Disagreeing With Dennis

I like Dennis Prager. He has a radio talk show out of LA that I am fortunate enough to hear in San Diego. He is calm, rational, a passionate conservative, endorses my favorite cigar shop but unfortunately this time, is wrong. To what am I referring? In this morning's San Diego Tribune Mr. Prager has an editorial piece titled "To GOP disaffected: Stay angry, but vote 'smart' and Republican anyway". Now I do not disagree with everything he says, but Mr. Prager creates a false dicotomy in his article by presuming that the only alternative to voting Republican is to vote Democrat. For smaller-government folks like me there are alternatives such as the Libertarian Party, for more socially conservative (yes, believe it or not there are those more conservative than the Republicans), there is the Constitution Party, and even for those who are really contemporary liberal in California I suggest you look at the Peace and Freedom Party or at a national level the Green Party. Now where I agree with Mr. Prager is that disaffected Republicans shouldn't vote Democrat. That would send the WRONG message to the National Republican politicos as well as making Democrats think that people actually support their ideas. Those of us whole fall under the Goldwater/Reagan brand of Republicanism don't and it would be wrong for us to vote Democrat simply to spank those Repulbican politicians in DC. If you are for smaller government, help the Libertarians. If you really are more theocratic, seriously consider parties such as the Constitution Party. As Ryan Sager points out in his excellent book The Elephant in the Room, both branches of the old "fusionism" have been abandoned by the current cabal of "big government conservatives" currently occupying the halls of power. Now granted, if enough of us did switch to third parties this election cycle Democrats would be the ultimate winners, but there HAS to be some way to tell the ruling Republicans that enough is enough and that WE WANT OUR PARTY BACK!

Does He Expect Us To Believe This?

I fear that Christianity has become infected by the liberal virus. What do I mean? Well, it is well known that the liberal elite consider evangelicals to be stupid, weak willed, and easily led. It appears that this same feeling is now among the evangelical elite. Consider the recent shenanigans of evangelist and former president of the NAE (National Association of Evangelicals) Ted Haggard. Now let's face it, people in places of power are mighty tempting targets for their opponents so it is not beyond the pale of belief that someone was "gunning" for him and started spreading stories about his hidden trysts with a gay prostitute. But, if they were not true, simple denial and demand for evidence should suffice. However, me thinks that "Rev" Haggard protests too much in his attempt to follow former President Clinton's "I smoked but didn't inhale" defense. I mean, really, does Ted Haggard actually think that the people who follow his ministry and the the people he associated with as head of the NAE believe that he:

Bought meth because he was curious about it, then threw it away.

Went to visit a male prostitute for a massage and didn't engage in sex.

Of course, what is as embarassing is how the politicos are playing it, chalking it up to some conspiracy because it is close to election time and using it to hurt either (1) the gay-related initiative in Colorado, (2) Rebpulicans in general (they don't need help in doing that, thanks Mr. Foley), and (3) George Bush himself since he calls himself evangelical.

Is this the best we conservatives can do (please note I call my self conservative, NOT Republican as I no longer believe they two are close enough to be properly interchangeable)? Are we really so stupid to believe Haggard's story AND the Republican response? I pray we aren't.

In Case There Was Any Doubt

Well, I just took the famous "World's Smallest Political Quiz" and like everything else in my life I fall on a boundary, but it was not unexpected:

ACCORDING TO YOUR ANSWERS,

You fall exactly on the border of two political philosophies...

CONSERVATIVE

LIBERTARIAN

CONSERVATIVES tend to favor economic freedom, but frequently
support laws to restrict personal behavior that violates "traditional
values." They oppose excessive government control of business,
while endorsing government action to defend morality and the
traditional family structure. Conservatives usually support a strong
military, oppose bureaucracy and high taxes, favor a free-market
economy, and endorse strong law enforcement.

LIBERTARIANS support maximum liberty in both personal
and economic matters. They advocate a much smaller government;
one that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion
and violence. Libertarians tend to embrace individual
responsibility, oppose government bureaucracy and taxes,
promote private charity, tolerate diverse lifestyles, support the
free market, and defend civil liberties.

