baldilocks

Reid Feeds the Racial Discord Tree (Updated)

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on the campaign trail in his native Nevada:

REID: "I don't know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican, okay. Do I need to say more?"

How the Left stirs racial discord between Americans of Hispanic decent and other Americans is a topic I want to address in detail in the third part of my "Herding" series. But the assumptions in Senator Reid's short assertion need to be addressed right now.

Leaving aside the 2007 Republican establishment's push for amnesty for illegal aliens already living in the United States, most conservatives are for strict border enforcement first and decisions about illegal aliens already present afterward.  In Harry Reid's statement lies the assumption that, Americans of Hispanic descent must naturally be in favor of allowing any and all Hispanics from Mexico (and other Spanish-speaking countries) into the USA without any controls at all--that, to Hispanic Americans, it's better to have more Spanish-speakers in the country, than it is to enforce the federal and state immigration laws.

A more important Reid assumption is this one:  because conservatives want the borders of the country secure--because the Republican base does not want to give Hispanic Americans what he presumes they want-- Republicans and conservatives hate Hispanics.

Need he say more? No.  The Coconut Treatment proceeds apace.

(Thanks to The Weekly Standard)

UPDATE:  Sissy Willis notes that "A growing chorus of 'minority' Republicans are finding their voice." One, Cubachi, the American-born daughter of of Cuban exiles, has a few words for Senator Reid--well, more than a few:

My father [who had been political prisoner of Castro's Cuba] looked at the platform of the republican party that endorsed small government, lower taxes, and strong defense, while the democrat party embraced Che Guevara and Fidel Castro, murderers and tyrants, as some sort of folk heroes, and endorsed larger governments taking power away from the people.

...

Sweet justice for me, would be to see Marco Rubio enter the senate as you exist your way out to hand the keys to Sharron Angle.

Heh.  I guess I'm so used to Democrats, Liberals and Leftists treating conservative non-whites, women, etc. like their intellectual runaways slaves, I don't even get mad at this stuff anymore.  But it's nice to see Harry get a chewing.  The only problem is this: I'm not sure that the senior Democrat senator from Nevada has enough marbles to comprehend what Cubachi or  Marco Rubio or the good folks at African American Conservatives or LtC. Allen West are saying to him and his party.

Perhaps, in November, we will be able to explain in terms simple enough for even Senator Reid to understand.

Repost: There are Walls, Then There are Walls (June 13, 2007)

The post below the fold is being re-posted due to criticism I received from Facebook "friends"--old Air Force acquaintances, no less--who claim that I don't support my opinions nor talk about the thinking which went into those opinions.  (Actually, they never say anything that polite or with the slightest amount of good faith; they assume that no thinking went into my opinions and refer to me as a parrot and worse.  I wonder why that is.  Is it that difficult to click on the links on the left sidebar of my Facebook page?)

Fact is, I've grown weary of methodically laying out the chains of occurrences, premises, conclusions and examples which have served as undergird to my opinions.  Fact is, whether I make the effort or don’t make the effort, I get this sort of thing (in response to Razing Arizona):

I object to you and almost everything you say. I think you are full of sh*t. That plain enough? I'm [here] to object to you and your invective, which I find personally offensive. At some point, people have to say, I object.

This guy kept insisting over and over again that he objected; I imagined him punctuating each objection with a foot stomp.

And, using the fact that he objects to me and everything I say, this “gentleman” came to the conclusion that I must be crazy and delusional.  Surely, that is the only reason that I could possibly be 180 degrees from him in all opinions.  Right?

The funniest thing, however, was that, in this man’s repeated exclamations of objection, there was never any specific direct object. (Linguists will groan at that pun.)  He never did pick out a topic about which he and I are in opposition and defend his viewpoint on that topic, even after I repeatedly invited him to do so.

It's plain, Greg, but it's still pretty generalized. There has to be a specific reason tha[t] you think that I am full of sh*t and you certainly should be able to take a specific issue and explain to me why I am wrong about it--in a sane and non-delusional, invective-free and sh*t-less manner, of course.

Come on. I know you can do it.

To which, I received this charming response:

I don't have to defend it to you -- or explain it -- anymore than I expect you to do the same [sic]. You have an opinion -- I think you're full of sh*t. My opinion. I don't really TRULY have to say anything else.

My five-year-old niece would call such a response immature.  I wouldn’t, however.  It’s obvious that either the man is intellectually incapable of defending his opinions or he is too lazy to think through  his premises and conclusion and, afterward, articulate them.  Due to the puling, I vote the latter.  Petulance in adults is almost always a cover-up.

Then again, hasn't our president repeatedly claimed that the time for talk is over? 

*****

Razing Arizona

President Obama to Mexican President Calderon: "We are not defined by our borders..."

Translation: "Give us your drug lords, your gangsters, your terrorists, yearning to behead the wayward and divert the upright...I've got a populace to subdue!"

(Thanks to Tammy Bruce)

Hit the Road, Jack

The temper tantrum over Arizona's adoption of federal law concerning illegal aliens proceeds apace:

The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) said its 2.2 million members will not attend any meetings or conventions in Arizona as long as the new immigration law is in place.

I don’t know.  It seems to me that the situation is akin to having your house repeatedly burglarized.  Then when you put up a sign on the outside of your front door which reads “Don’t burgle me, bro.  Ring the doorbell,” the burglars call you 'racist' and say that they’ll never darken (hah!) your door again.

Is there a downside that I’m not seeing?

(Thanks to David Hauptmann)

*****

Benefit Concert Planned for Nashville Victims

Los Suns? (KS)

(Robert Sarver: Is that shirt orange enough, homie?)

Seriously?

Oh for God's sake.

PHOENIX -- The The Phoenix Suns will wear "Los Suns" on their jerseys in Game 2 of the Western Conference semifinals on Wednesday night, owner Robert Sarver said, "to honor our Latino community and the diversity of our league, the state of Arizona, and our nation."

The decision to wear the jerseys on the Cinco de Mayo holiday stems from a law passed by the Arizona Legislature and signed by Gov. Jan Brewer that has drawn widespread criticism from Latino organizations and civil rights groups that say it could lead to racial profiling of Hispanics. President Barack Obama has called the law "misguided."

Sarver, who was born and raised in Tucson, said frustration with the federal government's failure to deal with the illegal immigration issue led to the passage of what he called "a flawed state law."

"However intended, the result of passing the law is that our basic principles of equal rights and protection under the law are being called into question," he said, "and Arizona's already struggling economy will suffer even further setbacks at a time when the state can ill-afford them."

