Hedgehogemony Continues

">Link
Doug TenNapel engages in a most enjoyable debate with me (or am I engaging him?) on the rule of law and what that has to do with God. Here's how the exchange has played out:

First, I said this:

Meanwhile, Doug TenNapel (why can't I have a cool surname like that?) has an excellent and fiery post on both Schiavo and judicial moral hegemony generally. I can't tell if Doug agrees with my post below about the rule of law or not. If what he's saying is that thereare just some days when anarchy looks pretty good, then I agree with him. But we must resist that impulse, my brother! So when do we cross the line where we need to resort to Boston Tea Party-type action? Heck , I don't know, but I think we're pretty far from that point right now. I hope so, anyway; God gave us the Constitution; let's use it. Our task is to convince people of the correctness of our positions; if we can't do that we're lost anyway.

Then Doug said this:

I believe he's one of the good ones, but I can't agree that God gave us the Constitution. I'm sure he means it as a turn of phrase or we'd have to add a book to our canon...the book of Constitution. But it would make sense why many of us righties mistakenly hold our law as a First Thing. The law is a Second Thing to God's law which is the presupposed First Thing.

Well, yes, it's really a turn of phrase. I don't think we disagree at all. I do believe the U.S. Constitution was divinely inspired, and that's what I meant when I said "God gave" it to us. The Declaration and the Constitution are simply expressing the "unalienable rights" God has given all men and women.

My real point (not as well made as I had hoped) was that if we cannot effectively exercise those God-given rights to persuade others to choose good, we are sunk. No law will save us; neither will any army. An old adage states: "America is great because she is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, she will cease to be great." In my opinion, we need to sustain, honor, and obey the law of the land so that we can preserve a framework in which we are free to attempt to convince our fellow citizens of that. The law exists to serve goodness and virtue; goodness and virtue do not exist to serve the law.

I'm glad I could clear that up. Or maybe sort of clear it up.

Where Do We Go From Here? Now The Bigger Questions Begin to Be Asked

">Link



In "How Liberalism Failed Terri Schiavo," Eric Cohen is one of many who are beginning to raise the debate to a broader, more philosophical level. I think this is useful and important stage in the debate, and it's a chance for conservative people of faith to win some hearts and minds. I also think it is there-- in hearts and minds-- where we have to win. Only after that can the legislatures (and finally the courts) follow.

Here's a Cohen excerpt:

FOR ALL THE ATTENTION we have paid to the Schiavo case, we have asked many of the wrong questions, living as we do on the playing field of modern liberalism. We have asked whether she is really in a persistent vegetative state, instead of reflecting on what we owe people in a persistent vegetative state. We have asked what she would have wanted as a competent person imagining herself in such a condition, instead of asking what we owe the person who is now with us, a person who can no longer speak for herself, a person entrusted to the care of her family and the protection of her society.

Read the whole thing. We need to have this discussion, whether or not that discussion is pleasant, messy, or bruising. And, as wonderful as discussion is, at some point the debating needs to lead to some conclusions-- and we'll need to fight for them.

The Minutemen

Link
Jackson's Junction has a link to a good interview, yesterday, I believe, between Bill O'Reilly and Michelle Malkin. It's a "must-watch."

LaShawn Barber asked me what I think of the Minutemen. If you read this blog a little you know I've posted quite a bit about the illegal immigration crisis and what I think must be done. I've even gotten sufficiently exercised about the subject to call Hugh Hewitt's show, and Hugh's honored me by linking to my immigration-related posts. Until now, however, I haven't known what to think about the Minutemen. The Malkin-O'Reilly interview helped me crystallize my thoughts.

I understand and support what the Minutemen are trying to do: draw attention to the illegal immigration crisis. That's a noble and important goal and I hope they succeed; but I have some doubts and worries about how they are going about their work.

For one thing, I wish they hadn't decided to call themselves the Minutemen. Do they really want to compare themselves to the real Minutemen-- armed defenders against an armed military invasion? This is hyperbole. As much as we are legitimately worried about the stream of illegals across the southern border, that is not an invasion and the illegals are not warriors.

Also, and unfortunately, white supremacist groups are fond of using Revolutionary War names to identify themselves. Now this well-intentioned group has chosen to do the same thing. All of this simply plays into the hands of the MSM, which loves to give unattractive labels to conservative causes with which it disagrees (but I repeat myself!). President Bush, God bless him, did not help the situation by calling the Minutemen "vigilantes."

So as much as I hope the Minutemen's activities will foster a vigorous and informed debate -- and action!-- on the slow-motion illegal immigration crisis, I am worried that this all might backfire badly. Let us all hope and pray that none of the Minutemen get carried away and end up in a confrontation or other situation in which one or more of the illegals gets hurt. Otherwise we'll never hear the end of it. And I mean never!

Not Dead Yet

Link
No matter where you stand on the Schiavo matter, this Harvard Crimson piece by a Harvard student with cerebral palsy will get you thinking. Maybe thinking hard.

After your brain has rested up a little from all that thinking, try out this piece, "Whose Life Is Worth Living?" by author Orson Scott Card. You'll be tired again, but glad of it.

The Post-Schiavo Future?

Link
Guest blogger Ralph Kostant shares the following:

News Item One May Expect to See in the Los Angeles Times Soon:

Michael Schiavo announced at a press conference this afternoon that he is going to court in Italy to have the feeding tube removed from Pope John Paul II. Schiavo stated that at a private Papal audience some years ago, the Pontiff confided to Schiavo that “he would not want to go on living if he became dependent on a feeding tube for nutrition.”

Schiavo’s attorney, George Felos, predicted that “only right-wing religious conservatives in the Vatican will oppose Michael’s effort to vindicate Pope’s right to die.” Medical experts consulted by the Los Angeles Times indicated that the best available scientific evidence suggests that the Pope would not suffer as he dies from starvation, and may indeed experience incidents of religious ecstasy.

Ralph B. Kostant

Ala'a And His Baba

Link
Thanks to By Dawn's Early Light (newly added to my blogroll at left) we have this terrific story from the Atlanta Constitution Journal (free registration required).

Having discovered By Dawn's Early Light reminds me once again just how wonderful the blogosphere is. It enables us to rub cyber-shoulders with all so many smart, compassionate, highly-motivated and interesting people.

Wednesday Morning Ramblings

Link


(Can "rambling" be a noun?)

The Delicate Center-Right Balance

Hugh has a nice post today responding to an op-ed by former Senator Danforth. I think my blogfather strikes just the right note. On the one hand, as a center-right and deeply religious conservative, I get nervous when people like Randall Terry and absolutists on immigration and right-to-life issues get too closely associated with the GOP on major issues. As William Penn said, "Truth often suffers more from the heat of its defenders than from the arguments of its opposers."

On the other hand, I also get nervous when the Danforths and McCains and George H.W. Bushes of the world want to take the gentlemanly route: Too often they start negotiating too early with lefties who have no interest in compromise, and their opening demand asks for less than even half the loaf. I agree with Hugh:

[P]erhaps the senator ought to have focused on the fact that the courts and the left are setting the agenda, and the center-right coalition, which includes many people for whom faith informs a world view, has decided that the demands of the radicals are not going to be agreed to without a political fight. It is messy stuff, but it is also unavoidable.

Indeed.

And-- I am with Jim of Stones Cry Out on this. If going to church once or twice a year is the mark of being "reasonably religious," then I must be hanging out with a lot of unreasonable religious nuts-- and I must be one myself! Just imagine how horrible things in this country would be if everyone worshipped in a church or synagogue weekly!

Facts about Schiavo

InstaPundit links to this very informative set of FAQ's about the Shiavo case. It appears calm and balanced. I find the Shiavo affair to be astonishingly multi-facted. Surely several writers are already at work on books about it. I hope some of those are serious efforts, not propaganda.

Meanwhile, Doug TenNapel (why can't I have a cool surname like that?) has an excellent and fiery post on both Schiavo and judicial moral hegemony generally. I can't tell if Doug agrees with my post below about the rule of law or not. If what he's saying is that there are just some days when anarchy looks pretty good, then I agree with him. But we must resist that impulse, my brother! So when do we cross the line where we need to resort to Boston Tea Party-type action? Heck , I don't know, but I think we're pretty far from that point right now. I hope so, anyway; God gave us the Constitution; let's use it. Our task is to convince people of the correctness of our positions; if we can't do that we're lost anyway.

Wow, that thought went on longer than I thought it would.

Kofi and Whine

Don't miss Laer at Cheat Seeking Missiles, dissecting Kofi Annan's press conference statements on the oil-for-food scandal. Not much left of old Kofi when Laer is through with him.

The Blogosphere Generally

Good general reading about the new media here at rConversation.

Good, Interesting, Sensible Center-Right Blog

Link
Check out TigerHawk. It's an impressive site, one I am going to try to emulate soon. (The Hedgehog Blog is moving to a new hosting arrangement as soon as I get a weekend to devote to the change. We'll change the look of the blog and add some bells and whistles. I'm also going to do a better job of blogrolling, because there are so many great blogs out there that I have a hard time supporting without knowing how to do that.)

A Cautionary Note: The Rule of Law, Or of "Higher" Law?

Link
While driving to an appointment today I was listening to the Hannity show on my car radio. An articulate caller was discussing the Terri Schiavo case with Hannity. The caller conceded that the legal processes had been followed and exhausted. In response, however, to the host's suggestion that it was time to accept the outcome, he argued, "There is a higher law that is more important to follow," or words to that effect.

This is very dangerous thinking, to the extent it becomes prevalent on the right. The caller's statements brought to mind some famous dialogue in A Man for All Seasons, by Robert Bolt. In Act One, Thomas More is arguing with his son in-law, Will Roper, about the rule of law. More's wife Alice is upset that More has just allowed Richard Rich, whose treachery will soon be More's undoing, to escape:

ALICE (Exasperated, pointing after Rich:) While you talk, he's gone!
MORE And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law!
ROPER So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!
MORE Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
ROPER I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
MORE (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? (He leaves him.) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast-- man's laws, not God's-- and if you cut them down-- and you're just the man to do it-- d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.

Consider: What if certain Christian members of American society were to decide that they feel so strongly about a moral or religious principle that they also believe the same principle is more important than the law. What happens to the rule of law then? What happens when the Christians are outnumbered by secularists who feel strongly, but differently, about another principle? Will the law continue protect the Christians then?

Conservatives need to think through and discuss the rule of law with a little more clarity and soberness. The law is the friend of all freedom-loving Americans. We need to obey it, honor it, sustain it. Otherwise we may well lead this country into the kind of trouble we cannot even imagine now.

UPDATE: For more on an important aspect of this subject, see John Bevan's thoughts at RealClearPolitics.

An Amazing L.A. Times Cheap Shot at Tom DeLay

Link
Yesterday being Easter and all, I was more interested in getting to the last choir practice before our Easter performance than I was in looking at the Sunday L.A. Times. (My approach to the Sunday Times is based on experience. I usually start with the sports section, then move on to the comics. Then I dig up the Opinion section to see if any of the signed editorials look interesting. I never read the unsigned ones, since they seem more like internal memos in a liberal think tank than editorials seriously exploring an issue.)

I did notice this article about the end-of-life decision Tom DeLay's family had to make about DeLay's father, but did not take the time to read it until today, when I heard a talk radio show report that the Washington Post had picked up the story and that NBC's Norah O'Donnell had essentially re-read the story on the air. (Apart from the Times, I can find the story only on MSNBC.)

DeLay's father, according to the story (which is quite long) was injured in a freak accident, but Mr. DeLay's family unanimously decided not to take heroic steps to keep him alive. The clear intent of the story is to make DeLay out as a hypocrite:

DeLay is among the strongest advocates of keeping [Terri Schiavo], who doctors say has been in a persistent vegetative state for 15 years, connected to her feeding tube. DeLay has denounced Schiavo's husband, as well as judges, for committing what he calls "an act of barbarism" in removing the tube. . . . In 1988, however, there was no such fiery rhetoric as the congressman quietly joined the sad family consensus to let his father die.

I am no fan of DeLay's polarizing style or his apparent ethical myopia (detailed in this Wall Street Journal editorial appearing today). Nor am I often surprised by any story in the L.A. Times attacking conservative Republicans. Still, I find it this story amazingly outrageous. It is about as cheap as a shot can get.

Why? Because the DeLay family's experience is totally unremarkable in the medico-legal-ethical world. My siblings and I chose the same course for our mother several years ago, in very similar circumstances. I don't advise clients about such cases because they are not legally, medically, or ethically difficult; Hospitals never even call me in cases like these, which are so straightforward that it would not occur to anyone to call the hospital lawyer.

