay at her job while going through chemotherapy because her husband was out of work and her job provided the family's health insurance. The woman was present at the event. The senator interrupted his story to point out that, thankfully, she's fine now, and her husband is working again. They're doing very well.

If you're a Democrat trying to make the point that Republicans are destroying the country, it would be a good idea to retire that story.

Maybe Senator Kerry recycles his out-of-date speeches because he spent so much time and money crafting language that tested well with swing voters and minority voters and soccer moms and NASCAR dads.

Here's some free advice for Senator Kerry and all the other candidates who are scared to say anything that might offend anybody. Fire the focus groups and hire a writer. One Ted Sorensen is worth ten thousand Mark Penns.

Copyright 2006

.