So now it's official... I'm Superman.

Your results:
You are Superman

Superman 85% Green Lantern 75% Spider-Man 75% Iron Man 70% The Flash 60% Supergirl 57% Robin 54% Batman 50% Wonder Woman 47% Hulk 45% Catwoman 40%

You are mild-mannered, good, strong and you love to help others.

Click here to take the Superhero Personality Quiz

To Whom Much Is Given...

I'm a very upset conservative Republican. So much so that I am casting aside what little protection they provide against the wacko Democrats and am really hoping they get walloped this election cycle. This batch, is a word, sucks. Why do they suck? Simply because they violate something I was taught as a child by very conservative, commonsense oriented parents, that you should live your life according to the very Biblical principle of "To whoever much is given, of him will much be required" (Luke 12:48). Growing up, this principle was also a very Republican principle. In 1994 the Republicans gained control of Congress. This should have brought in a golden age of Republican principles of care, rational compassion, and liberty. But we find out that Washington is stronger than principles. Witness the fact that Republicans fell prey to the same problem that overtook what was once a principled Democrat party, they moved from a party of ideas and principles to a party concerned only with keeping power. SHAME! And no, this isn't just about Foley, but Foley is a symptom of the greater disease. Delay, Abramson, Cunningham, etc. have all showed that there is a cancer in the GOP that needs to be excised. And don't you dare give me the "Well, the Democrats are just as bad if not worse" excuse, that doesn't cut it... my ethics is neither relative nor situational, and why should I have to settle for the lesser of two evils? So, here's to the necessary surgery that hopefully will bring back some discipline and principles, here's to losing!

Washingon and Cajones

I watched the first part of ABC's rather good The Path to 9/11 last night. Unfortunately I have to wait until Saturday to see part two since our local ABC affiliate is showing Charger's football tonight (go figure, I watch a television show for the first time in months and they make me wait almost a week to see the conclusion). A very powerful part of the film, even though it was cut from the original version, was when the United States botched the opportunity to actually get Bin Laden. Due to a lack of testicular fortitude our national security "leaders" refused to give the go-ahead to our people in the field who along with several members of the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance had Osama in their sights. Ahmed Massoud, the later assassinated leader of the Northern Alliance is given the line "Are there any men left in Washington, or are they all cowards?" I have been asking myself this question over the last couple of years. Time and time again those in Washington, and particularly those in my own party of choice (Republican, just in case you haven't figured it out by now), have demonstrated a depressing lack of will or even desire to lead. What matters now is re-election and politicians on both sides of the isle have sold their souls to get get the power that comes with it, but they no longer want the responsiblity that comes with it. Within the Republican party one need simply look at the following statements to see the shift in thinking:

"Government isn't the solution, government is the problem" - Ronald Reagan

"Too often, my party has confused the need for limited government with a disdain for government itself" - George W. Bush.

Government, geeze, I find it had to even use that word because it implies some type of governing which means to exercise authority (which has been abdicated to polls and greed for power) or to exercise control (and as we have seen those in both parties exercise about as much control as drunken sailors on payday), has lost it's backbone. I have come to believe, as does Pat Buchanan, that "... Congress is an institutional coward", they allow the courts and the administration deal with the hot issues that they should deal with all for the sake of enough popularity to get re-elected.

Sadly Mr. Massoud, the answer to your question is "No".

A Lover's Squabble

It's so sad, two institutions that have been "in bed" for oh so many years having a lover's tiff. Who are they? Why, it's the Democrat Party and ABC news. For those of you who didn't know, ABC is set to air a miniseries about the "road to 9/11". While the mainstream democrats who have seen the preview have little bad to say about it, Bill Clinton and his gang are all upset with the focus being on them, which is a natural consequence of having been the governing group in the time leading up to 9/11 (for those of you who have problems with math, GW had been in office less than eight months). ABC has said that it is not a factual documentary but "a dramatization drawn from the official 9/11 commission report, personal interviews and other materials." Given this, Democrat leader Harry Reid said it was "a work of fiction" (duh... ABC publically admits it is not a documentary) and adds his voice to the Clinton chorus demanding that ABC pull the movie.