I for one think this is great.  Because everybody knows that the Phoenix Suns should be focusing on making a political statement, not...you know...winning playoff games.

National Review's Jay Nordlinger has spoken a great deal about the death of "safe zones"-venues and events that are free from the day-to-day grind of politics.  Sports are one of those areas of life where people should be able to safely let down their partisan guards and simply be fans.  What Robert Sarver has done is made many of the followers of his basketball team very uncomfortable.  Why?  Because, as AllahPundit notes, the law is very popular-try 70% favorability on for size-amongst the citizens of Arizona.   

What exactly is Sarver saying to Suns fans by having his team stage a protest rally during one of their games?  It sounds something like-"Hey Phoenix supporters:  Thanks for buying our overpriced crap and shelling out a wad of cash to come to our playoff contest, you knuckledragging fascist dickbags."  That's a pretty interesting method of winning over fans.  What's next? 'Free Face Punch From Amar'e Stoudemire Night'?

Even better, Sarver has taken some heat from fans for being a cheap owner.  Wow.  So the douchedrinker won't spend money to get players to compliment the spectacularly gifted Steve Nash while the guard is still in his prime.  On the other hand, he's willing to turn his team into a walking pep rally for an intensely unpopular partisan agenda that insults his team's fanbase.  What an insufferable jerk. 

Even More:  The jerkiness is not just relegated to Suns' ownership.  Overeducated undertalented sportswriters are working their tedious moral outrage muscles as well.

Chap, Rush Chairman, Dang Glad To Meet You

The legendary Val Prieto doesn't need any intro--he's the man, after all, who forced Steve Graham to put a mojo'd pig in a China box and call it barbecue even though it isn't Carolina style--but perhaps I need to say hello.  I'm Chap, and until I went to my current job (and went dark because of it) I was hanging out at Chapomatic and causing low level insurrection over on the Navy side.  Right now I'm deployed somewhere and doing something if you know what I mean. By the way, Val, I've seen guys buy cigars at Cuban Crafters and like them, but around here they tend to buy their Esteli smokes through Cigars International because SondraK told us to contribute to CI's donation drive for active duty guys.  It's all to your benefit since if the tobacco kills us quicker you pay less taxes paying our retirement and health care later on.  Me, I'd prefer a Karuizawa or maybe an ancient Springbank but at the moment the closest I can get is probably Moussy, which tastes like a can of malt extract reluctantly mixed with soda water.  In a pickle bucket.

Why am I here? Well, we .mil types like to help each other out.

Okay, I'm totally here because the Air Force commissaries are better.

No idea just yet how to please Baldi's audience yet (I can't read this so there goes my trump card), but I'm tying on my tap shoes so we'll see what happens.  In the meantime, might as well strain the analogy by introducing folks to the righteous anger about diversity versus equality stoked every Thursday over at Commander Salamander's place, maybe noting that we're mixing amongst the genders and some don't like that idea much.  In any case, I'm sure my experience with our host will be better than it would be here.  Nice to meet y'all!

Day-Dreaming

Consider this scenario.

1. Illegal Mexican nationals inhabit, say, Arizona to the point of being a majority; the US government does nothing about it.

2. The Mexican government allows them to retain their citizenship.

3. The Mexican Nationals try to chase all the Americans who are not of Mexican descent out of the state--aka cleansing ethnically.

4. The Americans fight back.

(Yes, I know. Some of this isn't make believe.)

What do you think the US would do if Mexico came to the aid of their countrymen?

What would it do if Arizona declared its independence from the US?

And, forgetting the fact that the US has Mexico overwhelmingly outgunned--the fact that might usually makes right--who would be morally in the right?

UPDATE: Reality mirrors fiction and turns it on its side.

Security is being heightened along the southern U.S. border because of a threat that warring Mexican cartels may send hit men into the United States, authorities said Monday.

Law enforcement officials would not discuss specific security measures being taken at the ports of entry, along the border or in the city of El Paso, Texas.

"We received credible information that drug cartels in Mexico have given permission to hit targets on the U.S. side of the border," El Paso police spokesman Officer Chris Mears said.

You don't think what has happened in the Republic of Georgia could happen here? Think again.

Hidden War

From Jill Stewart:

[T]he testimony was riveting this morning before the Los Angeles City Council when a group of black residents pleaded with the 15 elected council members to rescind Special Order 40, the longtime local rule protecting illegal immigrants from arrest by the LAPD.

The black residents are seeking a decision by the council to enact the so-called Jamiel's Law, named after Jamiel Shaw, a promising and law-abiding 17-year-old high school student allegedly shot by an illegal immigrant, 18th Street Gang member Pedro Espinoza. The noxious Espinoza, who has a massively long rap sheet, was arrested by cops in Culver City, and then released by Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department jailers, shortly before he allegedly murdered Jamiel.

Jamiel's family members cried openly in the ornate Council Chambers, asking the council to allow cops to check on the illegal status of people like Espinoza so they can be deported rather than released.

Yesterday, I saw Sergeant Anita Shaw, US Army--who had to come home from Iraq to attend her son's funeral--get on the TV and lament that she had been safer in Iraq than her son had been in his native country, standing in front of his own home.

Living in LA is dangerous. Many of the native-born criminal element make living in any large American city an ordeal. But the native born have a right to be in this country. Must we put up with a criminal element of other countries also--those who do not have a right to be here? Is that the price the country must pay for cheap labor?

I suppose that our betters believe that illegal immigration labor plus the attendant criminality is the price we must pay to add to the Social Security coffers. (Yes, that's the reason that nothing meaningful will be done about illegals--not that the amount of workers contributing to the fund will ever be enough to make SS viable before it runs out next decade.) A few dead youngsters--murdered by sins of commission and omission--are but a small sacrifice to that "noble" end.

Personal note: trust me, I look both ways when stepping out of my door.

(Thanks to Instapundit)

Don't Forget What the Date Is

Rules were made to be broken: the southern border fence--a real one--will be built.

The Bush administration will use its authority to bypass more than 30 laws and regulations in an effort to finish building 670 miles of fence along the southwest U.S. border by the end of this year, federal officials said Tuesday.

If they're still reporting this tomorrow, I'll believe that it might happen.

(Thanks to Hot Air)

Interview With A Monopoly Capitalist

Did you know that the richest man in the world owns a significant portion of Mexico?

[Carlos] Slim accumulated his $53.1 billion fortune by collecting companies in much the same way he did baseball cards. He searches for businesses that are undervalued, infuses them with cash and uses the size of his holdings to overwhelm the competition. He now owns stakes in more than 220 businesses…[SNIP]

His wealth has caused some resentment in a country where 40 percent live in poverty and thousands emigrate each year to seek opportunity in the United States. Both the U.S. and Mexican governments complained recently that Mexico's economic growth is stunted because large conglomerates such as Slim's have too much control.