The combination of ignorance and malice here is truly stunning. Consider: In the DeLay case the family (starting with his wife) all agreed about Mr. DeLay's wishes. His demise was imminent, absent life-support measures, and his injuries were such that he could not be restored to independent life without those measures. His kidneys had failed. Consequently, he had on his medical chart what is called a "do not resuscitate" ("DNR") order.

Folks, this happens all the time. There is no story here. And it bears no significant resemblance to the Schiavo case. Terri Schiavo's family certainly does not agree that her wishes are clear; her demise is not imminent; and none of her life-sustaining organs have failed. The only similarity is that both Mrs. Schiavo and Mr. DeLay sustained serious and apparently irreversible brain damage.

Giving further evidence of its real intentions, the Times piece goes on to criticize Tom DeLay for his family's decision to sue the company they felt was responsible for the accident that caused their father's death. Apparently the Times writer find this hypocritical because DeLay strongly favors tort reform.

Whether you like Tom DeLay or not (and truthfully, I don't) , a hit piece is a hit piece is a hit piece. I can't remember the last time I saw one this blatant in the Times. The extent to which the news media here (the L.A. Times, the Washington Post, and NBC) have combined ignorance about hospitals and medical care with malice toward conservatives with whom they disagree is truly stunning and outrageous. The resulting article gives new meaning to the term "trumped-up."

Hugh Hewitt might ask why I have not cancelled my L.A. Times subscription. Well, I can’'t; I have to take the Times for professional reasons. Besides, we have a pet guinea pig, and the Times makes an excellent lining for his cage.

On Saturday, The Day before Easter

Easter Music

Thanks to Laer at Cheat Seeking Missiles for bringing to mind my all-time favorite hymn, Come, Thou Fount of Every Blessing. It's the one I'd be pleased to have sung at my funeral:

Come, thou Fount of every blessing,
tune my heart to sing thy grace;
streams of mercy, never ceasing,
call for songs of loudest praise.
Teach me some melodious sonnet,
sung by flaming tongues above.
Praise the mount! I'm fixed upon it,
mount of thy redeeming love.

Here I raise mine Ebenezer;
hither by thy help I'm come;
and I hope, by thy good pleasure,
safely to arrive at home.
Jesus sought me when a stranger,
wandering from the fold of God;
he, to rescue me from danger,
interposed his precious blood.

O to grace how great a debtor
daily I'm constrained to be!
Let thy goodness, like a fetter,
bind my wandering heart to thee.
Prone to wander, Lord, I feel it,
prone to leave the God I love;
here's my heart, O take and seal it,
seal it for thy courts above.

This biographical summary tells us a little about the author, Robert Robinson. The music is a beautiful traditional tune named “"Nettleton," about which you can find more in Wyeth’s Re­po­si­to­ry of Sac­red Mu­sic, Part Se­cond, by John Wy­eth. I've heard several hymns set to the same tune. As a congregational hymn "Come Thou Fount" is a little on the difficult side but most church choirs can handle it easily.



Easter Thought

This is another favorite, from the late Neal A. Maxwell, of whom Hugh Hewitt is a great admirer. It's full of quotable nuggets:

The gift of immortality to all is so choice a gift that our rejoicing in these two great and generous gifts should drown out any sorrow, assuage any grief, conquer any mood, dissolve any despair, and tame any tragedy.

Even those who see life as pointless will one day point with adoration to the performance of the Man of Galilee in the crowded moments of time known as Gethsemane and Calvary. Those who now say life is meaningless will yet applaud the atonement, which saved us all from meaninglessness.

Christ’s victory over death routs the rationale that there is a general and irreversible human predicament; there are only personal predicaments, but even from these we can also be rescued by following the pathway of Him who rescued us from general extinction.

A disciple’s “brightness of hope,” therefore, means that at funerals his tears are not because of termination, but because of interruption and separation. Though just as wet, his tears are not of despair, but of appreciation and anticipation. Yes, for disciples, the closing of a grave is but the closing of a door that will later be flung open.

It is the Garden Tomb, not life, that is empty!

Neal A. Maxwell, Wherefore Ye Must Press Forward, pp. 132-3

"Those who now say life is meaningless will yet applaud the atonement, which saved us all from meaninglessness."

I love that. Happy Easter.

GUEST POST: Hollywood Conservative Proudly Proclaims: There Are More Than Three of Us . . . Really!

Link

[Cheryl Felicia Rhoads, pictured above, posted the following comment deep down in this earlier post. I thought it deserved a little more prominence than it is getting way down there, so here it is. Ms. Rhoads is an actress and writer in Hollywood.]

By Cheryl Felicia Rhoads
Posted Mar 25, 2005

For 20 years I have been an actress and writer in Hollywood. I wrote guest columns, worked phone banks and walked precincts for the re-election of President Bush. I eagerly traveled to Washington for his second Inauguration. Then, at various festivities, upon informing fellow conservatives that I was from Hollywood, I was often greeted with, "A conservative in Hollywood? There must be only three of you." (Or six, but this bemused assertion never reached double digits.)

This presumption is just not true, however. Like other minority groups, conservatives in show business have steadily been coming out of the closet. But let's be honest, a million men won't march down Sunset Boulevard chanting, "Down with Michael Moore, we say out loud . . . we voted for George W. Bush, and we are proud!" The latter, however, isn't really necessary or even desirable. It is not that we need to indulge in a left vs. right war as artists. The point is that we have sought to be truly honest craftsmen, while also being allowed to enjoy a diversity of opinion without retribution.

Yet it is still important for those in the conservative movement itself to understand and appreciate that many in Hollywood share their revulsion for the ranting of Cameron Diaz, Whoopie Goldberg and Chevy Chase. And now, for a variety of reasons, not only conservatives, but also libertarians and non-leftists in the entertainment industry are broadening the artistic spectrum in Hollywood.

There are celebrities like Kelsey Grammar of television's "Frasier" who hosted an inaugural salute to the troops in Washington. Gary Sinise of television's "CSI: NY" and the hit movie Apollo 13 participated as well. (Sinise has also been active in building schools for Iraqi children.) Former "Law & Order" star Angie Harmon spoke at the Republican National Convention, while comedian Dennis Miller has aggressively supported Bush to the dismay of some fans of the former "Saturday Night Live" star.

The list goes on. Behind the cameras there are those like writer and director Lionel Chetwynd, who countered Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 with the more factually accurate Celsius 41.11. Political pundit Dick Morris presented yet another film disputing Moore's theories with Farenhype 9/11. The latter was co-produced by celebrity Ron Silver, who is not strictly a conservative or even a Republican. But the actor describes himself as a lifelong Democrat of the Truman mold. Silver broke with Democrats over the War on Terrorism and made a passionate speech at the 2004 Republican National Convention. On a lighter note, David Zucker, director of Airplane, produced an anti-Kerry, pro-Bush commercial during election season.

Some celebrities are open about their "otherness" by Hollywood's political standards. But there are groups and events that encourage those emerging writers and actors who don't yet have the safety of stardom or prestigious credits to share their conservative ideology.

Conceived the morning after the 1992 elections, activist David Horowitz's Wednesday Morning Club (WMC) blazed the trail. Horowitz brought a variety of authoritative speakers, mostly conservative, to the Beverly Hills gatherings. Horowitz's group provided a needed balance to those who had been bombarded by the pontificating of those in the Barbara Streisand crowd. The WMC has long been a solo port in the Hollywood storm, an oasis that provided intellectual diversity. Now other outlets also serve as a healing balm to conservatives on the left coast.

The grassroots Hollywood Congress of Republicans (HCR) and a chapter of the California Congress of Republicans formed in 2001. HCR is a welcome haven to many actors, writers and others affiliated with the entertainment industry. It also has guest speakers who discuss their common goals.

Radio hosts Dennis Prager and Larry Elder both promoted a revue of comedians billed as The Right Stuff. This group was the brainchild of Eric Peterofsky, a former staff writer on "Murphy Brown." I went to a local comedy club to see Peterofsky's show. Surrounded by conservative patrons enjoying hilarious conservative comedians was really a revelation for someone like me. The very existence of this show signaled the stars in heaven were mystically coming into alignment, even if some stars in Hollywood like Sean Penn may have felt a disturbance in "the Force."

Euphoria really set in the first weekend in October, however. I participated in the Liberty Film Festival in Beverly Hills, founded by director Jason Apuzzo and his wife, actress Govindini Murty. About 18 conservative films were showcased. We attended panels featuring people like actress Morgan Brittany, film critic Michael Medved, Hollywood, Interrupted author Andrew Breitbart and director David Zucker. The festival was preceded in Dallas by the American Film Renaissance Festival, founded by the husband and wife team of Jim and Ellen Hubbard. As a member of four entertainment unions that openly promoted activities, like those of MoveOn.org, I was thrilled to be with a multitude of like-minded artists in Hollywood. Many of us felt we had come home.

Conservatives should know about this political "counter culture." More importantly, as artists, it is simply a good idea to broaden the dialogue. And it has been happening, slowly but surely over the years.

Contrary to many conservatives' beliefs, Hollywood is not a political monolith. Many refuse to be intimidated by the "politically correct" in their industry anymore. It is essential, in order to be the artists we set out to be. Winston Churchill said, "Arise and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time." His admonition is being heeded in the nick of time, not only for the sake of American culture, but also--due to Hollywood's influence--that of the world.

Schiavo: One More Comment from A Health Lawyer's Perspective

Link
I saw Hugh Hewitt's reference this morning to Dr. William Cheshire. Dr. Cheshire has recently attracted attention by raising troubling medical questions about Terri Schiavo's diagnosis, suggesting that Terri is not really in a persistent vegetative state. Hugh notes:

The New York Times sought out Dr. Ronald Cranford, the University of Minnesota neurologist who examined Terri Schiavo for Judge Greer, and who apparently did not order a MRI or a PET scan of Teri Schiavo as part of his diagnosis --a gap that has stunned other neurologists who have commented on the case. Rather than respond to Dr. Chesire's affidavit, Dr. Cranford lashes out in the predictable fashion of a man of the left: "I have no idea who this Cheshire is," and added: "He has to be bogus, a pro-life fanatic. You'll not find any credible neurologist or neurosurgeon to get involved at this point and say she's not vegetative."

In response, I can say that if Dr. Cranford is quoted accurately here, by making that statement he raises serious concern about his reliability as an expert. For 20 years as a lawyer assisting hospitals in complex medical quality peer review matters involving outside experts, I have worked with some of the finest medical expert reviewers in the world. None of them has ever attacked another expert in the manner Dr. Cranford attacks Dr. Cheshire. Instead, a truly professional expert sticks to the medical facts of a given patient's case. It's what is in the patient's chart that matters. Period.

I am not offended on Dr. Cheshire's behalf; I am simply saying that if I engaged an expert and he responded the way Dr. Cranford has, I'd be thinking about getting another expert because Cranford's credibility would be shot-- at least with me. He is not behaving the way a top-notch expert reviewer does.

I have a Boy Scout camping trip today so blogging will be not only light today, but impossible after a few more minutes. I hope this works out with some semblance of decency and humanity.

"Having to choose between a legal travesty on the one hand and human tragedy on the other."

Link
That's what Charles Krauthammer makes of the current status of the Schiavo case. I tend to agree with him. I still do not excuse the federal judiciary for the manner in which it has approached this matter.

Meanwhile, Tony Blankley offers perhaps the simplest, most articulate expression I have seen of the moral and legal dimensions of Terri's (and our) predicament.

And Jonathan Turley writes of the Constitutional issues while also movingly describing a personal trial very close to the one my siblings and I underwent four years ago.

The 11th Circuit And The Schiavo Case

A surprising and depressing day. It appears that two members of the three-judge Court of Appeals panel considered the Schiavo case as if were simply another garden-variety injunction matter. To me, that means those two are either cowards, or had decided in advance on the result they wanted, or both.

So Congress gathered from the four corners of the nation and met at midnight on a Sunday, and President Bush flew to D.C. from Texas and signed the bill after 1:00 a.m., so that the judiciary could say, "ho-hum," and dispose of this as if it were a routine matter?

Words fail me.

I'm busy with court matters of my own so may be able to blog only lightly, if at all, on the 11th Circuit decision. For now, Hugh tells you a lot here. Deacon of Power Line has some very helpful links as well, including an excerpt from the lone dissenting judge's opinion that says just about all that needs to be said about why the decision is so wrong. The intent of Congress, Judge Wilson wrote,

is to maintain the status quo by keeping Theresa Schiavo alive until the federal courts have a new and adequate opportunity to consider the constitutional issues raised by Plaintiffs. The entire purpose of the statute was to give the federal courts an opportunity to consider the merits of Plaintiffs’ constitutional claims with a fresh set of eyes. Denial of Plaintiffs’ petition cuts sharply against that intent, which is evident to me from the language of the statute, as well as the swift and unprecedented manner of its enactment. Theresa Schiavo’s death, which is imminent, effectively ends the litigation without a fair opportunity to fully consider the merits of Plaintiffs’ constitutional claims.