It's sad to see a lovers' quarrel. It's even more sad to see how Clinton and company think the world still revolves around them.

I'm Back!

Okay, enough time sitting on the sidelines and watching the parade. It's time to stick the foot out and trip someone. Seriously, it is amazing how a great vacation can clear up your head. Pookie and I spent two weeks in France (yes, that place, home of the "Great Satan", a place that I love). We spent time in Figeac, Albi, Carcassonne, Bordeaux, Mont St. Michel, Rouen and Paris. As much as I love the United States (and trust me, I do... I get all teary-eyed when I hear the "Star Spangled Banner"), there are just some things that you cannot do and cannot get here... like foie gras that doesn't taste like liverworst, or go to a piano recital in a 12th century church). And I just HAVE to have some admiration for a country whose productivity exceeds that of the United States while working a 35 hour week, taking two hour lunches, and getting a month of vacation!

But now I'm back and promise to write you all much more regularly.

Mike

Welcome to the Mexican State of California

It's interesting... this morning I heard this on the Bill Handel Show (KFI AM640, Los Angeles). Later, over lunch, I was listening to a previously recorded show hosted by Mr. KABC and my favorite radio personality April Winchell and it was announcement of the same story at the moment it happened. What was it (if you are too lazy to click the link)? It was a story about a Mexican couple in Los Angeles who had given birth to quadruplets. The babies are doing fine, but as amazing as having quadruplets is that is not the focus. Instead, let me outline the facts and present them as exhibit A in the case against allowing unfettered illegal aliens into the country:

• The couple have been in this country for over two decades, the husband for 28 years and the wife 22 years, yet according to the article neither speak any English. Their oldest daughter speaks very limited English.


• The couple have 10 children, nine living at home. They live in a one bedroom apartment in Los Angeles.


• The family income is $400 per week, plus federal and state assistance including $700 per month for medical expenses for a child born with hydroencephalopathy.
  
  
• The wife actually had a tubal ligation after their third daughter. Because the husband wanted a son, they later had the the ligation reveresed and they had fertility drugs smuggled in from Mexico. The wife then had triplets and finally the quadruplets.

But that is not the end of the story. It seems the family of the wife had other daughters who came into the country illegally as well. One of them married a man and, seeing they couldn't make it in Los Angeles, moved to Lexington Kentucky. According to the article they are doing well today. They and their small family have accepted America as their home, learned English, learned trades, and are making more money in Lexington than they could in Los Angeles. What is quite interesting are the comments they make about life in LA. The sister says that California has become Mexico, that there are too many people, illegals they say, that depress wages for blue-collar workers. They have large families they cannot support. Their daughters start having children of their own at age 14. They have large enclaves of like-kind and feel no need to learn English or become "more American". These aren't the words of a racist white man (the common charge) but the sayings of those who lived what is happening. Yet in the name of "capitalism" far too many supporters of big business and the ruling caste of Congress seem to be willing to accept it.

Some Information on Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Well, here we are again. The American press and the liberals-with-an-agenda-but-without-information have painted the picture of "ignorant Christians" against the so-called science of the agnostic/atheist. But things are not as simple as the press would have us believe. As things stand today, in the roughly 30 years of stem cell research there have been no medical treatments come from embryonic stem cell (ESC) studies. On the other hand, adult stem cells have yielded success in no less than 72 treatments. The potential may be great, but it is at least at present an unfulfilled potential that has as of yet not delivered on its widely touted promises. However, to further investigate this "potential" it requires the destruction of "cells" that will become fully-developed human beings. So is the possible payoff worth the ethical taint that comes from killing the innocent? Many scientists have said the answer is no. As an example, consider the following quote:

“Although embryonic stem cells have the broadest differentiation potential, their use for cellular therapeutics is excluded for several reasons: the uncontrollable development of teratomas in a syngeneic transplantation model, imprinting-related developmental abnormalities, and ethical issues.” (Gesine Kögler et al., A New Human Somatic Stem Cell from Placental Cord Blood with Intrinsic Pluripotent Differentiation Potential, Journal of Experimental Medicine, Vol. 200, No. 2 (July 19, 2004), p. 123).