From the minute many Mexicans are born - perhaps in one of Slim's Star Médica Hospitals - they begin putting money in his pocket. They use electricity carried by Condumex brand cables, drive on roads paved by the CILSA construction company firm and burn fuels pumped from Swecomex drilling platforms. They communicate through Telmex phone lines, smoke Slim's tobacco, which is sold under the Marlboro brand, and shop at Sears Roebuck of Mexico, a subsidiary of his huge Carso Group.

And even with all of that filthy lucre, he’s not above playing the “Mexican” card!

Slim says that he is held to a double standard because he is Mexican and that many U.S. companies such as Microsoft, Boeing [sic] and Intel enjoy similar dominance of their sectors.

Actually, Mr. Slim is partially correct, he is being criticized because he’s Mexican, but the standard isn’t double, but separate. Slim is a citizen of the same Mexico whose economic and social practices trap its poorer, darker citizens in their low station in life; that’s why they’re coming here. (When darker Americans begin to bum rush the Canadian border, call me.) That same climate allowed Slim to become what he is today; he may not be the creator of it, but the advantages taken by him are born from his country’s apartheid-like economic and social character.

Still, it’s an interesting article about a man whose sound personal economic practices are part of why he's where he is today.

Back Door Open

This morning, during a White House Press conference, Homeland Security Adviser Fran Townsend was answering questions about the recently released National Intelligence Estimate--which predicts that the US Homeland will be hit again by al Qaeda or, possibly, Lebanon's Hezbollah and which says that terrorists' abilities are improving--they're getting better at being terrorists. No surprise in either case.

I didn't even bother to laugh derisively, however, when Ms. Townsend had the gall to assert that President Bush's fervor for Comprehensive Immigration Reform was due to the threat which we face from Islamists.

And, now we find out that,

[...] the FBI is investigating an alleged human smuggling operation based in Chaparral, N.M., that agents say is bringing "Iraqis and other Middle Eastern" individuals across the Rio Grande from Mexico. [SNIP]

[T]he smuggling organization "used to smuggle Mexicans, but decided to smuggle Iraqi or other Middle Eastern individuals because it was more lucrative." Each individual would be charged a fee of $20,000 to $25,000, according to the report.

You mean to tell me that everyone coming clandestinely into the US via its southern border isn't merely a poor hard-working Mexican looking for a better life? Gee, who could have ever predicted that?

(Thanks to Hot Air)

Technorati Profile

Good Neighbors

A few days ago it was reported that parts of an outdated barrier between the US and Mexico had actually been built a few feet too far inside Mexican territory.

COLUMBUS, N.M. – It will cost the U.S. some embarrassment and up to $3.5 million to fix a mistake that resulted in 1 ½ miles of barrier along the U.S.-Mexico border being put on Mexican soil.

James Johnson, who runs an onion farm near the U.S. border with Mexico, thinks his forefathers may have started the confusion more than a century ago by placing a barbed- wire fence south of the border.

The mistake may have its roots in a barbed-wire fence put up in the 1800s.

The barrier is part of more than 15 miles of border fence built in 2000, stretching from Columbus to an onion farm and cattle ranch, and designed to keep cars from illegally crossing into the United States.

A routine survey in March revealed that the barrier – made of vertical metal tubes that were sunk into the ground and filled with cement – protrudes into Mexico by 1 to 6 feet. [SNIP]

Crews erecting the barrier may have used that fence as a guideline.

To assuage the feelings of our neighbors to the south, Mac Johnson of Human Events has taken it upon himself to write a letter of apology to Mexican President Felipe Calderon.

How refreshing to find a member of the Mexican government that respects the border and has become such a stickler for the details surrounding it.

Since the United States of America is a good neighbor, and not a corrupt mischief-maker, I can assure you that the offending sections of the fence will be removed, just as soon as you give our workers permission to enter Mexico and remove the fence. After all, what sort of government would purposely send its laborers into another country to conduct demolition and construction without first obtaining the proper authorization?

The snarkage gets deeper.

The Will to Build (UPDATED)

Our neighbors to the north somehow managed to complete construction of the 1,522-mile long Alaska-Canada Highway--also known as the Alcan Highway--in a mere eight months. The time period? Between 1942 and 1943--with 1940s technology and partially during an Alaska-Canada winter. And let's not forget that the Canadians were our allies in war at the time.

But in 2007, Americans can only manage to get thirteen miles of a border fence up in an identical time span--and in a southern-climate winter, no less. Hmmm.

(Thanks to Joe in Biloxi)

UPDATE: In the comments, CalTechGirl informs us that:

The Al-Can highway was built by the US and Canada jointly as part of the war effort, so extra resources and $$ were put towards the project. It was a PRIORITY for national security, for BOTH countries.

CTG's grandfather helped to build the highway while he was a member of the US Army.

Makes you wonder what the government REALLY wants, huh?

Indeed it does.

Congressional Will

I’m sure that some other citizen-journalist has already observed with wonderment how fast our federal government can get something done when it wants to.

After we were attacked in 2001, our troops were in Afghanistan in less than a month. Granted, there are portions of the military which are always ready to go somewhere: they're trained, their equipment is serviced and their gear is packed and repacked. However, the military cannot just get up and go take care of business of its own volition. For such a large scale deployment to happen so quickly, the DOD must, of course, get the go-ahead: some legislation must be proposed, quickly debated and approved by both houses of Congress and by the president.

In the case of Afghanistan, funding was approved by the House---where all funding bills originate—the Senate gave its approval, President Bush gave his approval and on October 7, 2001, a very bloodied and even more PO’d Eagle deployed to take care of Al Qaeda and its brother-in-arms, the Taliban.

Recently, as we know, the US Congress and the president were just as eager to implement tactics “necessary” to win another “war.” (However, it’s unclear to many as to who some members of the Congress believe are its enemies in this matter.) Though the attempt to execute the policies of the Illegal Immigration Compromise (IIC) wasn’t as lightening quick as was that for Operation Enduring Freedom, the push for IIC was speedy enough for attentive citizens to ask, among other questions: “What’s the rush?”

Want a relevant contrast? Here it is. The US Congress passed and the president signed the Secure Fence Act of 2006 in October of last year, which, judging from the language of the related White House press release was intended to be a first step for this year’s IIC. (I wish I had read the press release sooner because it shows that President Bush’s position on illegal immigration should not have been a big surprise to us.)