It must be noted that reportedly, the two judges voting against further action are Clinton appointees, and Judge Wilson is a Bush appointee. Tells you a lot, doesn't it? [Update: I had bad information. As commenter Ralph points out, Judge Wilson is a Clinton appointee.]

Andrew McCarthy points out:

The case now proceeds on two probable tracks: an appeal to the entire Eleventh Circuit sitting en banc, and an application to Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy (the Circuit Justice for the Eleventh Circuit) for an emergency stay with a reinsertion of the feeding tube. Judge Wilson has given them a compass.

Heaven save us from arrogant judges.

TRUE NORTH by Sonja Eddings Brown

One Woman's View of The Terri Schiavo Case



The lesson to be learned from Terri Schiavo's life dilemma is that every American, probably at the age of 18, should be required to prepare a durable power of attorney for healthcare in the event a life or death decision becomes necessary and they cannot decide for themselves. The durable power of attorney should include the signer’s wishes about such decisions. People could be allowed to update the document with every renewal of their driver's licenses. Whether optional or mandatory, this opportunity would serve families, caregivers, and the individual well.

Just as 18-year olds are invited into adulthood by being given the right to vote, the responsibility to register with the selective service, the opportunity to designate themselves as organ donors, and a variety of other privileges under the law, 18-year olds should also be allowed to state their personal wishes in the event they are incapacitated.

There is so much passion encircling the issues of the Terry Schiavo case that my own husband and I find it hard to agree on some aspects of the matter. Women, however, are often not as divided on the issue of Terri Schiavo's destiny. In recent days I conducted my own informal poll on the subject by tapping the opinions of women I pass daily in my work as a media consultant, on Los Angeles school yards, at the grocery store, the car wash, church gatherings, and dental offices. These are the corridors where, I find, the real pulse of the country can be taken. Not surprisingly, women think alike. The heartfelt reactions to Terri Schiavo's predicament were mostly uncomplicated and similar to my own . Each woman, whether a mother, an intensive care nurse, a lawyer, a clerk, or a grandmother, placed a very high value on life. Even so, not one desired to be kept alive, with all quality of life stripped away, with loved ones left burdened with responsibility, uncertainty, and paralyzing legal handcuffs. Not one woman felt that Terry Schiavo would choose this destiny for herself either.

In this particular instance, I believe that whether you live in Greenville, Ohio or in a metropolis like Los Angeles, a family crisis like this is viewed much the same. The Schiavo tragedy should have been resolved as a private and sacred family matter, not determined by courts, and not congress, and certainly not by the checkbooks of special interest groups.

Terri Schiavo would have been able to decide her own destiny, and could have rescued her own family from this desperate dispute, had the law required her at 18 to determine power of attorney and clearly state her preferences. Some observers sympathize with her devoted and relentless parents; others agonize with her obviously frustrated and worn out husband, all of whom have endured almost 15 years of scrutiny in this case. Their suffering should be a lesson to us all. With the extraordinary intervention tools available to medical professionals today, society must demand that medical professionals use them thoughtfully and with measured responsibility, not out of habit. The rights and the wishes of individuals can be legally considered and respected without ignoring the sacred value of human life in the process.

Terri Schiavo makes headlines today because her life-sustaining food tube has been withdrawn. Where were the television cameras when her doctors truly determined her fate by connecting her to a ventilator-- and then removing her from it? This case is making news today because at the crucial points in her survival, the wishes of her legally-responsible husband were challenged by conflicted parents and there was no sure humane, ethical, established pathway for her family to follow. The Orange County Register reported this past weekend that there are some 35,000 families today facing similar tragic decisions in hospitals and hospices all around the country.

Hospitals and physicians in America today are trained to act instantly and aggressively to save a life. The problem with that philosophy is that doctors and hospitals sometimes behave as if they are powerless when families are faced with the consequences of such acute intervention, and patients are permanently tethered to machinery . . . for life.

Several dozen judges have now reviewed the Schiavo case and have ruled in favor of the rights of her husband as principal guardian. Whether we side with her husband or not, we must not fail to recognize his rights and more importantly his responsibilities under the law. In the future, the government should act to spare families, friends, medical professionals and other caregivers from vague customary practices and place the responsibility for life or death decisions on the individual and his or her trusted representative. The destinies of our loved ones should be decided by each of us and by our families, not by doctors, hospitals, lawyers and judges, who have survival instincts of their own.

Judge James D. Whittemore And The Schiavo Case: A Health Lawyer's View

Link
This morning's Federal District Court ruling is on the books now and is already the subject of much commentary. You can read the ruling here. Hugh Hewitt offers excellent legal commentary here and here.

The interesting thing about judges is that they are human beings, subject to all the human biases and frailties. The notion that they are impartial pillars of objectivity and fairness is silly.

In other words, often judges write opinions to get to the result they want. This should not be shocking to anyone; every lawyer certainly knows it's true.

What About Judge Whittemore?

Take this judge as an example. According to Judges of The United States, Judge Whittmore is
53 years old, a South Carolina native, and was nominated to the federal bench William J. Clinton on October 20, 1999.

Point: Federal judges are politically active people. You can bet Judge Whittemore is a Democrat activist.

In fact, he began his legal career as an assistant federal public defender, in the Office of Federal Public Defender, where he worked for three years.

Point: Judge Whittemore is politically liberal. I have never known a public defender who wasn't.

He was in private practice in Florida from 1981-1990, and probably did criminal defense work. (I don't know.) Then he served as a judge of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Court, Florida, from 1990-2000. I assume he was appointed to that seat by Lawton Chiles, a Democrat, who was governor of Florida in 1990.

Point: This was not a judge from which we could expect a courageous or even a thoughtful ruling. The people he probably goes to dinner parties with would never stand for that.

The Decision

I have read Judge Whittemoore's decision and am underwhelmed. What we have here is a judge who got to the result he wanted. In that regard, I find two "cop-outs" and one inexplicable failure, any one of which a different judge would have avoided.

Cop-out 1 is at footnote 3 of the opinion:

Plaintiffs have submitted affidavits of health care professionals regarding Theresa's medical status, treatment techniques and therapies which are available and their opinions regarding how and whether these treatments might improve Theresa's condition. Plaintiffs have not, however, discussed these affidavits in their papers and how they relate to the claimed constitutional deprivations.

This falls into the "see no evil" category. In other words, he's saying, "Hey, this information is in front of me and it's terribly important, but you haven't told me what to do with it so I am conveniently going to ignore it. " He could have asked the plaintiffs (Terry's family) to do more with that information. Judges make such requests all the time. He chose not to do so. Why? The answer probably has something to do with the result he wanted. (See the discussion of his likely biases above.)

Cop-out 2 is at the end of Section B of the opinion, in which the judge rejects the claim by Terry's family that she should have been represented by an independent attorney:

. . . this court concludes that Theresa Schiavo's life and liberty interests were adequately protected by the extensive process provided in the state courts. Defendant Michael Schiavo and [Terry's faily] , assisted by counsel, thoroughly advocated their competing perspectives on Theresa Schiavo's wishes. Another lawyer appointed by the court could not have offered more protection of Theresa Schiavo's interests. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have not established a substantial likelihood of success on the merits on Count II.

Well. Frankly, that is a defensible conclusion. It was not, however, one that the judge had to reach after reviewing a handful of affadavits. He chose to do so, even though he could have requested additional briefing from the parties on the issue. Judges do that all the time, too. Why didn't this judge? Again, see the section above about Judge Whittemore's probable political leanings.

The inexplicable failure. The judge, as Hugh notes, could have ordered the resumption of the feeding tube pending an appeal. For that matter, he could have ordered the resumption of feeding and hydration pending the parties' submission to him of additional argument on the two "cop-out" issues noted above. Again, judges do that all the time. Why didn't Judge Whittemore? See above.

The real source of our frustration. The problem here is that courts are terrible places to resolve these issues. Believe me, I've been there more than a few times on similar matters for my hospital clients. The real battle for our society to is decide what the "moral imperative" will be in right-to-die cases. I agree with what James Q. Wilson said yesterday:

[T]he moral imperative should be that medical care cannot be withheld from a person who is not brain dead and who is not at risk for dying from an untreatable disease in the near future.

Those of us who feel this way need to persuade a fellow citizens that Wilson is right, and the courtroom's not the place for that battle. In fact, this whole Schiavo situation is a mess; for example, the Congressional decision to create a special right of appeal for Terry may well have been unconstitutional.

The silver lining, however this all works out, may be the attention it has focused on serious moral issues like euthanasia (called "physician-assisted suicide" by those who want to see it become a reality). We've got hearts and minds (and votes) to win, folks. We can't depend on judges to get our society to the place it needs to be. We have to do the hard work of convincing people that there does need to be a moral imperative and what it should be. It won't be easy but it will be worth whatever effort we give to it.

Terry Schiavo: Too Bad She's Not A Convicted Killer

Link
I was fortunate to get 15 seconds on Hugh Hewitt's show today (yes, I was concentrating hard as I spat out 60 seconds' worth of thoughts in 1/4 that time). Foolishly, I promised Hugh I'd blog a little more about the Schiavo case. Well, what I have said already about the case is here and here; it's now really late at night and my powers of expression are flagging.

Fortunately, frequent Hedgehog Blog contributor (and Hewitt show caller) Ralph Kostant comes to the rescue with another dandy set of thoughts, this time in the form of a letter to the editor of the L.A. Times:

Editor, The Los Angeles Times:

It is unfortunate for Terry Schiavo that she is not a convicted killer. Had she committed a heinous murder, and a Florida judge had ordered that she be deprived of food and water until she died, would there be any doubt that a Federal District Court would have jurisdiction to intervene on a petition in habeus corpus, on the basis of the 8^th Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment? And would there be any doubt that the Los Angeles Times would applaud that intervention, even though it would involve Federal Court review of the State of Florida’s laws and judicial procedures? Sadly, Terry Schiavo is not a condemned murderer. Her only crime is insufficient quality of life, in the opinion of her husband, and therefore a Florida judge may sentence her to death by dehydration and starvation, with the editorial approval of the Los Angeles Times.

Ralph B. Kostant

Indeed. Remember when writing a letter to the editor and hoping it would be published was the only means of expressing oneself about public issues? It was not all that long ago, friends.

One Additional Schiavo Thought

Link
There's an old saying among lawyers that "hard cases make bad law." We rarely see a case like the Schiavo mess, and when we do it seems to bring out the worst in everyone involved-- judges, lawyers, journalists, commentators.

Honestly, this is a terribly hard case. No one really knows what Terry Schiavo would want. But if she is killed, what precedent does that set? Once it's settled that others can decide for Terry what quality of life she would want (or the quality of life society finds acceptable for her) just how slippery does that slope become? What other lives will we decide are not worth preserving, and how will we draw the line?

Pro-euthanasia types will shake their heads and say those are questions only an alarmist would ask.

I respond: Answer the questions.
_______________________________

UPDATE: Peggy Noonan offers her usual thoughtful views. So does James Q. Wilson (link requires subscription). Here is an excerpt from Wilson's piece:

[The] moral imperative should be that medical care cannot be withheld from a person who is not brain dead and who is not at risk for dying from an untreatable disease in the near future. To do otherwise makes us recall Nazi Germany where retarded people and those with serious disabilities were "euthanized" (that is, killed). We hear around the country echoes of this view in the demands that doctors be allowed to participate, as they do in Oregon, in physician-assisted suicide, whereby doctors can end the life of patients who request death and have less than six months to live. This policy endorses the right of a person to end his or her life with medical help. It is justified by the alleged success of this policy in the Netherlands.

But it has not been a success in the Netherlands. In that country there have been well over 1,000 doctor-induced deaths among patients who had not requested death, and in a large fraction of those cases the patients were sufficiently competent to have made the request had they wished.

This is not a matter of crazy religious zealots refusing to see reality. There are real issues here.

Now Here's My Kind of Blog

Link
If you are like me, and you visit TenNapel.com, you're going to want to spend some time there. Movie reviews, comic book art (by the blogger himself), political and cultural commentary--it's all there in one place. The blogger, Doug TenNapel, is a self-described "conservative Christian who creates content for Hollywood." He comes at all those subjects from a center-right perspective, and does so gently and with good humor. I'll be back often (I grew up on comic books and still managed to become a normal adult, in my wife's opinion), and you'll see TenNapel.com on my blogroll.

I AGREE WITH SENATOR BYRD! (Well, not really . . . .)

Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia

The following guest post is submitted by The Hedgehog's former law partner and friend Ralph B. Kostant of Los Angeles:

______________________________________________________________

As Lowell already has noted in THE HEDGEHOG BLOG, this past Wednesday, MoveOn.org sponsored an old time tent revival, to rally the faithful against the nefarious plot of the Republican Senate Majority to end the Democrats’ filibuster of the President’s judicial nominees. The Republicans are threatening to apply the so-called “Constitutional Option” of terminating debate and actually submitting the judicial nominees to a “Yea” or “Nay” vote. Among the featured speakers at the MoveOn.org conference was Senator Robert Byrd, who intoned:

An ill wind is blowing across this country. That wind sows the seeds of destruction. Our Constitution is under attack. We must speak out. We must kill this dangerous effort to rewrite our precious Constitution.

Well, I quite agree. Now let us exam coolly and objectively who is leading this dangerous effort to rewrite our precious Constitution. According to Senator Byrd, it is the Republican Majority in the Senate, while of the Democrats and MoveOn.org, Senator Byrd declaimed:

Our view, your view, of the Constitution is based on the plain words of the framers who wrote that Constitution.

Well, that’s a simple hypothesis to test. One need merely read the United States Constitution. Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution, as modified by the 17^th Amendment, reads:

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote.

While no provision of Article I specifies that an action of the Senate requires a majority vote, that is certainly implied by the following provision, regarding the role of the Vice President of the United States in the Senate:

The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.

In other words, if any vote in the Senate results in a tie, and therefore no decision, the Vice President votes to break the tie. Clearly, then, the Constitution contemplates that only a simple majority vote of the Senate is required for the Senate to act. If all 100 Senators are present, a maximum of 51 votes, is needed for the Senate to act. However, since Article I, Section 5 states that majority of either the Senate or the House of Representatives is a quorum for that legislative house to do business, the Senate might validly act on a vote of as few as 26 votes, if only 51 Senators were present. And that is how the Senate, and the House, for that matter, has always done business.

Now the framers of the Constitution knew how to provide for a super majority where they felt one was warranted. Article 3, Section 2, states of the President:

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

So the very provision of the Constitution that requires the “Advice and Consent of the Senate” for an appointment of “Judges of the supreme Court” (and other “Officers of the United States”) states that ratification of treaties requires “the Advice and Consent of the Senate …provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.” Once again the implication is clear: “Advice and Consent of the Senate” means a simple majority vote of a quorum of Senators, except in the case of a treaty, where a two thirds vote of the Senators present is required.

Having established “the plain words of the framers who wrote that Constitution,” in the inspiring and immortal words of Senator Byrd, let us see who is calling for a departure from plain meaning. Here is California’s beloved Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer, speaking on the subject of the vote of the Senate required for “Advice and Consent” on a judicial nomination:

Why would we give lifetime appointments to people who earn up to $200,000 a year, with absolutely a great retirement system, and all the things all Americans wish for, with absolutely no check and balance except that one confirmation vote. So we're saying we think you ought to get nine votes over the 51 required. That isn't too much to ask for such a super important position. There ought to be a super vote. Don't you think so? It's the only check and balance on these people. They're in for life. They don't stand for election like we do, which is scary.

Now, I do not wish to be catty regarding Senator Boxer. I will leave that to Senator Feinstein. So I won’t comment on her admirable eloquence, as illustrated by phrases such as “a super important position.”

No, my point is simply this—Senator Boxer favors ignoring “the plain words” of the Constitution and implementing, without a constitutional amendment, a vote of 60 Senators in order to confirm a judicial nomination.

Senator Byrd, help us to repel this odious attack on our precious Constitution!

AND WHILE WE ARE ON THE SUBJECT…

Isn’t this debate over the “Constitutional Option” really just a microcosmic illustration of the entire fight to appoint judicial nominees who are strict constructionists of the Constitution? For decades, liberal jurists have viewed the United States Constitution and the Constitutions of the several States as documents of astonishing elasticity, in which, wonder of wonders, a liberal jurist can find whatever one wants! Any political objective on the Left’s agenda that fails to merit a majority vote in a legislature nevertheless may be enshrined into law by a liberal court, based on newly discovered Constitutional authority.

Has the State Legislature passed a law banning gay marriage? Never fear, it is unconstitutional, even if the State Constitution is completely silent on the subject. Have the people of the State voted in a referendum to ban gay marriage? Shame on them—but no matter, their action was unconstitutional! Are the laws of a State silent on authorizing gay marriage? No matter, the State Constitution will be found to require it!

Of course, gay marriage is just one of many examples one could cite for this trend. But if a Constitution can mean anything, it really means nothing. Taken to the extreme displayed by Senator Boxer, and frankly advocated by most liberal thinkers, the U.S. Constitution and State Constitutions are rendered into nullities, becoming merely the cited justification for enacting a judge’s personal opinions into law. The guaranty in Article IV, Section 4 of the United States Constitution, that each State shall have a republican form of government, gives way to a dictatorship of an “enlightened” [read, “liberal”] judicial elite.

Those are the stakes of the battle now looming in the Senate.

Ralph B. Kostant

Saturday Morning Musings

Link



The End of The Anchorman Era

Dan Henninger writes with wonder and a hint of nostalgia about the old days when "everyone watched" Rather, Brokaw, and Jennings "because the Anchormen made it seem important. Back then, they commandeered events in a way that is no longer possible."

March Madness

What a terrific time of year. My own Utah Utes, led by Player of the Year candidate Andrew Bogut, are headed into the Round of 32 today, hoping for a mild upset over the Oklahoma Sooners. This is the 10th NCAA tournament in 11 years for the Utes, so it's quite a tradition in our house. My sons and I will be gathered around the TV, cheering every basket and agonizing over ever turnover. Despite whatever questions one might raise about college athletics, the NCAA Tournament has become a solid cultural tradition. Most of all, it's a heck of a lot of fun. Go Utes!

Andrew Bogut, soon to be an NBA lottery pick

Some Other Good Reads

In case you missed Charles Krauthammer's piece yesterday, here it is.

And Byron York gives us a preview of the coming judicial confirmation battles.

Terry Schiavo

Link
I have been silent on this matter because I try to avoid media circuses. Also, the Schiavo case touches on my work life, in which I regularly advise hospitals and other health care providers about end of life issues. That's why it's a little more complicated for me to give my opinion about Terry Schiavo.

But this morning's reports pushed me over the edge. The last I heard, at about 1:00 p.m. Eastern time (just as I am typing this post) Terry's feeding tube was to be removed.

This is a moral outrage, as many more qualified than I have commented. I am not sure, however, just how well-understood it is that the Schiavo case may well be a medico-legal-ethical outrage as well.

Take it from me: In close cases involving life-or-death decisions for patients whose ability to decide for themselves is compromised, health providers err on the side of life, unless the wishes of the patient are clear or the patient has legally authorized another person to make decisions on his or her behalf.

I'll say it again: In close cases involving life-or-death decisions for people whose ability to decide for themselves is compromised, health providers err on the side of life. That's the custom and practice in the industry. It is simply what is done. Seemingly only lefty bioethicists in think tanks or living in morally challenged Scandinavian countries think otherwise.

In Terry Schiavo's case, it is not even a close call. No one claims she is brain-dead or even close to it; she may be in a persistent vegetative state ("PVS"), but there's substantial debate about that and very little medical information to go on now. There has been no MRI of her brain and no PET scan. Even assuming she is in PVS, the biggest debate seems to be whether there is clear and convincing evidence that she would wish to have her life end under her present circumstances. I don't know the court file in the case, but all I've heard about in news reports is something about a comment she made once while watching television. The only witness to that comment was her "husband" in name only, whose reliability is being questioned. Terri has appointed no one as her surrogate decision maker.

In other words, there are many more questions than answers about this case. In 20 years of advising hospitals about such matters, I have never seen a case with so many open issues get to the point where artificial hydration and nutrition are about to be withdrawn.

I'd love to write more but alas, I can't today. I hope this story has an ending that helps us all learn to handle such cases better.

The Schiavo family's website is linked here. Please visit. Maybe you will be able to help, or at least learn something.

New Iraqi Polling Data; And Another Interesting Blog

Link
Thanks to Roger Simon I found the Seeker Blog, which reports that Iraqi optimism about the country is rising, while American pessimism seems to be dipping downward. The blog shares some graphs that are striking to say the least.

The Seeker's self-description suggests it will be very much worth visiting:

This is mostly an "off road blog" in that we generally only will post on "off road sources". Since everyone can read the New York Times, Guardian, or Sydney Morning Herald we don’t need to waste bandwidth highlighting their content. We’ll be looking mainly at academic sources, think-tanks, less-read sources such as Atlantic Monthly or Commentary, plus a selection of New Media sources that we have come to respect.

How can you not love the blogosphere?

Radio Blogger: A Daily Must-Visit

From Radio Blogger's home page; I think Duane's the man behind the curtain.

Radio Blogger is becoming a must-visit site-- for bloggers as well as readers of blogs. The site is run by Generalissimo Duane, who is Hugh Hewitt's radio show producer. Radio Blogger specializes in selecting verbatim transcripts of lefty politicians and commentators and putting them on the Web for all to see. It's a fertile field, believe me.

Here's an example, in which Duane quotes Barbara Boxer making one of her dumber statements. Go to the main site too, and browse.

Hugh asks the question certain pols should ponder:

Do you think Democrats ever bother to pause and ask themselves why center-right radio hosts and bloggers play and post their speeches --often in their entirety?

Yup. Great stuff.

Just When You Thought The Immigration Debate Here Was Quieting Down for A While

Toward the end of our rip-roaring debate on illegal immigration a few days ago, I received this e-mail from a reader who posts using the whimsical moniker "Mr. Grumpy" and who demands answers. Because I actually had professional work to do, I was unable to respond until now. My responses to Mr. Grumpy are in italics below:

______________________________________________

Sir,

I found your blog via H. Hewitt's non-discussion of immigration on Monday past. I asked 2 questions of you via the comments section of your carrot and stick entry that remain unanswered.

In the event that you simply have not yet read the comments to your own blog, I will re-ask them:

First, how is normalization different from amnesty?

According to Dictionary.com, "amnesty" is "an act of clemency by an authority (as a government) by which pardon is granted esp. to a group of individuals." That's what President Reagan did in 1986 (and it must not be repeated, in my view). It is not what President Bush is suggesting, nor is it what Hugh and I are talking about. No one's talking about any act of clemency. "Normalization," as Hugh uses the word to describe what Bush proposes, means that those illegal immigrants who now simply inhabit the country would be allowed to apply for legal status as guest workers, provided they meet certain requirements. Bush bases this approach on these three principles:

• "New immigration laws should serve the economic needs of our country. If an American employer is offering a job that American citizens are not willing to take, we ought to welcome into our country a person who will fill that job."

• "We should not give unfair rewards to illegal immigrants in the citizenship process or disadvantage those who came here lawfully or hope to do so."

• "New laws should provide incentives for temporary foreign workers to return permanently to their home countries after their period of work in the United States has expired."

Do you see the difference? Instead of saying, "All is forgiven, you're welcome to stay here and apply for citizenship," as amnesty did, Bush would match workers with jobs, and in any subsequent citizenship application process would not allow those who came here illegally to benefit from having done so. The guest worker arrangement would explicitly be temporary.

Second, do you agree with Mr. Hewitt's irrational claim that, on one hand, expelling illegal aliens will destroy California's economy -- but his later intimation that the whole discussion is equal in importance to the Michael Jackson trial?

I don't know what you mean. Expelling illegals from California would have a profound impact on life here, and only one of the effects would be economic. In my opinion, anyone who suggests that approach simply can't be taken seriously. As for Michael Jackson, I don't know that Hugh has ever suggested any equivalence between the enormously important immigration issue and the Jackson trial. The very idea is absurd.

I look forward to your response.

Regards,

Mr. Grumpy

I hope this was helpful, and that you decide to cheer up!

Remember The SwiftVets?

This post at Power Line and the links therein are a good reminder. It also provides some interesting new information.

Ward Churchill: Perpetrator of "The Long Con"

Link
I try not to pay attention to the Ward Churchill story because I think Churchill is such a joke, but it has become fascinating to see how others in left-wing academia (but I repeat myself!) have responded. Take a look at this editorial by Paul Campos, a law professor at Colorado (where Churchill holds a position). Notably, Campos is a self-described Hispanic Democrat.

Immigration, Carrots, Sticks, and Fences: Let's Talk Solutions

Link


Hugh Hewitt, blogfather to so many of us, links here to this Economist article, "Dreaming of The Other Side of The Wire," and urges comment and analysis. Here we go.

First, read the article. It accurately summarizes the debate as one that

runs a spectrum from the libertarian advocacy of open borders to the isolationist instinct to fence them off. Common ground, however, is that the present system of legal immigration does not work.

