Law & Government

Imagine, for a moment, that you are a young man in your 20s, trying to make your way in the world. You are married and have a young daughter, just old enough to start to talk. You live in a run-down neighborhood, long passed-over by any economic advances. What schools you had access to barely taught anyone much. The few jobs you can reach have fierce competition, even though the pay is low. You worry about your health, but even more about that of your wife and child. Finding food is a constant concern. Although you are still healthy now, and you are willing and able to be a hard worker, there is simply nobody hiring people in your area. Not to mention the gunfights that erupt between gangs or drug dealers. Oh, and did I mention that your wife is 4 months pregnant?

Your top priority is to do your best to keep your family safe. You're afraid that your whole family will starve, or be killed by an errant bullet. You've tried for a long time -- it seems like forever -- to do everything you can think of, with no success. Finally, you decide that the only way you can have the hope for a better life is to move somewhere where the economy is better, and the drug dealers are fewer.

But moving hundreds or thousands of miles away is no easy task when you have no money to move. Somehow, with some luck, ingenuity, and tenacity, you have finally managed to find a way. You have no job offer in your new town, but conditions are so bleak at home that you just can't risk staying there. So the three of you move 1500 miles away.

You arrive with no money, no apartment, and don't know anybody. But you're a hard worker, and have talked yourself into a job. It pays what passes for minimum wage in your new home, but it's a fortune compared to what you made before. It's backbreaking work, and you work long hours. But soon you can afford a cramped apartment, and keep your refrigerator stocked with food. What a luxury!

Pretty soon your new baby son is born. You can afford to feed him, your daughter, your wife, and yourself, every day. When you're really lucky, you even have some money left over to send to your brother back home, who is still struggling to make ends meet there. You seem to have climbed the first rung on the American Dream ladder.

Years pass. Your old home becomes a memory; your daily life revolves around new struggles now. Your oldest child is in school, your wife finds part-time work sometimes too, cleaning houses for rich people. You've been laid off several times, your income isn't guaranteed, and the others in your new home don't take kindly to strangers -- and they still think you're one. But it's better than flying bullets and never knowing where your next meal will come from.

Then one day, while you are at work, federal agents show up. You are arrested and taken to jail. Agents show up at home, too, arresting your wife. It turns out that they realized you entered the country illegally from Ecuador those years ago. Meanwhile, your wife wonders what will happen to your son that was playing in a neighbor's yard while she was arrested, or to your daugther that was at school.

After months in jail, with little contact with each other, and poor medical care, the government decides to deport you to Mexico. Why Mexico? Well, it's cheaper, and there's no documentation showing where you came from. Apparently you "look" Mexican, and they don't believe your story.

After months in jail with no income, you are once again bankrupt. A government bus takes you to Mexico and drops you down someplace there, with your wife and your oldest child. Your younger child was born in the United States, and so is an American citizen and can't be deported. But the government isn't going to give him a free ride on a prison bus (and Mexico wouldn't take him anyway, since everyone knows he's American). You have no idea where he is. You have no idea how you're going to find food in Mexico, no idea how to find your son, no idea where to find refuge from the ever more prevalent drug dealers. Meanwhile, the Americans think you're scum because you wanted to protect your family, and it's going to be much more difficult to get back in to try to reunite your family.

This story is based on true events.

It's truly easy to demonize illegal immigrants, isn't it? Easy to round them up by the thousands, easy to build a bigger fence, easy to lock them away.

Sometimes it seems like this nation built on freedom, supposedly on Christian values, has lost sight of compassion for the lowly. In this country, we would throw in jail parents that didn't do everything humanly possible to find food for their children. We also throw in jail parents that grew up in other countries that are just doing the same.

How sad that we have people going on TV, suggesting we round up millions of Americans that happened to come here illegally, breaking up millions of families, creating an immense foster child problem, a human tragedy on a mass scale. How incredible that some of these people on TV wear the title "senator" or "candidate for president". How stupid do they think we are, suggesting that a poor South American family would somehow be able to navigate the arcane American immigration system and wait the 15 years to get here legally, if they manage to come up with all the necessary money somehow?

Politicians have been pushing our buttons for too long. We aren't a nation of selfish hoarders; we came together through tough times, survived the Depression, put in place the Berlin Airlift that saved countless lives in West Berlin. But the thought of someone with darkish skin coming to this country and building highways is enough to send some people looking for a rifle.

I hope that we will someday do better.

I've been thinking about this for awhile, so time to put down some thoughts.

First, what is socialized medicine? If we listen to the politicians that label health care as "socialized", it seems to be "anything that is paid for by taxes and delivered free or cheaply to citizens." Putting aside the question of whether that meets the academic definition of socialism for the moment, let's look at things in the United States that are already socialized:

• K-12 education
• Police
• Fire fighters
• Public Libraries
• Roads
• Airports and air traffic control
• Military defense and offense

That's right. We trust the government with our children all day long for 13 years. For free!