Before the president signed the bill, the New York Times reported—in its usual partisan manner—on the necessary Senate approval of the bill; that the body, by a vote of 80-19

approved the building of 700 miles [now up to 854 miles] of fence along the nation’s southwestern border, fulfilling a demand by conservative Republicans to take steps to slow the flow of illegal immigrants before exploring broader changes to immigration law.

Do take note of the text that I emphasized. The Secure Fence Act requires that

the Secretary of Homeland Security[…] take all actions the Secretary determines necessary and appropriate to achieve and maintain operational control over the entire [US-Canada border also] international land and maritime borders of the United States, to include the following…[SNIP]

[at] least 2 layers of reinforced fencing, the installation of additional physical barriers, roads, lighting, cameras, and sensors

(i) extending from 10 miles west of the Tecate, California, port of entry to 10 miles east of the Tecate, California, port of entry;

(ii) extending from 10 miles west of the Calexico, California, port of entry to 5 miles east of the Douglas, Arizona, port of entry;

(iii) extending from 5 miles west of the Columbus, New Mexico, port of entry to 10 miles east of El Paso, Texas;

(iv) extending from 5 miles northwest of the Del Rio, Texas, port of entry to 5 miles southeast of the Eagle Pass, Texas, port of entry; and

(v) extending 15 miles northwest of the Laredo, Texas, port of entry to the Brownsville, Texas, port of entry.

How long does the government have to secure the southern border in the manner specified? “Not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act…,” meaning March April 2008.

Okay. There are ten eleven months left until March April 2008 and the Secretary of Homeland Security must submit a progress report to Congress not later than October 2007--one year after the date of the Act.

How many of the specified measures have been started and how much progress has been made toward completion? According to US Representative Steve King (R-IA) only thirteen miles of the physical barrier have been constructed, with priority having been placed on cameras and ground-based radar, according to the congressman.

Thirteen miles in eight months. Well, at least no one can say that steps have not been taken. :::rolls eyes:::

Contrasting the implementation of Operation Enduring Freedom with the implementation of the Secure Fence Act of 2006 (and controlling for the condition already stated), I’d say that we can safely conclude that our betters don’t really want to follow through with the latter. But you knew that already.

The question that remains unanswered—or, rather, remains insufficiently answered is: why not?

AFTERTHOUGHT: I certainly hope that Rep. King isn't referring to the fourteen miles of fence that is already up just south of San Diego and has been there since the 90s.

UPDATE:Via Instapundit, here's an opinion piece containing data which suggests that, at some point, the seemingly endless northward migration of working class Mexicans may actually have an end.

There has been a stunning decline in the fertility rate in Mexico, which means that, in a few years there will not be many teenagers in Mexico looking for work in the United States or anywhere else. If this trend in the fertility rate continues, Mexico will resemble Japan and Italy - rapidly aging populations with too few young workers to support the economy.

According to the World Bank's 2007 Annual Development Indicators, in 1990 Mexico had a fertility rate of 3.3 children per female, but by 2005, that number had fallen by 36 percent to 2.1, which is the Zero Population Growth rate. [SNIP]

If this trend toward fewer children per female continues, there being no apparent reason for it to cease, the number of young people in the Mexican population will decline significantly just when the number of elderly is rising. As labor markets in Mexico tighten and wage rates rise, far fewer Mexican youngsters will be interested in coming to the United States.

The author concludes that illegal immigration from the south is merely a temporary problem. Perhaps. However, some of us may have forgotten this: Mexicans who merely want to work aren't the only illegal immigrants desiring to cross the border.

Again, why are our betters dragging their feet in completing the already-mandatory fence?

UPDATE: Welcome Hot Air readers--and friends.

Okay, It's Really Dead This Time

From the WSJ (subscription required):

WASHINGTON -- The Senate fell 14 votes short of the 60 needed to end debate on immigration overhaul, dealing a near-fatal blow to the landmark bill and one that could very well dash President Bush's hopes of ever achieving this goal before leaving the White House.

The 46-53 roll call evolved into a blowout as a strong majority of Republicans sought cover and lined up against the administration once the outcome became apparent. [SNIP]

Beyond this summer, the political and legislative calendars don't favor a quick turnaround, and House Democrats will be reluctant to act given the continued stalemate in the Senate. Already the 2008 presidential elections have begun to intrude on the debate, and Republican lawmakers, worried about their own political survival, are more reluctant to take risks for the president.

Like Lyndon Johnson on civil rights and Bill Clinton on welfare reform and trade, the immigration issue has pitted Mr. Bush squarely against his party's base.

(Emphasis mine.)

I was waiting for someone in the MSM to use some part of the IIC in an analogy with the Civil Rights Debate of forty years ago. But at least the analogy reminds close observers that LBJ, a Democrat, was going against his party when he signed the CRA.

Next question: when will real construction begin on the already-approved border fence?

UPDATE: I heard that Ted Kennedy compared the now-dead IIC to the Civil Rights legislation this morning. One obvious problem with that analogy, Senator: Civil Rights legislation was meant for the benefit of actual American citizens.

Mexican Ambassador to US: "Reform must also take place in Mexico"

As Mexico's ambassador to Washington [Arturo Sarukhan] warns, even the "rosiest, peachiest" reform in the US won't end the flow of poor migrants.

Well, heck. Even I know that, as do many of my readers. But it seems that the proponents of the Illegal Immigration Compromise (IIC) haven't thought probabilities out that far.

More:

For the past seven months, Mexico has been at war with itself, literally.

And what is the definition of such a war?

A new president, Felipe Calderón, has dispatched 24,000 troops into battle with the most corrosive influence in Mexico's economy: powerful drug cartels.

These violent syndicates, which mainly transport drugs into the US, have exploded in the past decade. They've escalated crime and political corruption, hindering creation of well-paying jobs for would-be migrants. At election time, they provide cash for many campaigns.

This domestic war, which resembles the Iraq war in tactics and killing rates, was Mr. Calderón's opening gambit for wholesale reform. It is widely popular but faces an uncertain future. The cartels are fighting back with gruesome murders. And the Army, one of the few respected institutions in Mexico, is not good at policing, a task it must do to root out local drug networks. Some of its elite soldiers have joined the cartels.

Still, the war gives Calderón enough public support to conduct a quiet and pragmatic battle with the ruling opposition in the legislature. In March, he was able to win reform of state pensions. This week, he will propose tax hikes to reduce the government's risky reliance on oil-export revenues. And he was helped this month by a Supreme Court ruling that struck a blow at the broadcasting giant Televisa, one of many monopolies controlled by powerful, vested interests.