Granted, the system is broken. President Bush has proposed a comprehensive approach. Many of my conservative brethren have reacted with vehement opposition. Candidates up for re-election seem to fear upsetting those who oppose the Bush approach (many of whom know nothing about it other than what they have heard on talk radio shows).

So, I continue to ask, what is to be done? Many of the responses to my posts below were very interesting and quite encouraging because they reflected some good thinking and creative approaches to actually solving the problem in a way that honors the key principles at stake:

• The rule of law

• National security

• National cohesion

• Preservation of traditional values

As he is wont to do, Hugh has helped organize, aggregate, and synthesize the thinking on the issue and offers his idea, soon to be known everywhere as the "carrots and fences" approach; Hugh "favors both President Bush's plan for normalization of the 8 to 12 million illegals already here plus the construction of a border-length fence and highway to patrol it."

Now we're talking. Here's how I see this all fitting together.

Rule of Law And National Security: The Carrot

The Bush plan calls for using the guest worker concept - the carrot- to get a handle on the undocumented aliens here now. The idea is to know who they are and account for their presence. This is critical to the national security principle: It would be much harder for shadowy evildoers to slip into the USA. The plan is also crucial to restoring the rule of law: No more flouting the immigration laws, no more winking and nodding about hiring "illegals," no more underground undocumented immigrant economy. Also, those who were here illegally already when the plan is implemented would not benefit from that; they'd go to the back of the line for permanent resident status.

National Cohesion and Preservation of Traditional Values: The Stick

The Bush plan offers the carrot. But the missing piece is the "stick" Hugh proposes: A fence like the one on the California-Mexico border already, running the length of the border; and a highway, also running the length of the border, to allow Homeland Security to patrol it.

The fence/highway adds the missing piece to the Bush plan: The ability to show everyone-- American voters, Congress, foreign governments, and terrorists-- that the USA is really serious about maintaining border security.

Why is that so important? For one thing, there is considerable concern that the Bush guest worker program will morph into just another amnesty program. I share that concern. The 1986 amnesty did nothing to stem the unregulated tide of immigrants, and probably worsened it, giving hope to those who think that if they just stay here long enough, another amnesty will be granted. If voters and immigrants belief that will happen, any reform effort is doomed. A dramatic step like the fence and highway is necessary to put that belief to rest.

The article makes clear the extent to which the national attitude is both deeply concerned and somewhat ambivalent about the overall issue:

[M]ost Americans instinctively follow the view of Franklin Roosevelt that “all of us are descended from immigrants”. The consequence is a kind of general ambivalence. In a Washington Post poll carried out in January, 61% of the sample said illegal immigrants should be able to keep their jobs and apply for legal status. On the other hand, few Americans favour greater inflows: Gallup in January found that 7% want more immigration; 39% are happy with the current level; and 52% want less.

It's that 52% who want less immigration who won't support the carrot reform without a good stick to go with it. With such a stick, however, we can hold the conservative majority in the country together on this divisive issue (along with a substantial chunk of the center-left).

So the solution on the table right now: carrots and fences.

Yes, we are a nation of immigrants, but we should welcome as immigrants only people who want to come here and become Americans as soon as possible-- full-blown, English-speaking, 4th of July-celebrating, PTA-joining, contributing Americans. Others may come, but should be allowed to do so only with our permission and knowledge, subject to terms America has set. "Carrots and fences" is the best idea of seen yet that will make that happen. And yes, that approach will be expensive, but unless we demonstrate the national will to take that approach-- or something very much like it-- the USA in 25 years will be a much different kind of society than I believe the majority of Americans want it to be.

SUPPLEMENTAL READING

Jonathan Max Wilson has written a clear-eyed analysis of (1) the serious threat of continued unregulated illegal immigration and (2) the manner in which the Bush principles provide the solution. Read Jonathan's piece here at the GOPUSA site, or on Jonathan's own blog.

Also, Alan Caruba has a must-read reality check for anyone who really wants to know what's at stake in this debate and why we have to get the resolution right. If you've ever read Alan Caruba you know he is about as far from a bleeding heart liberal as anyone can get. His sobering and realistic piece is here.

Some Responses to Comments (So Far) on Illegal Immigration

Link



The sheer number of comments to my post below on illegal immigration and to my follow-up post linking Tamar Jacoby's piece makes it impractical, if not impossible, to respond to all of them. I'll offer a few general thoughts of my own and single out some of the most interesting comments to my earlier post.

1. It is not surprising, but quite alarming, to see how divided conservatives are on this issue. That's why we need to have a thorough discussion about it in the blogosphere.

2. The most disturbing phenomenon is the seemingly reflexive name-calling and pigeon-holing that is going on among conservatives. I have never in my life been called "squishy" or "a moderate." Wow! But both sides of the argument do this. Having felt the sting of such epithets, I hereby renounce the use of the term "nativist" to describe people who disagree. (My pledge could break down if someone calls me "wobbly" on this issue when I am in a bad mood.)

3. People who disagree strongly with President Bush's approach to this issue need to recognize that it is possible to be appalled and alarmed about illegal immigration and still think the guest worker plan is tough-minded and the best way to get on top of the problem. Glenlyon's comment below is an excellent example of this type of thinking. I'm also in that category. (By the way, there is no Bush immigration "bill" in existence, no legislation, just an outline of principles Bush believes should guide the debate.)

4. I liked Gringo Salado's comments very much, except for the part about "quit bitching and learn Spanish." I think it's a good idea to learn Spanish, but the immigrants need to learn to communicate in English. The prospect of a Quebec-style language division here in the USA is a serious concern. I don't think it will get that bad here but unless we get a handle on the problem we will end up with a permanent underclass, stuck in poverty because they are not fluent in either English or Spanish.

5. There were some very interesting ideas advanced in the comments (apart from the commenters who simply vented and think the problem is a simple matter of "non-appeasement"). I hope some staffer to Congressman Sensenbrenner picks up the threads here and on Wizbang and Polipundit, as well as Glenn Reynolds' MSNBC piece. A person can support the Bush approach generally and still support these very tough and creative ideas. Some examples:

MrsPatriot may have the most important comment of all, referring to the Tamar Jacoby piece I linked below:

Ms Jacoby's article is the first I have seen that explains President Bush's plan so clearly. The White House needs to present their case more in these terms. The reason for so much opposition is that the American public doesn't really understand the proposal.

Indeed!

Steve White has a list of eight good, tough ideas, too long to quote here. I like them all. An abbreviated summary:

1) Control the border.

2) Institute a true guest worker program. Protect the workers from the avarice of employers who would otherwise mistreat them. Match workers and employers. Provide an ID card. Individuals outside the USA who want to come have to match up with an employer who needs them. Illegals currently in the USA have to do the same or risk deportation. The goal is no illegals: you are here legally or you are not here. . . . If a household employs an illegal as a gardener or a nanny, they can darned well come clean and start paying the appropriate taxes.

3) The guest worker program has time limits . . . .

4) The guest worker program has a safety valve -- if you're here, keep your nose clean, learn English, etc., you can enter a program that eventually leads to permanent residency and citizenship. . . .

5) Children of guest workers would have the right to be in American schools. Children belong in schools, not on the streets. Since the guest workers have jobs and thus are paying taxes, they have the right the send their kids to school. The Federal govt would subsidize school districts that have a high percentage of children of guest workers. Along the way, the kids learn English.

6) Guest workers get the same minimum wage and legal protections as any American citizen.

7) Children of guest workers who are born in the U.S. are not automatically American citizens. Redefine the citizenship law accordingly.

8) No amnesty. If you're an illegal now, you get matched up or risk deportation. As a practical matter, there will be relatively few deportations, as under any scheme it's tough to deport any large number of people. But any law needs a hammer, and this is the hammer.

Glenlyon:

If we establish a meaningful system of guest workers for Mexicans to enter the US, this can change. The economic border crossers will enter legally, and we can actually isolate and scrutinize the others trying to enter in a manner compatible with the norms of our civil republic.

. . .

I will agree that a series of companion measures to the Bush plan are needed to clarify what being a guest worker means in terms of welfare, public benefits of other kinds, taxes, eligibility for residency and citizenship, etc. Some work there could assure people that the system will be orderly and fair.

. . .

I would also suggest that this issue could be used to strengthen NAFTA. Make the guest worker provisions specific to the treaty members, perhaps through a series of bilateral side treaties. Something like this has already happened in Europe, to great advantage in their internal immigration affairs.

PersonfromPorlock:

Let's make the penalty for hiring an illegal alien $25,000... then make the reward for turning in an illegal alien's employer, oh, say, $25,000... and immediate permanent resident status if the turner-in happens to be that very illegal alien.

Well, it probably has practical drawbacks, but an interesting and appealing concept. Congress, are you listening?

mishu:

"If you go to Milwaukee or Fargo or Council Bluffs, you'll likely see American citizens cleaning your hotel room or serving you your Big Mac or your burrito supreme from Taco Bell."

I don't know about Fargo or Council Bluffs, Lee but you have obviously never been to Milwaukee.

I travel an awful lot, and mishu is absolutely right. The phenomenon appears in such places as Salt Lake City, Milwaukee, Chicago, Atlanta, New Orleans, and Boise.

T.L. Cobb:

. . . I would like to see a system where every illegal alien who is apprehended gets his fingerprints checked/included on a database. If its your second time being found in the USA illegally, you get to spend 60 days at hard labor. Penalties would increase for additional illegal entries. Anyone who was found to have entered the country illegally would be forever barred from residing in or entering the US again.

Okay, let's get that on the table too.

Texas Tommy:

One angle I haven't heard much about is mainstreaming immigrants so that they become productive, patriotic citizens. I certainly believe in proper border integrity and immigration law enforcement. Yet, there are 10-12M illegal immigrants in the US now and mass deportation is problematic. Providing an integration path with the help of faith-based/community-based organizations and visionary businesses could help alleviate the problems associated with illegal immigration. Check out my recent blog on this topic for more info.

I recommend Texas Tommy's blog. I especially loved the quote from Leviticus. Good thoughts!

An appeal: Let's flood the blogs with ideas like those above. Surely there are more out there. The right resolution of this issue is vital to the nation's future and to the GOP's future, and we can contribute greatly to the debate.

UPDATE: Ric James at HoodaThunk has a long and thoughtful post about all this.

Immigration Addendum: Tamar Jacoby Thoughts

Link
I've linked to Ms. Jacoby's recent Weekly Standard article before; here is it again. A key paragraph:

The paradox at the heart of the Bush plan makes it a little hard to explain to voters. The president is promising to regain control by means of a more generous and welcoming approach to immigration. But that doesn't change the underlying truth: The Bush plan is the only way to restore the rule of law, either on the border or in our communities. It's the best answer to the critics' complaints, the only answer to the illegality that plagues us. And surely--no matter what the skeptics say--it can't be political suicide to give voters a solution to one of the problems that frightens and disturbs them most.

If you want to get beyond the "seal the borders and expel the illegals" nostrum, read Tamar Jacoby's piece. It'll get you thinking.

Illegal Immigration: The Issue The GOP Simply Must Get Right

Link

Give me your tired, your poor . . . but legally, please!

I'm impressed, as I listen to conservative talk radio, by the depth of anger expressed by both callers and hosts (for example, Laura Ingraham) about the Bush approach to illegal immigration. This is an issue we must get right without splitting the Republican Party and its base of support. Our overriding goal should be to forge a Republican consensus on what to do. The blogosphere can help achieve that.

That won't be easy. As my blogfather Hugh Hewitt notes:

There's a small, hard-core nativist, anti-even-legal-immigrant group that seeks to hijack every conversation and comment thread about border security, and you can usually identify its members pretty quickly. But the venom among this small, off-putting group should not disguise the fact there is widespread, across-the-political-spectrum worry that there isn't enough effort being put into border security. And that concern could become Hillary's path to the right in 2008, though it is hard to see how, if the issue is border security, the answer could ever be a Democrat in the White House. (Emphasis added.)

You can see some evidence of that nativist fringe in action on the comments to my posts below on immigration, here and here. You'll also see the fierce nature of the debate among other reasonable people who disagree.

Glenn Reynolds (the InstaPundit) adds a little more in an MSNBC column here (hat tip to Hugh). Take a look also at the other links Hugh has compiled.

I support the Bush plan, but we can't forget that plan involves both carrots and sticks. As Hugh notes, the porous nature of the borders continues, and leaves many of us worrying about whether there is enough "stick" being used right now.

I'll say again that the key principles at stake are:

• The rule of law

• National security

• National cohesion

• Preservation of traditional values

I also continue to believe that the Bush plan addresses every one of those. Before anyone gets too worked up about the president's proposal, please review it, as outlined here. Remember, what I call the Bush "plan" is really an outline of principles. We can debate those. But if we start talking about deporting 10 million people to Mexico and other Latin American countries, the debate is no longer serious, because that will never happen and efforts to make it happen will destroy the GOP's appeal both to moderate voters and many Hispanics, and we need them in our party.