Yet this is a country in which hospitals dump the homeless in the gutter for being unable to pay their bills. Even insured Americans find claims turned down for arbitrary reasons. People are afraid to change jobs for fear of losing health insurance.

Why is it bad to have the government pay for health care?

Here in the United States, our health care system is far from best in the world. It's not even top 10. Or 20. Our system encourages minimizing health care, and doesn't encourage preventative care.

I'd suggest that, in a democracy, it's best to have the government pay for health care. That's because, in a democracy, we are in control of the bureaucrats. If we wish to exercise common sense and pound into their heads that paying for preventative care makes good long-term sense, then we can do so at the ballot box.

So why the scare tactics about government being involved in health care?

Perhaps our real problem is that we have let government get out of our control? Perhaps we are too frightened of change to vote. Perhaps we've given up on a responsive government. Perhaps we think that the insurance companies and drug companies will never let us have a good health care system.

Yes, the lobbyists have a lot of power. But we have the power to remove it, and it's high time we used it.

The audacity of Obama to have hope. To say that we can do better. When Hillary Clinton falls in line with the Republicans and accuses him of having "false hope", effectively saying that we can't do any better, then is she -- or any Republicans -- really a candidate of change? I think that all these accusations from conservatives and Hillary that Obama has "false hope" has finally convinced me that he's the one to vote for. If everyone else claims that his ideas are too good, that his dreams too big, then I like him.

Oh, and you could substitute "college education" for "socialized medicine" everywhere in this article and get equally valid arguments.

The Democrats ran in 2008 on the platform of ending the Iraq war, and won largely on that platform. Now they are failing to deliver upon it.

It is true that they have a thin majority in the Senate and a not much wider one in the House. It is also true that it takes 60 votes to pass legislation in the Senate, which they don't have.

But here's the thing. It takes 60 votes to pass legislation. That means that they can easily defeat any massive Republican war spending bill.

I think they are worried about the Republicans painting them as being against the troops. So what? If the Republicans vote against a Democratic funding bill that provides adequate funds for an orderly withdrawal, aren't they doing the same? "No" votes on both are votes to prevent the funding from passing.

They easily have the votes to defeat massive Republican spending bills. So why not advance a spending bill like they campaigned for, and watch all the Republicans vote against it? If no funding at all passes, they achieve their objective, just not as cleanly, and the Republicans would be the ones voting against funding. Make the Republicans take some heat for a change, and give them no choice but to compromise.

An interesting article on Time today: Failing Our Geniuses about how the most talented students are being sidelined by current education policy. Some choice bits:

Since well before the Bush Administration began using the impossibly sunny term "no child left behind," those who write education policy in the U.S. have worried most about kids at the bottom, stragglers of impoverished means or IQs. But surprisingly, gifted students drop out at the same rates as nongifted kids--about 5% of both populations leave school early. Later in life, according to the scholarly Handbook of Gifted Education, up to one-fifth of dropouts test in the gifted range.

It can't make sense to spend 10 times as much to try to bring low-achieving students to mere proficiency as we do to nurture those with the greatest potential.

We take for granted that those with IQs at least three standard deviations below the mean (those who score 55 or lower on IQ tests) require "special" education. But students with IQs that are at least three standard deviations above the mean (145 or higher) often have just as much trouble interacting with average kids and learning at an average pace. Shouldn't we do something special for them as well?

In a no-child-left-behind conception of public education, lifting everyone up to a minimum level is more important than allowing students to excel to their limit. It has become more important for schools to identify deficiencies than to cultivate gifts. Odd though it seems for a law written and enacted during a Republican Administration, the social impulse behind No Child Left Behind is radically egalitarian. It has forced schools to deeply subsidize the education of the least gifted, and gifted programs have suffered. The year after the President signed the law in 2002, Illinois cut $16 million from gifted education; Michigan cut funding from $5 million to $500,000. Federal spending declined from $11.3 million in 2002 to $7.6 million this year.

I was surprised by the reactions to my story Saturday on Israel and Lebanon. Several pro-Israel posters are apparently in complete denial about what the Israeli military forces are doing.

Today, the American network ABC reported that Israel had bombed a Kleenex manufacturer, numerous farms, and all the major roads out of Lebanon. And they showed pictures of all of these during their evening newscast.

I find it highly unlikely that ABC is making this up.

One person asked, essentially, "do you really think a democracy could do this?" Yes. It's happened many times before. The United States and Britain did this sort of thing when they destroyed tens of thousands of homes and killed over 25,000 people, most of them civilians, in the bombing of Dresden. The United States also was responsible for the nuclear bombs dropped over japan, killing 140,000 people instantly and countless more due to the effects of the atomic weapon.

Being a democracy is no guarantee against extremism. Some Israel supporters need to take a hard look at what their military is doing.

As I explained, none of this is to defend the attacks against Israel, which of course are also terrible.