Opening up these key parts of the economy – telecommunications, oil, cement, and electricity – to fair competition under the law would be Calderón's greatest legacy. It would build on two other major reforms: the opening of Mexico's markets since the mid-1990s through NAFTA and the establishment of real democracy with the end of one-party rule in 2000

Any reforms would do little to stem migration, however, unless they reach the poorest regions in the south, such as Chiapas and Michoacán. These areas are the main source of migrants to the US, and a better economy there would help keep valuable workers in Mexico. Among his reforms, Calderón has offered help to young entrepreneurs and launched job-training programs.

How can the US help? For one, effective border enforcement would keep more Mexicans in Mexico where they can contribute to the economy. The US can also better crack down on the flow of arms to Mexico's cartels and the flow of drugs into the US. [SNIP]

[A]s one of the world's 15 largest economies and an oil exporter, it doesn't need money – just reform.

The US Congress should see its immigration reform in the larger picture of Mexico's needs. The ultimate solution truly lies south of the border.

(All emphasis mine.)

It's interesting to note that Sarukhan would rather take the much tougher (and, possibly, bloodier) route of real reform for his country rather than the "easier" one which the US government would like to offer. Because, if Mexican reform doesn't happen--if the Civil War escalates to the recognized Mexican government's detriment--the flow north will never stop. And no matter how many IICs are in our future, there will be a tipping point--for both countries.

(Thanks to Hot Air, which has some other interesting links on the topic.)

ON THE OTHER HAND: As I said in my earlier post on the subject of Mexican civil war, it's possible that our leaders have thought possible future events out this far, but are willing to take what they think is the least bad of a bushel of bad options.

We Know What's Good For You

A cloture motion in the US Senate--which ends debate on the worth of the the newly-revived Illegal Immigration Compromise--passed today. It wasn't even close.

What happens now? A second cloture vote on Thursday ending all debate on Compromise's final form, followed by an up or down vote in the Senate. If the second cloture and the Compromise itself pass, then it's on to the House, whose members--being elected every two years rather than every six--seem more inclined to give this bill the lethal injection it deserves. Hopefully.

(Thanks to Hot Air)

Leimert Park Demonstration

Whoa! Due to an annual neighborhood block-club festival, I missed this ), unfortunately. And I was in the area on Friday.

LOS ANGELES - A coalition of Minutemen and black activists met a larger group of pro-immigrant marchers at a demonstration at Leimert Park today [Saturday].

Officers, some in riot gear, some in shorts and on bicycles, attempted to separate the two groups, which numbered as many as 500, as they shouted down each other during what was billed as an anti-immigration rally.

At 3:50 p.m., Los Angeles Police officials declared the rally to be an illegal assembly, as its parade permit had expired, and a short time later arrested organizer Ted Hayes, a homeless advocate-turned anti-immigration activist. Four others were arrested for refusing to disperse. [SNIP]

Hayes led an unusual coalition of white Minutemen activists and a small number of blacks demanding reparations for slavery had planned an 11 a.m. march to Leimert Park, and daylong rally.

Hayes had chosen the park, an area known as the cultural center of the African American community of LosAngeles, for a rally he called "Choose Black America - Not Amnesty - Not Illegal Immigration."

Leave it to Ted Hayes to clue in onlookers about not-so-well publicized secret about illegal immigration--that a majority of black Americans are totally against Comprehensive Immigration Reform. Look at the language used--"Choose Black America"--that is, choose to give black Americans the jobs that (black and other) Americans allegedly won't do, over those who illegally reside in America. Pretty inflammatory stuff, no? That's Ted's way, but I can't see a flaw in his logic.

What I can see is that unless a real and fair solution to the illegal immigration problem is implemented--with the fairness to actual Americans and to legal immigrant having priority--there will be other dualing protests that don't end as happily (no actual violence) as this one apparently did.

Here's an article that has a different slant than the first one.

"In the balancing act that we got into here was the issue of allowing access to the park," LAPD Deputy Chief Mike Hillman told ABC7. "Mr. Hayes' group had a permit to go into the park. The park was occupied by, literally, children between 5 and 12 years of age and their parents, plus about 250 to 300 individuals that were community members who obviously took issue with Mr. Hayes being here in their [sic] community, so they blocked access to the park."

Rather than leave, Hayes arranged with the police to be arrested.

Several citizens who were against the Hayes/Minutemen presence--both participants and observers--were interviewed, but, as ever, such people are categorized as "pro-immigration"--leaving out that all important adjective, 'illegal.'

The Hero of Flight 63, Part Two

When we last met one Kwame James, dual citizen of Trinidad and Canada, University of Evansville (IN) alumni and professional basketball player in a European league, he was fresh from giving an assist to the other passengers of American Airlines Flight 63 in December 2001 by helping to subdue Richard Reid, the “Shoebomber.” The rest of this story details James’ attempts to become an American citizen.

When the holiday was over, James headed back to France to rejoin his team. He had reflected on how much he would miss basketball if he quit, and he'd be damned if terrorists were going to stop him from playing. "You stop doing what you enjoy, and they win," he told nervous family members. "You can't be scared."

Except that he was. In his first game back he barely concentrated on the action, he was so busy scanning the crowd for terrorists. That the AS Bondy players were housed in a Muslim enclave in Paris didn't help. He tried to quit after that first game, but his teammates convinced him to stay on. By month's end he'd handed in his jersey and returned to Evansville.

"My mind was just going haywire," he says. "Suddenly my name is all over the Internet and I'm thinking that people on the street are looking at me funny. It was too much."

Back in Indiana, James did some motivational speaking and stayed in shape. In time, the media found another cause célèbre, and the flood of interview requests slowed to a trickle. But then another slew of calls came in, this time from the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office in Boston, asking James to testify against Reid. Sure, James said, but he warned them that he wasn't a U.S. citizen. No longer in school, he might soon need a special visa to remain in the country. "No problem," an FBI official said, according to James. "We'll take care of you."

As it turned out, there would be no trial. On Oct. 4, 2002, Reid pleaded guilty to eight charges, including attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction. Three months later he was sentenced to life in prison.

One image in particular was burned into his mind's eye. A television segment on Flight 63, speculating on what would have happened had Reid been successful, showed a computer rendering of the plane transformed into a fireball. James' emotions whipsawed between a carpe-diem optimism and a crippling fatalism. On the one hand, having cheated death, he was primed to live each day to the fullest. At the same time, as long as a madman with a bomb in his shoe could so easily wreak havoc, why bother?

It was a rough time for [James’ college sweetheart Jill] Clements, too. Even before Flight 63, her relationship with James had been difficult. Most girls from Loogootee don't date Afro-Caribbean basketball players who toil overseas. Her family had just begun to accept James when he came home both famous and psychologically burdened. "It put a lot of strain on our relationship," Clements says.