This debate is culturally and racially charged. We must admit that. As I've stated before, I recognize that my views on these matters are colored by my experience, but I think I have some credibility. I'm a solid Republican conservative whose first ancestors came to America in the 1670's with William Penn. I'm also a 25-year Los Angeles resident who also spent several years of my young adulthood living in Central America. I speak Spanish fluently and now work regularly in volunteer and professional affairs with the Hispanic community. I'm pretty comfortable with that community and its culture. I love Hispanic food, the music, and the sound of the language.

I understand how others who haven't got that perspective think only of illegal immigrants (and they are illegal, not "undocumented," for heaven's sake) as gang members, criminals, or barely-literate manual laborers. In part, they are those things; but that's a narrow perspective. At least in my experience, in much larger part they are folks looking for a decent chance to feed themselves and their families. They're hard workers and come from the Judeo-Christian tradition. They'd make great Republicans. There are just too darn many of them here all at once!

Even so, we can't allow them come here at the expense of the rule of law, or of our national security in these perilous times of jihad, or of our national culture and language. All those concerns are real, and need a sober, vigorous, serious national debate. President Bush is trying to lead that debate. His plan addresses every one of those concerns in a manner that balances a tough approach to policing the border with humanely allowing those who want to earn their way to permanent resident status (and later citizenship) to do so, without rewarding their illegal entry. He does not deserve the bashing he has received from the Tom Tancredos and Laura Ingrahams of the right. (I love Laura Ingraham and what she's doing on every other issue, by the way.)

The problem needs a serious solution, not angry and unrealistic demands to throw millions of people out of the country, or for Mexico to improve its economy overnight. Maybe the Bush outline is not perfect, but it is a serious attempt at a solution. Let's debate it. Nativists need not apply!

A Little Insight into Who's Writing The Movies These Days

Link
Oh, for the time to write more about this Los Angeles Times profile of Paul Haggis, the screenwriter of "Million Dollar Baby!" Please read it yourself; it will improve your understanding and appreciation of the intractable, relentless leftward bias of the motion picture industry.

The story's title is the tip-off: "Volatile stories make him Hollywood's hot writer." Ah, "volatile." What could the headline writer possibly mean by that? We read on to find out.

After conservative critics attacked "Million Dollar Baby," painting it as a right-to-die movie, Haggis jokingly apologized at an awards banquet for "turning Clint Eastwood into a communist. I only tried to turn him into a socialist and overshot a bit."

Hilarious, no? And I have a hunch that everyone at the awards banquet in question laughed heartily. Not that the movie industry is politically one-dimensional or anything, but my sneaking suspicion is that not many of those who were present found anything about the film troubling.

What other cinematic fare is Mr. Haggis preparing for us? Here are some previews of his works in progress, according to the L.A. Times article:

• "Flags of Our Fathers," the troubling true story of the six men who raised the flag on Iwo Jima.

• "Death and Dishonor," based on a Playboy article about a career Army officer whose soldier son is murdered by members of his platoon after returning from Iraq.

• "Crash," described as a "caustic portrait of Los Angeles as a melting pot boiling over with racial and ethnic strife."

Do you detect a pattern here? Hmm, these must be the "volatile" stories Haggis has in mind.

Haggis states his screenwriting philosophy: "If you're not provoking somebody, what's the point?"

Good question. My question back: Does Mr. Haggis ever write anything provoking liberals?

Here are two more paragraphs, which are interesting for what is clearly between the lines:

Even though Haggis is outspoken about his lifelong involvement with progressive politics — "I was probably the only kid in Canada getting Ramparts magazine" — he sees himself as a dramatist, not a polemicist. In fact, he's just as ambivalent about showbiz activism as he is about the characters in his scripts.

I just love that. Times Reporter Patrick Goldstein refers to "a lifelong involvement in progressive politics." Let's not use words that are any more, ah, specific, like "liberal," or "Democrat," or "left-wing." Suppose Goldstein were to write this kind of a valentine to a conservative screenwriter (hey, pigs may fly someday-- you never know!). What adjectives do you think he'd use to describe that writer's politics? "Right wing" comes to mind.

More tellingly, Haggis makes the standard show biz denial: "I am a dramatist, not a polemicist." Translation: "Yes, I am a believing leftist, but I can't or won't admit that my work is dedicated to reflecting my narrow worldview."

As my 15 year-old son would say: "Not a polemicist, huh? Yeah, right."

Then there's this, which seems to be the evidence of Haggis' "ambivalence" toward Hollywood activism:

"People in Hollywood, including myself, are more comfortable telling other people how to live their lives without doing it ourselves," he says. "It's easier to get people to give money to save the rain forest than get solar panels on their own house."

Do these people take a standard course in Hollywoodspeak? You've got to love the standard claim to humility: "I am just a humble story-teller. I don't want to tell others how to live their lives. All of us working in the movies need to do better at 'walking the talk.' (Not that there's anything at all wrong with the talk, mind you.)"

That does not read like ambivalence toward activism; it's more a complaint that Hollywood types are not sufficiently dedicated to their activism.

Oh, well, read the whole thing. It's an unintentionally funny reminder of the way things are.

Iowahawk Solves The Dan Rather Mystery

Link
Don't miss this one.

The Oscars Dissected (Well, Chopped into Tiny Pieces, Really)

Link

Cheryl Felicia Rhoads

Thanks to Steve Finefrock of the Hollywood Conservative Forum, I saw this article in Human Events by Cheryl Felicia Rhoads: "Beyond Beyonce: Why I Boycotted The Oscars." My favorite paragraphs:

Their artistic and political impulses could be explained by the fact that many in the entertainment community believe life must be perfect or at least convenient, or otherwise it just isn't acceptable. (Does too much time spent in limos foster that dubious reality?) Yet, it is also a view that sadly has been embraced by many in my baby boomer generation. We have indulged in the world's longest adolescence with a stubborn refusal to grow up...or God forbid...grow old. Yet, ultimately, God does in fact, forbid it... and it is He who just naturally "pulls the plug" as it were. But, in His ending credits, there is good news for those who have faith.

But, like the frightened children in the dark that some of them are, Hollywood doesn't accept that premise at all! Why else do you think there is much passion about the evils of second hand smoke, while The Passion of the Christ is treated with disdain?

Ouch!

Ms. Rhoads is an actress, by the way. Read more about her and her work here. Contact the Hollywood Conservative Forum at movietsar@earthlink.net.

Good-Bye to Dan Rather

Link



The Media Research Center's compilation of outrageous on-air statements by Dan Rather is all over the web, and has been posted here before. Even so, in case you missed it, here's the compilation one more time.

Courage.

Yet Another Interesting Blog

Link
Visit Liberty Dad (now added to my blogroll). Where else but in the blogosphere are you going to find a "Libertarian Paternalist in Slovakia?" Interesting stuff. Read it!

The Michael Hiltzik Article: Is "Bigness" A Conservative Value?

Link

Which one is the conservative?

A couple of commenters on the Michael Hiltzik post below got into this interesting exchange:

Rick Ellis said:

"The MSM prevents intrusions into their Official POV, and it runs unopposed, save for Fox. "

[Fox] has its own official POV. I don't want to get into a pissing war about the "liberal" media, but I do want to make the observation that Fox is as much a part of the mainstream media as any other network.

They may have a different POV politically, but that's the equivalent of having the same model car with a different color paint job.

Dick responded:

Granted that Fox has a point of view and it may indeed by considered part of the MSM. The difference is that it is just about the only part of MSM that has a POV that is different. In addition you will find the old MSM going out of its way to say that Fox is biased but they are not. That is not something that Fox does. It makes a big difference in that by the attitude of the old MSM Fox is not a part of the pack regardless of whether you or I might think it is or not.

While you are pontificating about it, take a look at the way that the DU group treat what Fox broadcasts. They automatically discount it because it is on Fox. Whether it is true or not does not matter. If it is on Fox it is automatically wrong. While those of us on the other side of the aisle may think almost the same of the old MSM, we at least look for the info that will either prove it wrong or agree with it.

Bloggers are needed for this alone. The old MSM is not very good at self-correcting; in fact it goes out of its way not to self-correct. Bloggers on the other hand by their very nature self-correct either on the same website by agreeing that they were caught out by another blogger or finding it themselves. They also do not let other bloggers get away with much. The good point of having a Glenn Reynolds acting as a sort of switchman as he does is that he does a pretty good job of directing to most of the different points of view out there. Sometimes he comments, sometimes he just points to where info is. Where in the old MSM do you find that function occurring.

I think both Rick and Dick are right. Fox is a big-time, mainstream media outlet, but it at least breaks ranks with everyone else. And I do find it amusing that whatever is reported on Fox is immediately discounted by other media types (Christiane Amanpour is the most egregious example).

I offer this thread for tying Rick's comment to Dick's:

"Bigness" is not a conservative value.

Think about it: big media, big government, big business-- all are problems or potential problems. The conservative tendency is to view all three with a watchful eye. Why? Because (to the conservative mind) the concentration of massive power so often leads to abuses, amorality, and infringement on individual choice and agency.

The old mainstream media is the classic example. That's why, even though I am a devoted Fox News viewer, I watch carefully and warily. It's part of the hard-headed conservative's creed: Don't romanticize large institutions.

An analogy: We have two cats and a dog in my home. I enjoy all three pets, but I don't harbor any illusions about them. I expect the cats to act like cats and the dog (a much higher and nobler animal, in my opinion!) to act like a dog. The cats, as much as I enjoy them, will not come running to greet me when I come home. The dog, in contrast, will come running to me and to try to slobber a little on my (bless her); at the same time, when I accidentally drop a piece of food on the floor, she is going to gobble it up immediately. That's what dogs do.

So when we see big institutions-- General Motors, CBS News, the Department of Health and Human Services, and even Fox News-- we also expect them to act like, well, big institutions. They will be bureaucratic, possibly uncaring, verly likely amoral (unless they are a church or a non-profit with a moral mission). That's what big institutions do.

One exception that comes to mind is the military, which must be big to be effective (just how big is a policy question). But conservatives tend to regard even the military warily, and we should.

In contrast to these behemoth entities, the blogosphere, although vast, is nevertheless made up millions of little democratic pieces, each with its own voice and agency. Therein lies the blogosphere's power. As was amply discussed in the post below and its comments, in the blogosphere barriers to entry are minimal, and a lot of very smart and articulate people have a chance to weigh in on, and even to influence, important debates.

One commenter quoted Hugh Hewitt: "Bloggers don't need to convince someone to let them try to convince someone."

Indeed!

And Now for Something Completely Different

Link
Watch this video link. (I guarantee it is G-rated.) I came away smiling and really quite charmed. Cute stuff.

(Hat tip to Stones Cry Out.)

Michael Hiltzik of The L.A. Times Responds

Link
I was pleasantly surprised to have an e-mail exchange today with Michael Hiltzik of the L.A. Times. In this post just below I critiqued Mr. Hiltzik's piece appearing today in the Times. I believe his e-mails and my responses speak for themselves:

My post made this comment:

Newspapers, the movies (maybe especially the movies!) and major booksellers are characterized by barriers to entry. An elite and demonstrably out of touch class runs all of those outlets for expression and opinion. Hiltzik seems to understand blogging more than the average old media writer, but he's still missing the biggest part of the story.

Michael Hiltzik responded:

Dear Lowell,

Speaking as another fan of Isaiah Berlin and as a reader of a fairly wide range of blogs, right, left, big, little, good, bad, PG, XXX, you name it, I don't find a speck of evidence that blogs as a group are any more or less elite or more or less in touch or out of touch than any other means of self-expression, or even corporate expression. What's the point of making a distinction between blogs and "old media"? Old media includes radical publications and reactionary ones, free neighborhood throwaways and the Robb Report. Plus, it's hardly true that blogging doesn't involve a barrier to entry: you have to have access to a computer, to be sufficiently well-educated to grasp the rudiments of posting (even if not HTML as such), and, generally to afford an internet connection, whether dialup or broadband.

One thing you can say about blogs is that there are lots of them, and more every day. You can't say that the profile of the blogosphere, measured any way you wish, looks any different from the rest of the society--or rather,m you can, but you can't muster any evidence for it. And even if you do think it's different, can you define the difference? I've never seen anyone do so.

Best regards,

Michael Hiltzik

It is noteworthy that I did not contact Michael; he somehow learned of my blogging about his article and responded on his own. My response to him:

OK, Michael, color me impressed. I thought about e-mailing you about your story but didn't think you'd respond. (So color me a little sheepish too.)