But I think Israel's strategy is going to wind up costing them -- they are creating huge numbers of angry Lebanese, that perhaps didn't have the motivation to attack Israel before, but now do. (Of course, the same error could be attributed to their enemy)

And both sides are catching innocent civilians more than military targets.

It's very sad.

You know, I'm sick and tired of this whole "you wronged us, therefore you will pay" attitude that there seems to be in international politics today. Both sides of the whole terrorism thing seem to have that attitude.

But the latest sanity-defying news is that Israel is bombing wheat silos, food stores, and lines of civilians trying to escape Lebanon. Huh? What is the strategic value in having starving civilians in Lebanon? To me, it seems like a recipe to make things worse for Israel. You kill people's family in Lebanon, and you create large numbers of very mad family members that now have a reason to plan terrorist attacks on Israel.

It defies sense.

Why don't people try to value human life for once, everywhere?

So remember Jerry Taylor, the man from Tuttle, OK that threatened to call the FBI on a Linux vendor because an unrelated hosting company had misconfigured Apache?

Well, this story is just getting funnier and funnier.

First off is this story from the Tuttle Times. It basically repeats Taylor's view that the CentOS people were expected to help him with his problem, and that he was somehow entitled to their help. But there are some funny tidbits in the story:

"Phone calls from across the country started coming in to the newspaper and city offices, and e-mails from Switzerland, Australia, Wales and England were received. Many of the web sites discussing the exchange are in foreign languages." I hate to break it to you, but Australia, Wales, and England all speak English.

(Ok, so they did switch from talking about email to web, but it still sounds funny.)

"In their search to find out more, web surfers discovered that the Tuttle Times online forums were hacked, and theorized that it was in retribution for the e-mails. Those forums, however, were corrupted several months ago, and the newspaper’s now former web hosts did not repair it after numerous requests. New forums should be available at the Times site in the coming weeks." I'm so glad to know that your forums were merely corrupted for months and not hacked. Sounds like the IT problems in this town extend well past the city building.

Taylor said: "[CentOS is] a free operating system that this guy gives away, which tells you how much time he’s got on his hands." Grumble.

Quoting Tuttle Mayor Paxton (trying to say what was more important than this): "We have issues with sewer. People here want better park facilities. They want a library." I think this has just validated every stereotype people have about Oklahoma.

Tuttle is more than 7 times larger than my hometown in Kansas, and yet my hometown has had a library for years.

Jerry Taylor also reported having 500 e-mails and numerous phone messages when he arrived to work Monday.

There's a new blurb on the Wikipedia page about Tuttle about all this. And in their talk page about the now-deleted article on Jerry Taylor, one person wrote: "Mr. Taylor's actions have coined a new term of art "Tuttled", in reference to the invocation of criminal consequences by one who is ignorant of the true situation. Since this is now a part of the English vernacular the story behind the term should be explained to give it an historical context. It is no longer about the action of a single person and an attempt to publicly vilify him, it is about a world-wide common experience of dealing with a Kafka-esque minor government official who, through ignorance, creates problems far beyond their normal sphere of influence. The page should be returned to the public."

The Register has two new stories about it. The first reports that Taylor has been interviewed by all sorts of media and says that he did the right thing. The second, Linux conquered, Tuttle man takes on London is a story about the grandson of the namesake of Tuttle, OK -- who happens to be the current US ambassador to the UK. This person is refusing to pay the regular London car fees. The mayor of London said: "It would actually be quite nice if the American ambassador in Britain could pay the charge like everybody else and not skive out of it like some chiseling little crook."

And finally, there's some incredibly funny photoshop work on this one over at fark.com (you have to scroll down a ways). Also, this comment:

"A small-town American politician wants a British newspaper to turn off the Internet.

Say that to yourself a few times. Please."

I got an e-mail yesterday evening with a link to this article at the Atlantic Monthly: If America Left Iraq: The Case for Cutting and Running by Nir Rosen.

This article does a good job of explaining what just about everybody else has failed to do: why leaving Iraq now actually does more towards building a stable, free, and peaceful Iraq than keeping our military there does. (And does less to embolden terrorists.)

So am I the only one that thinks that our (American) energy policy is absolutely, completely insane?

We all know we have some problems:

• Environmental damange and global warming


• Rising oil costs and dwindling oil supply


• Dependence on foreign energy sources

So, what did our great stewards of democracy in Washington decide to do?

Well, first they approved massive subsidies for oil companies. Next, they decided to spend money researching underwater oil drilling. They put all their effort into getting a little bit of oil out of Alaska. And they sign some sort of treaty that really commits nobody to anything with India, China, Australia, and some other people.

So, I want to go up there and ask them:

You are doing all of this WHY???

The world is going to be moving away from oil, and the sooner we join it, the better.

Otherwise, instead of depending on Saudi oil, we will depend on Japanese hybrids and Chinese solar panels, because nobody here cared to spend money to research non-oil products.

Terah found a great item: a disappearing civil liberties mug. As the mug warms up, the text of the Bill of Rights gradually fades, except that of the 2nd amendment.