Compounding the stress, James' immigration status was in doubt. James claims that in exchange for testifying against Reid, the Justice Department offered him a work permit to remain in the U.S. He accepted immediately: Since high school he'd aspired to U.S. citizenship. But after Reid was sentenced in 2003, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) told James that he would not receive the permit. (The agency denies knowledge of a prior arrangement.) Nearing the end of his visa, James was warned that he could be deported. "Plain and simple," he says, "they hung me out to dry."

The INS, while conceding that James had acted with valor on Flight 63, was unwilling to make an exception for him. "We go by the laws as they're written," says Bill Strassberger, spokesman for the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. "We need to be consistent and fair in application."

(Emphasis mine.)

I’m willing to bet that Strassberger’s statement elicits a collective and sardonic *snort* in light of current events.

James still had a number of options. One was to marry Clements and apply for a green card. But their relationship was sagging under enough weight without her worrying that he was marrying her for reasons other than love. Another possibility was for James to find a job in the field of his college major, international business, entitling him to an H1B visa. James, however, didn't want to join Cubicle Nation; despite his departure from AS Bondy, he still wanted to play basketball.

Michael Wildes, an immigration lawyer in New York City, learned of James' situation and took on his case pro bono. "Is this the message you want to send to someone who looked down the face of terrorism?" says Wildes, who is also the mayor of Englewood, N.J. "It was a national disgrace."

With Wildes' help, James reached out to politicians, even venturing to Capitol Hill. A member of Congress could sponsor a bill giving James permanent-resident status, but while many pols had been all too happy to pose for photos alongside the "Shoe Bomber hero," none took up his cause. By mid-2003 James was overstaying his visa and was subject to deportation. "It was crunch time," he says. [SNIP]

In the Hollywood version of the Kwame James story, he becomes an NBA All-Star, helps achieve world peace and, of course, lives blissfully ever after. While the real-life plot hasn't followed quite that arc, perhaps it's headed toward a happy ending.

In the summer of 2003, having wearied of relying on others for help, James and Clements were married by a New York justice of the peace, making James a legal resident. He expects to receive his green card "any day now," he says, and he'll be eligible for full citizenship in three years.

Any day now. As of August 2006, James was still expecting his green card “any day now.”

The flavor in the mouth of Kwame James must not be a pleasant one as he observes the present-day actions of some of the same pols as the latter push to grant de facto amnesty to illegal immigrants. It would be a great symbolic gesture if someone influential would accidentally discover the story of Kwame James, pull a few strings and grant him full US citizenship on the spot (assuming it hasn’t happened already).

His plight, however, demonstrates how ridiculous our betters are: not one of them could see fit to smooth the way for an educated, upstanding and assimilated legal immigrant who helped to save others from a terrorist; but they’re willing to let all and sundry in from south of the boarder whose background they don’t know. (The Illegal Immigration Compromise has background checks as one of its components? Big deal; with all of the fake driver’s licenses, social security cards and stolen identities which abound in that group, I’m sure that many of the backgrounds will be squeaky clean.)

Life in the USA has become downright surreal.

The Hero of Flight 63, Part One

It seems that our betters don’t know when to give up. Reports of the Illegal Immigration Compromise's death have been exaggerated. In league with Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Jon Kyl (R-AZ), Mel Martinez (R-FL) and Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), President Bush will put forth “a $4.4 billion infusion of border security cash today apparently helped to ease concerns of many conservatives” called a "confidence builder."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid approved the new deal on immigration after meeting with Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. [SNIP]

"We're going to show the American people that the promises in this bill will be kept," [President] Bush said in a speech to the Associated Builders and Contractors.

WTF-ever—and I submit that scornful response to Republicans and Democrats alike, since the majority of both parties in the executive and legislative branches seem hell-bent on doing what the people don’t want and determined to implement everything that is the opposite of fair, true and legal. The following saga symbolizes their total disconnect from reason.

*****

After noting coverage of the latest (publicized) domestic terror plot--thwarted in its infancy--I found myself ruminating on other plots uncovered since The Big (Successful) One. The name of Richard Reid--the would-have-been “Shoebomber,” who unsuccessfully attempted to complement the September 11, 2001 attacks a mere three months later—popped into my mind, and I began to review what I remembered of that plan. That train of thought gave rise to another name: ‘Kwame.’ Kwame had been one of Richard Reid’s intended victims, but, happily, had helped to subdue Reid. I wondered what had become of ‘Kwame,’ so I did some research. (The name ‘Kwame’ was prominent in my mind for another reason: 99% of those with that given name are black, named in honor of first post-colonial Ghanaian President Kwame Nkrumah by knowledgeable/learned parents.)

As it turns out, Kwame’s last name is ‘James’ and his story is one filled will irony considering his background and what has occurred in his life since he helped to ensure that American Airlines Flight 63, along with its 197 passengers and crew, landed in one piece.

Interestingly enough, James has roots in Trinidad though he was born in Canada; the Trinidad connection is something that James has in common with the JFK airport (alleged) terror conspirators. Before James boarded Flight 63 in Paris late in 2001, he was a relatively anonymous guy--a 23-year-old 6’8” center for the AS Bondy pro basketball team in France's B League. However, his experiences since becoming one of the blessed ones to tangle with a terrorist and live--featured last year in Sports Illustrated--can only be described as an odyssey.

[…] Kwame James shrugged and didn't say a word when he -- handsome, well spoken, well dressed -- was yanked from the security line at Charles de Gaulle Airport outside Paris and given the full pat-down-and-wand treatment while an unkempt fellow passenger carrying only a backpack and muttering to himself in Arabic passed through the checkpoint without a problem.

James, a dual citizen of Canada and Trinidad & Tobago and a recent graduate of a college in the U.S., has what he calls "an extreme dislike" of racial profiling. However, it was Dec. 22, 2001, barely 100 days into the "new reality" of life after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, and if you were subjected to one of those exhaustive airport security searches, you smiled through clenched teeth and took one for the team. "I just figured, Oh well, my bad luck," James recalls. [SNIP]

Three hours [after takeoff,] he was roused by a frantic flight attendant. "We need your help in the back!" she said. "Now!"

The terror etched on the woman's face extinguished any notion that James might be dreaming. Without hesitating he rushed back to row 29, where he found other passengers struggling with that scraggly haired man who had breezed through the security line. A flight attendant was tightly holding her own hand, stanching the blood from a bite wound. The stench of sulfur filled the air. A thickset Italian passenger had the unkempt man, who was screaming incomprehensibly in Arabic, in a headlock.