Your points are very fair, although I continue to believe that the lack of a "gatekeeper" makes the blogosphere a much more ideologically diverse place than the L.A. Times or Paramount Pictures. That's not a value judgment, just an observation.

That said, what I really love about blogging is that you and I are having this discussion at all. I really enjoyed your piece and will be watching for others from you. And unless you object strenuously I'll post your e-mail on my blog.

Thanks so much for taking the time to respond.

Regards,

Lowell C. Brown

Michael's response? "Go right ahead."

So here you have it. I think Mr. Hiltzik "gets it," he just doesn't buy it.

What do you all say?

UPDATE: Thanks to the InstaPundit for causing an "Instalanche" on this post.

Is Mitt Romney's Religion An Issue? The Boston Globe Thinks So.

Link
Take a look at this piece by Dean Barnett in The Weekly Standard. (Here's the story on which Barnett is commenting.)

A choice excerpt from Barnett's analysis:

Sunday's story also concluded with a strange coda, referring to Romney as a "Mormon stalwart." For what it's worth, according to a search of the Globe's online archives, none of the following phrases have appeared in the Globe since its archives begin in 1979: "Jewish stalwart;" "Catholic stalwart;" "Christian stalwart;" "Muslim stalwart;" "Hindu stalwart;" or "Buddhist stalwart."

Mitt Romney has never discussed his religion in a political context, certainly not willingly. He has never made an issue of his faith as President Bush has or as Senator Kerry did when he recited his history as an altar boy.

All of which makes the Globe's rediscovery of the governor's religious affiliation after a blissful ten year absence of such conversations especially noxious.

Indeed. I am confident that as far as Romney is concerned, this is not the last of the religion-bashing we will see, whether it is overt or by innuendo. How the public reacts to all this will be very interesting to watch. Among other things, it will tell us a lot about religious tolerance (or intolerance) in this country.

Here is Dean Barnett's blog, soxblog. He is a Red Sox fan and so I already like the guy.

And About That Italian Journalist in Iraq . . . .

Link
I haven't paid much attention but Confederate Yankee has.

That's a great blog, by the way. Visit!

If You Care about The Ward Churchill Saga . . .

Link
You'll find this interesting. I think the man's pretty much a joke, and this tends to confirm my view. (Hat tip to InstaPundit and Confederate Yankee.)

Cold Fury: A Fine And Newly-Discovered Blog

Link
Check out today's post, which lays out the left-wing line on Lebanon in advance. Funny stuff.

An Iraq Military Must-Read

Link
This L.A. Times article is a day old so you may have seen it already. How else can I describe it but "gripping?"

An Informative L.A. Times Article on Blogging by A Writer Who Doesn't Quite Get It

Link
Well, it's on an aspect of blogging, anyway. The article, by Michael Hiltzik, is about one slice of the blogosphere: the business of blogging. Who developed the technology that makes all this possible, and how are they bankrolled? Hiltzik's piece is about Movable Type and its sister company Typepad. It's an interesting and informative read.

But, but . . . Hiltzik either misses, or is still in denial about, the most important aspect of the blogosphere. Here are the key paragraphs from his piece:

The 9/11 attacks had propelled blogging into an all-purpose social echo chamber. Over the next few years the format kept spreading — cyberspace seemed to have given birth to a new entity called the blogosphere. During last year's presidential campaign, it seemed to burst into broad public consciousness; partisan bloggers' noisy role in some of the more contentious episodes of the election started people talking about whether blogging is good, bad or indifferent for society.

My own take is that the question is irrelevant. Blogs are tools for self-expression, no better or worse than the thought that goes into them. Some are indispensable, others vacuous; some brilliant, others infantile; some left, others right; some have things to say to the entire world, others seem to speak exclusively to their owners' navels. I couldn't say which way the balance tips in any of those categories, but I suspect that it's the same balance one will find among American newspapers, movies and the inventory at Barnes & Noble.

It's that last sentence that caught my eye: The voices in the blogosphere have "the same balance one will find among American newspapers, movies and the inventory at Barnes & Noble."

Well, no. As much as people who make their living in the old media would like it to be otherwise, the blogosphere is fundamentally and radically different from their publications: It is open to everyone. Newspapers, the movies (maybe especially the movies!) and major booksellers are characterized by barriers to entry. An elite and demonstrably out of touch class runs all of those outlets for expression and opinion. Hiltzik seems to understand blogging more than the average old media writer, but he's still missing the biggest part of the story.

The Hedgehog’s Spring 2005 Los Angeles Election Advisory

Link

Los Angeles City Hall

This post is for our readers who live in Los Angeles, or who care about this Tuesday's municipal elections in LA.

You may have overlooked your Voter Information Pamphlet this spring, because it arrived as thin as a piece of junk mail. Tuesday’s mayoral election is a critical one however, and will determine much about the future of the City of Los Angeles. Get out and vote. We live in a city that is more like a country, and special interests are scrambling to control it.

For moms on the run and folks who haven’t time for the details here’s our view of Tuesday’s vote:

Mayor of Los Angeles: Bob Hertzberg. Yes, he is a Democrat, but he's the best in the field. Remember the Hugh Hewitt rule: Vote for the most conservative candidate who can win.

Hertberg is a former California Assembly Speaker and the only serious candidate from the Valley. He is also the only candidate courageous enough to tell the truth about L.A. He has represented the Valley since 1996 in the State Assembly. Nothing will change in this city until education changes, and Hertzberg stands for breaking up the Los Angeles Unified School District. He has been endorsed by former Mayor Riordan, Governor Schwarzenegger, and our Republican Assemblyman Keith Richman.

Charter Amendment 1 – Port Police Pension: Vote No.

Puts Port Police on LAPD Pension Fund. Pensions are becoming anvils on the backs of taxpayers and an integrated approach for ALL government employees needs to be reviewed.

Charter Amendment 2 – Revision to Police & Fire Pension Plan: Vote Yes.

This amendment would allow retired fire and police officers to come out of retirement and assist our city forces when needed. Must have been in retirement no more than three years.

Los Angeles Community College District Elections

Vote for incumbents except Office No. 6; for that office vote for Gerald Wayne Perttula, a solid thinker.

THE INSIDE STORY

Mayor Jim Hahn hasn’t the personality or creativity to lead the charge necessary to change Los Angeles. He won last time mainly because he was not Antonio Villaraigosa (more about Villaraigosa below). Hahn has terrific name I.D., but no real record of achievement. He and his family are too entrenched in the past, and probably too indebted to City insiders ever to make a difference.

Hahn's challengers can smell weakness like pit bulls. Bernard Parks wants revenge because Hahn deposed him as Chief of Police. We’ve run into Bernard Parks repeatedly at inner city events where he has been building his base for four years. Parks hopes to win by reassembling the minority votes and liberal west side votes which elected Tom Bradley. Parks is a former cop elected by limited support to serve one pocket of the City Council. He is not a skilled politician, he is not a visionary, he is not a builder.

State Senator Richard Alarcon is running on the dream of building a city wide mass transit system. “How” never seems to come up. He joins the most dangerous candidate in the race,

Antonio R. Villaraigosa in making a run for the rich vein of Latino votes that may one day rule Los Angeles. Villaraigosa must be stopped. He takes a marvelous campaign photo, yet he is a throwback to the unscrupulous backroom dealers who are owned by special interests with very simple designs: buying City Hall. Villaraigosa is a former labor organizer, a hard-core partisan left-wing politician with big ambitions. What more do you need to know?

Look for the United Teachers Union of Los Angeles, with 72,000 members to hop right on board the Villaraigosa train. That union has been hijacked by a hard left-wing leadership that is likely to put a new, tougher stranglehold on the already-gasping Los Angeles Unified School District.

This is why you see Governor Schwarzenegger, Richard Riordan and Keith Richman circling the wagons around Bob Hertzberg, and The Hedgehog Blog endorsing Hertzberg. He is the only candidate that is addressing the “elephant in the room.” There will be no real change in Los Angeles until political leaders confront the vast wasteland which is LAUSD. The failing school district discourages new businesses from locating in Los Angeles, drains taxpayer resources, and is failing a second generation of students who are trapped within it. Schwarzenegger, Riordan and Richman know that breaking up the school district is the key to breaking up many entrenched interests which are suffocating the city.

Bob Hertzberg alone may not be the answer to confronting this problem, but he has the backing of those at the state level who can. This weekend we received a recorded phone message from a vague political source pounding Hertzberg for his assault on LAUSD. That is the surest sign Hertzberg is on the right track.

Today’s Daily News offers other interesting insights into this important Mayoral runoff. Get educated; read the entire Daily News story here. Some excerpts:

Polls reflect the impact of those actions and have the mayor -- unbeaten in six citywide elections -- locked in a virtual dead heat with Villaraigosa, who is generally seen as the front-runner in the primary, and Hertzberg, who has overcome low name recognition to get to the top rung of candidates.

"We like our position," Hertzberg campaign manager John Shallman said. "We have been gaining momentum and the mayor has been slipping. Once you start dropping, it is hard to come back."

The mayor's strategists express similar confidence, counting in great part on union support to mount a strong get-out-the-vote effort on election day.

"We know where our votes are and we know how to get them," said Hahn campaign consultant Kam Kuwata. "Los Angeles is a large, diverse city and you have to campaign in all parts of it to succeed."

Hahn also has the biggest campaign war chest and the most amount of money being spent on his behalf from independent expenditure committees.

How that plays out Tuesday is being closely watched for keys to where the diverse Los Angeles electorate is heading.

. . .

[According to Political consultant Tom Sullivan] the demographics of the city have changed since Bradley's election -- with no one able to predict how different voting blocks will turn out.

"You have a large Latino vote, but it isn't just concentrated on the Eastside anymore," Sullivan said. "There is a large Latino population in the San Fernando Valley and Harbor areas, but they are much more independent voters and the black vote is not as influential as it once was."

Get out and vote this Tuesday!

A Request for Blogging Advice

Link



At the suggestion of some kind readers I have begun thinking about switching The Hedgehog Blog to another service, which would allow me to do more with this blog.

My problem is, I am still pretty new to the world of blogging and, although I like computers, I do not know much about such arcane stuff as HTML. (Lest I be seen as too self-effacing, I am the proud author of everything that shows in my sidebar, so I have learned a lot. The only exception is my customized comment feature, which is called Metempsychosis Comments Hack 1.03 and was written by Ebenezer Orthodoxy.)

One reader said (flattering me): "You are a serious enough blogger I would suggest you consider looking to a hosted service with your own web page and using either Word Press or Movable Type."

Another blogger wrote:

We use Movable Type 3.14. I do like it better than Blogger, but it has its quirks. For example, there isn't a spell check feature and you have to type the HTML into the text as you type (in blogger you could toggle between HTML and normal page with HTML imbedded).

If I were you, I'd just buy the typepad service for ~$6/mo. We bought the full service because [a family member] has a server and he was willing to host the blog. If you have access to a sever (or want to pay to have it hosted), and you don't mind paying hundreds for a pro to design the templates, then go with the 3.14. But, if you want to use standard template - go with Typepad. Also, you might want to check out WordPress (http://wordpress.org/). I don't know much about that format, but our web designer uses it.

I do have access to a server and so maybe Typepad 3.14 makes sense. But what's this about "paying hundreds for a pro to design the templates?" Do I care about designing my own template?

And what does anyone know about WordPress?

Comments and suggestions are welcome, nay, solicited!

Thanks.

The Battle of Big Ideas

Link
Mark Steyn's writing is so routinely on-target and so superbly crafted that it's hard to pick which excerpts to share. His latest is in The Spectator, entitled "The Right Side of History." The subtitle: Mark Steyn admits that he’s been wrong about a lot in the past three years — but not about the big things. Here's a taste:

Islamism, with its plans to destroy America, take back Europe, colonise Australia and set you up with 72 virgins, may be bonkers but it’s a big idea. And you can’t beat it with a small, shrivelled idea like another decade or three of Mubarak or Assad or some such. The Bush administration decided that the only big idea they had to sell was liberty. The Europeans and the Europhile US media mostly scoffed. They’d been here before. Back in the Cold War, the Americans were able to use the phrase ‘the free world’ without irony; the French, Germans and even the British never were. This time round, the media assured us that what Iraqis wanted was not freedom but ‘security’. They didn’t all go as far as Rod Liddle, pining for the smack of firm Saddamite government, but they subscribed to the same general thesis: freedom is some airy-fairy illusion; in Saddam’s day, the streets were safe and there was no crime, apart from the ones he was committing. All wrong, as wrong as the ‘brutal Afghan winter’ and all the other media fictions. On 30 January, Bush’s big idea squared off against the head-hackers’ big idea — you vote, you die — and we know which one the Iraqi people chose, and which the rest of the region, to one degree or another, is following.

You simply must read the whole thing.