For years James' coaches had chided him for being insufficiently physical, for shying from contact. Now here he was, helping to wrestle a flailing man into submission. James' adrenaline, surging far more than it ever had on a basketball court, spiked when a flight attendant warned, "Careful, he's got a bomb in his shoe!"

James looked down, saw a small Koran under the captive's seat and fixed his gaze on the wires poking out from the tongue of his black boot. Six times, the man later identified as Richard Reid -- and universally called the "Shoe Bomber" -- had tried to ignite the wires with a match. With no air marshals on board to help, James and a scrum of valiant passengers and flight attendants finally subdued Reid, who is 6-4, weighs more than 200 pounds and, as James puts it, "was possessed, clearly willing to die." Using belts and headphone cords, they tied Reid up, and two doctors on board injected Reid with a sedative. [SNIP]

James, the largest man on the plane, was asked by the captain to stand sentry over Reid for the rest of the flight. For nearly four hours, James sat on an armrest and pressed against Reid, gripping him by his greasy ponytail. [SNIP]

The path which lead Kwame James to being on AA Flight 63 with Richard Reid is an interesting one.

In 1994, when he was 16, Kwame spent the summer before his junior year of high school with Aunt Pat in Indiana. She thought it might be fun for Kwame, now 6-7, to spend a few weeks at [former Indiana University and present Texas Tech basketball coach] Bob Knight's basketball camp. Playing full-court -- indoors! -- for the first time, Kwame dominated the other campers. Late in the session Knight summoned Kwame to his office and explained that he wanted Kwame to play at Indiana. The hitch was that Kwame would have to finish high school in the States, get some coaching and add some muscle to his lean physique.

Augustus and Carole James, both Ph.D.'s, had never heard of Bob Knight and wondered what cult their excited son had joined. Get your butt on a plane, Kwame, they effectively said. After much agonizing, however, Kwame decided to stay in Indiana with his aunt. It meant not getting to say goodbye in person to his parents, siblings and friends. It meant adapting to a different culture. But it also meant a chance to go to college in the U.S. for free. [SNIP]

As a senior he was a star on the [Lawrence North High, IN] varsity and made a recruiting visit to Bloomington to watch the Hoosiers practice. What he observed was how thoroughly Knight had drained the fun out of basketball. "Getting yelled at playing sports?" James says. "That was totally foreign to me. In Trinidad, sports are just fun. I'm thinking, I'm not signing up for four years of that."

Instead, James chose Evansville, whose basketball program, oddly enough, might be best known for the plane crash that killed the entire team in 1977. James turned out to be a good, not great college player, an undersized center who shot judiciously and was all too happy to sublimate his offense for the good of the team. [SNIP]

Ask James about his experience at Evansville, however, and he barely mentions basketball. He says the highlight of his four years there was befriending classmates from small-town America. "They'd say, 'Kwame, we've never met anyone from Trinidad before!'" he says. "I'm like, 'I've never met anyone from a town with no stoplights!'" His senior year he fell in love with [Jill] Clements, a nursing student from such a town, Loogootee, Ind., pop. 2,700.

James graduated in 2000 with a degree in international business. While he knew that the NBA wasn't in his future, he wasn't through playing basketball. He spent the next year pinballing among club teams in Switzerland, France and Argentina. The pay was awful. The living conditions were too. The travel -- 14-hour bus trips sometimes -- was worse. James was thrilled. In Argentina he learned to speak Spanish. In France he spent hours as a tourist, walking the streets and alleys by himself. "I never lost the skinny-Caribbean-kid mentality," he says. "I was getting paid to play basketball, man. It was a privilege."

In the fall of 2001 James was playing for AS Bondy, averaging double figures in points and rebounds. Yet for reasons he couldn't fully grasp, basketball was losing its appeal to him. Late one night he was out with some Bondy teammates, including Marcus Wilson, who played with James at Evansville, and he unburdened himself. "I told him not to get down because we were losing, but he said it was bigger than that," Wilson recalls. "It's ironic that he was thinking of doing something bigger than basketball."

The next morning James boarded Flight 63.

Close call

James' instinct had been right. The Shoe Bomber hadn't been acting alone. Within hours of the plane's landing, details emerged. Reid, a petty criminal in Britain, had been born in South London, the son of an English mother and a Jamaican father. After discovering radical Islamism, he had attended an al-Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan and was, according to e-mails he'd sent, upset that he hadn't been asked to participate in the Sept. 11 attacks.

When he had shown up at De Gaulle airport on Dec. 21, he had triggered security alerts: He'd paid for a one-way ticket to Miami in cash; he'd checked in no bag; and despite having traveled to seven countries in recent months, he had no fixed address or apparent employment. Authorities questioned Reid, causing him to miss his scheduled flight. But, apparently satisfied with his answers, officials put him up at a $280-a-night hotel and allowed him to board Flight 63 the next day. Enough plastic explosive had been packed into his hollowed-out bootheels to blow up the plane. The explosive bore the palm prints of a well-known al-Qaeda bomb-maker.

Fortunately, Reid had a lousy set of matches. "The fact is, if he had brought a lighter onto the plane instead, I wouldn't be here telling you this story," James says, an assertion that FBI officials confirm. "That will give me the chills for the rest of my life."

CONTINUATION: In Part Two, The Hero of Flight 63 tries to become a US citizen--with no help from our betters.

There Are Walls, Then There Are Walls

Previously, I made an analogy using the already-mandated but yet-to-be built wall on the southern US border to the unlamented Berlin Wall, saying that such a US border wall should have “the ease and efficiency of surveillance which the architects of the Berlin Wall would have envied.” However, I hope that no one would read it and make the erroneous assumption that the two barriers would have the same purpose.

It seems that Jeff Jacoby, however, would have readers believe that the builders of the two had/have identical intent and, for this reason, that President Reagan--were he alive and whole--would be an advocate of the Illegal Immigration Compromise (my coinage).

Twenty years ago this week in Berlin, President Reagan uttered his memorable challenge: "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" Conservatives who extol Reagan's legacy might ask themselves what he would have thought of the idea that our response to hard-working risk-takers so eager for a piece of the American Dream that they endanger life and limb to come here should be a Berlin-style wall of our own.

(Emphasis mine.)

But for the analogy to make sense, a US border fence’s main purpose would be to keep US citizens from escaping to a freer country, not the other way around. (To be fair, I suggested here—borrowing the idea from Victor Davis Hanson--that a secondary purpose of a border fence would be somewhat similar to that of the Berlin Wall; that it would make it more difficult for Mexican nationals living in the US to travel back to their country of origin, and thusly, be one of the prongs which could force them to at least try to assimilate to their new home’s culture and society.)

Here’s another area in which the analogy breaks down. The Federal Republic of Germany’s (then known as West Germany) pre-1989 policy towards its Soviet-controlled brethren to the East was always geared toward reunification (Articles 23 and 146 in West Germany’s Grundgesetz; roughly translated as ‘Constitution.’*)--especially after the 1960-1961 Soviet construction of the Berlin Wall between French, UK and USA-controlled West Berlin and Soviet-controlled East Berlin. Therefore, any escapees from the German Democratic Republic (East Germany) and from East Berlin specifically were treated as West German citizens. Additionally, West Germany’s legendary Chancellor Willy Brandt (previously mayor of West Berlin during the construction of the Berlin Wall and, subsequent to that, West Germany's foreign minister) was the architect of Ostpolitik--a policy to normalize diplomatic, economic and cultural relations with the Soviet Union, Poland and, most importantly, East Germany—something which was very controversial at time, to understate things. However, today the policy is viewed as another important step in the path toward the subsequent political reunion of the two countries.

With that history in mind, Jeff Jacoby’s idea that Ronald Reagan would view the intent of a proposed US border fence on either or both borders the same as the intent of the Berlin Wall makes plausible the idea that our betters have a plan similar to that of the rather tin-foil hattish North American Union—a political union between Canada, the USA and Mexico. Is that what he is suggesting is being prevented? Probably not; though I've been wrong before.

(Thanks to Newsbusters)

*A more accurate translation: ‘Basic Law.’ IIRC, my German language teachers said that the difference between a Grundgesetz and a Verfassung (Constitution) was that the latter could only exist in a country that was whole. However, the Grundgesetz remains in force today.

I Can Play the Conspiracy Game

Slate's Steven Landsberg tries to make the racists see reason by citing America's history of racism in a, shall we say, curious manner.

How do you justify a border fence? Why is it OK to consign millions of unskilled [words missing here] Mexicans to lives of desperate poverty? I'm told it's because Americans should care more about their countrymen than about a bunch of foreigners. OK, but how much more? Surely there's some limit; virtually nobody thinks, for example, that Americans should be allowed to hunt Mexicans for sport. So, exactly how much are you willing to hurt a [words missing here] foreigner to help an American? [SNIP]

Let's do the math: When we admit an unskilled [words missing here] Mexican immigrant, his wage typically rises from about $2 an hour to $9 an hour—call it a $7-per-hour gain. To justify keeping him out, we'll have to weigh that gain against the harm he does to Americans. [SNIP]

[T]here was a time when the U.S. Constitution counted a black slave as three-fifths of a full-fledged citizen [sic]. Alabama Gov. Bob Riley has recently apologized for the ravages of slavery. How long till politicians apologize for the ravages of our restrictive immigration policies?

Can you guess what the missing words are? And can you figure out how it is, that not allowing illegal immigrants unchecked access into this country using the Z-visa method is the equivalent of the infamous counting of slaves as three-fifths of a person for apportionment of representation in the US House of Representatives, but not allowing each slave "three-fifths" of a vote? (It seems to me that the Z-visa program itself can be likened to slavery more than border enforcement can.)

I have a conspiracy theory. The proponents of the as yet undead Illegal Immigration Compromise--to appropriate Landsberg's (mis)usage of the Three-fifths Compromise as a metaphor--must be having a contest we don't know about. The objectives:

1. To see how many logical fallacies they can fit into a single argument/statement of "fact," and
2. To see how many of us "ignorant racists" they can torque off.

Linda Chavez, yet again, managed to torque off quite a few of her colleagues at NRO via yesterday's mea non culpa for her May 25th Townhall column. In the apology, Chavez names the names of those to whom she was really referring when she asserted that ten percent of the opposition to the illegal immigration bill consisted of racists. (If my conspiracy theory turns out to be true, I'd say that Chavez is winning the game.)

There are several response located here, however, the most devastating one comes from City Journal's Heather MacDonald, who has been a tireless critic of policies which allow unchecked illegal immigration and those which discourage assimilation:

Chavez derides my City Journal article on Hispanic illegitimacy rates as “based largely on anecdotes gathered in a visit to Los Angeles, frequently supplied by Spanish surnamed social-service providers to lend authenticity, with a smattering of highly selective statistics.” This is called “reporting,” a practice with which Chavez is obviously unacquainted. (For the record, I grew up in Los Angeles, and spend a good part of every year working there.) It might do Chavez some good to get out of her elite Washington think tank existence and spend some time in the 70 percent Hispanic Los Angeles Unified School District, talking to students, parole officers, and anti-drop-out counselors, as I have done. Or perhaps she might do some ride-alongs with Mexican-American gang officers in Santa Ana, Ca., and Los Angeles, who could tell her about the increasing viciousness of Latino gang culture in southern California. But then, even if Chavez bestirred herself to do some hands-on research on Hispanic family values, she would be handicapped by her self-described lack of Spanish. She wouldn’t have understood a word at an anti-gang program at the Berendo Middle School in Los Angeles that I attended in July 2006, for example, for students who are showing signs of gang involvement and their single mothers. Nor would she be able to speak to the illegal alien unmarried mothers who peddle fruit on the streets of Santa Ana, which has the highest percentage of Spanish speakers of any city in the country. If Chavez has any interest in reporting on these topics, perhaps I could arrange Spanish lessons for her with my sister-in-law, a beloved and integral member of our family, who emigrated to this country legally from Mexico after meeting and marrying my brother in Mexico City.

Game over.

(Small) Revolution Not Televised

The world's second wealthiest person is, interestingly enough, a Mexican national (WSJ free link).

Mexican tycoon Carlos Slim [owner of Telefonos de Mexico] recently moved up to second place from third on the list of the world's wealthiest individuals.

Only a certain Mr. Gates has more money.

Mary Anastasia O'Grady qualifies Mr. Slim's achievement, since, unlike Gates, Slim

got rich largely by maximizing his opportunities in an environment where he enjoyed monopoly privileges, snowballing wealth and a commensurate amount of political influence.

and observes that he

is only the most famous of the Mexicans who have made a killing by way of monopoly privilege.

O'Grady points out that there have been Mexican Supreme Court rulings which have taken a few legs out from under Mexico's system of monopoly capitalism, thinks that the rulings "could be one of the most important economic developments in the country in recent years," and thinks that it will be an important test for Mexican President Felipe Calderón in our neighbor's "struggle for liberal democracy."

Glad to see that alternative choices may exist for the dilemma.