A Report from The Mexican Border

Link
Here's a piece by Senator Kyl of Arizona about his recent visit to the border with Mexico. The need for action is clear and immediate. I continue to support the Bush plan or something like it as the quickest, most effective way to get a handle on who is coming into the USA from Mexico.

More on this later. I have to conduct a seminar this morning,

A Fine Interview with President Bush

Link
President Bush sat down with the New York Post editorial board yesterday. Their report of the interview is here. The whole thing is a good read, but my favorite excerpt is this set of comments about Bush's clear demand that Syria get completely out of Lebanon:

He stressed that time has run out for Syria to play its old game of haggling over which troops will get pulled out or how far they will go.

"When the United States says something, it must mean it. That's what I meant when I said, 'Remove all your troops,' not remove 94 percent of them," the president said.

"Totally out of Lebanon — and that's very important for [Syrian] President Assad to hear. And it's more than just troops. I keep emphasizing this, but it's important for the world to understand that a Lebanon that is able to express itself freely at the ballot box needs to have no Syrian secret service."

How refreshing. Can you imagine John Kerry or Al Gore or Bill Clinton saying such things at all, let alone with the same level of credibility?

The L.A. Times Fouls Up Again

Link

Hugh Hewitt, The Blogfather

Hugh Hewitt is pushing a very important story on his blog about an L.A. Times "front page paean to Kim Jong Il, 'North Korea, Without the Rancor.'" Most of my readers also read Hugh, but if you haven't yet, read his posts on this and act on them. He's exposing an outrageously silly approach to a deadly totalitarian regime.

UPDATE: Power Line reports that Barbara Demick, the Times article's author, has offered an explanation for her piece. Looks like she is suggesting that it was really satire. I guess that's possible, but . . . .

Another Voice

Link
Irshad Manji is a Canadian Muslim woman with something to say. It also appears that other Muslims are starting to listen.

It's A Confusing Time To Be An America-Hater

Link


Boris Johnson, a Member of Parliament and Editor of The Spectator, writes in London's Daily Telegraph:

But in so far as the Americosceptics think the Syrian army has been good for Lebanon, they seem to be at odds not only with the Lebanese people, but also with most of Arab opinion. The Syrians have been intermittently brutal in their occupation; they have taken Lebanese water; they have kidnapped and detained without trial. It is time that Bashar Assad removed all 14,000 of them, and so say 77 per cent of the Arab world, according to Al-Jazeera, and newspapers from Jordan to Kuwait to Egypt.

The protests in Lebanon have hugely increased the likelihood of that withdrawal and, if Jumblatt is right, those protests have been sparked by democracy in Iraq. We may be on the verge of a process as wonderful as he thinks; and we should not allow any anti-Americanism, any hatred of Bush, any doubts about the war, to tempt us to hope otherwise.

The whole piece is quite interesting.

Palestinian Press Glorifies A Mass Murderer

Link

The Scene In Tel Aviv Last Friday

In their piece in the March 2 edition of the Jerusalem Post, Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook review the case of young Abdullah Badran, who murdered four people and wounded fifty in Friday night's terror attack on a beachfront Tel Aviv night club. The editorial is titled, "Saboteur or Shahid?" Viewing the link requires registration and is worth the 2-3 minutes required to do that. An excerpt:

While the foreign media accept at face value the PA's official condemnation of Friday's suicide bombing, the [Palestinian Authority-controlled media are glorifying the bomber as a shahid (martyr who died for Allah) – the highest level of human achievement for a Muslim. By granting shahid status to the murderer, the PA media are portraying bombing as a positive religious act.

Within this context the official condemnations need to be understood not as deploring the act, but its consequences – damaging the Palestinian cause.

Sunday's front-page coverage of the story in the official PA daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadeeda features a giant color photo of the terrorist at the top of the page, with the caption: "The executor of the Tel Aviv operation, the shahid Abdullah Badran." Another photograph shows his mother holding a picture of her son, and is captioned: "The mother of the Shahid."

The daily newspaper Al-Ayyam refers to "the family of the Shahid."

Al-Quds refers to "the family of the shahid Abdullah," and to the arrest of "the shahid's two brothers" and to a "mourning tent in memory of the shahid."

Ah, yes, Islam: A religion of peace.

(Thanks to reader and frequent contributor Ralph Kostant for alerting me to this piece. Itamar Marcus is founder and director, and Barbara Crook is associate director and North American representative, of Palestinian Media Watch.)

Judicial Confirmations And The Nuclear Option: A Little History from A Hugh Hewitt Show Caller

Link
My friend and former law partner Ralph Kostant called the Hugh Hewitt show today and shares his follow-up e-mail to Hugh regarding his call:

As I mentioned in my call in to your show this afternoon, the perfect precedent for solving the present impasse in the Senate is the example of Speaker of the House Thomas “Czar” Reed (R-Maine), who in 1890 defeated the obstructionism of the Democratic minority in the House of Representatives, who employed a long-standing House procedural rule known as the “Silent Quorum” or “Disappearing Quorum”. In 1890, the Republicans had a slim 168-160 majority, and a quorum in the House was 165 members. Under the rule, any member could stop proceedings by simply calling for a roll call to see if there was a quorum of members. If a member did not respond when his name was called, he was then counted as absent, even if he was visibly sitting in the House chamber. In this way, the Democrats could stop any Republican bill.

The issues on which Speaker Reed chose to go to battle were the seating of four Republican African-American Congressmen elected from Southern Districts and the passage of legislation to fight the poll tax that Southern Democrats used to defeat African-American sufferage. He shrewdly calculated that if he chose to count present but silent members of the House on these issues, he would be backed both by his Republican majority (which on any other issues might have been reluctant to change the House quorum rules) and by the law, if it came to a court challenge. On January 29, 1890, when a vote on those bills was called, the Democrats predictably called for a quorum roll call, and remained silent when their names were called. Only 163 members responded yea. Speaker Reed then directed the Clerk of the House to “record [as present] the names of the following members who are present but refusing to vote.”

Pandemonium broke loose on the floor. Memorable quotes from Democratic Congressmen included gems such as “I deny your right, Mr. Speaker, to count me as present,” to which Reed responded, “The Chair is making a statement of fact that the gentleman is present. Does he deny it?”

The brouhaha continued for five days as the Democrats tried every procedural tactic available to defeat the change of the rules. Every sort of abuse and profanity was directed at the Speaker. Speaker Tweed and the Republicans held their ground and put an end to the silent quorum, allowing the progressive Republican legislative agenda to move forward.

For a full account of this epic parliamentary battle, I recommend the chapter “The End of the Dream,” in Barbara Tuchman’s wonderful work, THE PROUD TOWER—A Portrait of the World Before the War 1890-1914 (Macmillan 1966).

All it will take is Republican backbone.

Ralph B. Kostant

In a separate e-mail, Ralph offers more:

Here are some other memorable barbs from Speaker Thomas Reed, as recorded by Barbara Tuchman:

In response to a Congressman, Representative Springer of Illinois, who had declared in a floor debate that he would rather be right than President. Reed interjected, “The gentleman need not be disturbed; he will never be either.”

When a member, known for his ill-digested opinions and halting manner, began to speak with the words, “I was thinking, Mr. Speaker, I was thinking …,” Reed expressed the hope that “no one will interrupt the gentleman’s commendable innovation.”

Of two other inarticulate Congressmen, he observed, “They never opened their mouths without subtracting from the sum of human knowledge.”

We need to get Ralph blogging.

Remembering Dan Rather

Link

Hurricane Dan in Action

The Media Research Center has compiled a list of Dan Rather quotes that will leave you shaking your head in amazement. Like Deacon at Power Line, I had avoided watching or listening to Rather for years, so I was a little surprised at how bad things had gotten. So long, Dan, we won't miss you.

The Times They Are A-Changin'

Link

A protester flashes a victory sign Monday in Beirut
to celebrate of the fall of Lebanon's pro-Syria government.

At least they sure seem to be changin' in the Middle East. There's more on the web about Lebanon than anyone can hope to read in a day, but you'll find a good summary and more photos like the one above here.

If You're Under 18 in The USA, There Is Nothing You Can Do That Will Get You the Death Penalty

Blogfather Hugh Hewitt has a stinging and brief summary of the Supreme Court's death penalty decision today.

I have always been just slightly ambivalent about the death penalty (the Judeo-Christian kind of ambivalence that keeps an eye on the principle of mercy), but a flat-out prohibition like the one the Court adopted today seems beyond the pale.

The Immigration Debate Rolls On: The Vietnamese-American Community's View

Link


All right, this debate is starting to get really interesting. It rages on at Polipundit as well. Why do I love the blogosphere? Because it makes good information available that we simply would not find anywhere else. I know that's nothing new to most readers here, but the repeated and unexpected examples of that phenomenon are always surprising and remarkable. That has been true of all the comments below.

Here's the latest one I've seen. Tim Binh of Vietnamese for Fair Immigration
comments to my initial post below on this subject. The comments on my second post below are equally interesting and insightful.

Tim gives us a lot of information. Did you know, for example, that granting citizenship to the American-born children of illegals is a matter of executive order, not Consitutional law? I have not researched that point; can anyone verify or rebut it?

Read this. If you're like me, you'll learn a lot. And-- Tim offers a plan. A real plan, not just "enforce the law and throw out all the illegals." Now, you may disagree with his proposal, but it's a real one and deserves consideration.

This is the kind of debate that needs to happen in Congress. But before it gets there the public needs to have the debate and understand the issues. You will never see this going on in the pages of the L.A. Times or the Washington Post, because they are not equipped to host it. That's one reason why the blogosphere is such a blessing to our public forum.

Here's Tim's comment. Please comment yourselves:

Our organization represents 1 million Vietnamese immigrants. Tamar Jacoby conviently skirts around the biggest problem with President Bush's immigration plan. It is racist.

Under Bush's plan, about 30 million illegal aliens and their dependents would receive green cards after six years. 85% of them will be Hispanic. The percentage of legal/legalized immigrants from one country, Mexico, would rise from the current 30% to over 60%. While waiting for their green cards, adjusted illegal aliens and their dependents would be able to access US public benefits. Any children they have would be granted US citizenship.

On the other hand, only a few hundred Vietnamese would benefit from the Bush plan. Plus, it would indirectly increase the waiting time for Vietnamese extended family immigrants from the current 12 years to over 20 years. While these legal Vietnamese immigrants waited for a green card, they would not have access to US public benefits, nor would any children they have be granted US citizenship.

Yet somehow Bush thinks letting illegal aliens wait 6 years inside the US for a green card while at the same time making legal immigrants wait 20 years outside the US for a green card, is sending illegal aliens "to the back of the line".

President Bush also use the bogus claim that illegal aliens should be allowed to stay, because "their children are US citizens. Neither the Constitution nor Congress has granted them citizenship. Presidents since 1924, when the first US numerical quotas on immigration also created illegal aliens, have by executive decision decided to grant US citizenship to the US born children of illegal aliens. This executive decision could be easily overturned by Congress. This was already done by Presidents Carter and Reagan who decided to NOT grant US citizenship to children of legal Vietnamese immigrants born in US financed refugee camps.

President Bush says Mexicans just want to feed their families. Yet, the average Mexican income is 5 times the average Vietnamese income. Vietnamese want to feed their families also. Family values don't stop at the Rio Grande, and they also most certainly do not stop at the Pacific Coastline. But apparently President Bush thinks they do, that only Mexicans have family values.

This is a very racist and unjust attitude. The non-racist and just thing to do would be to first give the tools to employers to verify who is here legally. Then announce that over a five year period, the government will begin enforcing the CURRENT law against hiring illegal aliens, by industry. Start with the construction industry, then hotels, restaurants, janitorial, landscaping, meat packing, and finally agriculture. Since they will have the tools available, employers will no longer have the excuse they didn't know their workers are illegal. Of course, this means that President Bush will have to fund 2000 instead of 210 Border Patrol agents, and not tie their hands with ridiculous regulations.

At the same time, reduce the waiting time for legal family immigrants to less than five years. Most of these legal immigrants would be willing to perform the "jobs Americans won't do" which illegal aliens are now performing.

To provide another incentive for Mexican illegal aliens to return to Mexico, the US should provide matching funds to Mexico for education, law enforcement, and infrastructure development, so they can have "a better life" in Mexico.

This non-racist, fair plan would reward immigrants that obey the law, rather than those that break it. Businesses would have the labor they claim they need. Everyone would be happy, except for racist ethnic groups like the National Council of LaRaza that want more members.

For more info on this and to see that Americans were willing to deport Vietnamese illegal aliens at least, go to www.fairimmigration.com.

Tim Binh
Vietnamese for Fair Immigration

I agree with commenter Gringo Salado, who notes below that playing the race card seems excessive here. Nevertheless, the information is interesting. What do you think?