Conservatives are not against stem cell research and I am getting tired of liberals and the press trying to make that case. Restrictions on federal funding does not make stem cell research, even ESC research illegal in any way. Consider the current case in California where the state has allocated $3 billion for such research and there is nothing the federal government can do about it.

Liberals should learn to think before shooting off their mouths in an attempt to score political points by abusive ad hominem attacks.

I'm NOT Nitpicky... I'm Simply Accurate

Geeze, some days I really get slammed. I mean, I like accuracy, regardless of the area of life it falls into. The past few years I have been rather upset over the liberties that film makers take with certain movies (the Lord of the Rings trilogy, for instance, or more lately, X3), but when I voice such concerns I seem to be drowned out by the chorus of my friends who tell me that they "separate the book from the movie" and can "appreciate the director's interpretation" (or some similar drivel). They seem to think I don't understand how art is supposed to work. Well trust me, I understand, but what I understand (and care more about) is truth and accuracy. It is one thing to alter settings, switch around minor characters, mix dialogue, but it another to create a different story and try to pass it off as something that has a history. When I evaluate movies based on literature that I know, I have two simple criteria:

1. After seeing the movie, can you tell me a reasonable accurate summary that does justice to the primary source?
2. Do the characters portrayed on screen do things consistent with how the character in the text might do them given the same situation (see, I am flexible... they don't have to do exactly the same things, just act consistently with the character of the person in the text)

Now I can argue details, but for most people that isn't fun, but there are certain things that are just not right happening in movies today that really bother me. Here are a couple of "for instance" situations:

In the first LOTR movie, The Fellowship of the Ring, they have Arwen taking the injured Frodo to Rivendell while the book says it was Glorfindel. Fair enough, I can live with that (Story: "Important elf takes injured Frodo to Rivedell to heal", which is what happened). What I detest is the line they make her say, something NO TOLKIEN ELF would utter: "If you want him, come and claim him." ARGH! No, no, no. This is completely out of character for an elf in Middle Earth. Now, jump to X3, out this year. ******* MOVIE SPOILER ******** There is no way Wolverine would kill Phoenix. In fact, in the Dark Phoenix saga, he does have a chance to and he pulls his claws at the last minute. In a later conversation where the terror of Dark Phoenix (which actually isn't developed in the movie, it just appears), Wolverine pulls a "fast ball special" with Colossus and hurls Colossus at Dark Phoenix to kill her, Wolverine TELLS COLOSSUS HE (Wolverine) CANNOT KILL HER, that he had his chance and just couldn't do it so it was up to Colossus. And yet, what do they do in the movie??? Wrong, wrong, wrong! I can live with certain alterations, the problem of time and the need to compress and blend, but I just cannot stand it when they change the character. It would be impossible for anyone to tell me the basics of the Dark Phoenix saga from watching X3. And by the way, what's up with the bridge scene? Yeah, it looked cool, but there are so many ways for Magneto to have taken down the building and taken out the guards. Sheesh!

Anyway, I hope that this rambling makes sense. I can appreciate artistic license as much as anyone else, but just like with a driver's license or a gun license, that does not mean you can do just any old thing you want!

Frustrated Capitalist

It's becoming more and more difficult to support capitalism, or at least the current flavor of capitalism existing in America today. I have never really been a fan of what I call "Corporate Capitalism", the idea that big business is always good for us and whatever they want or need is what we must give them. Perhaps if they were better corporate citizens I might take a more favorable stance towards them, but given recent news over CEO pay and executive pensions I simply am disgusted. Consider the following two pieces of information:

An article recently ran in our local paper (see Yahoo!News here) stating that on average, CEOs earn 262 times the average worker's salary (CEOs about $11 million, average worker about $42,000). And if you look at the various different articles on this same topic, you will find that it seems what they actually did at the company made no difference. You can drive your company into the ground and STILL make more in a day than the average worker makes in a year. Back in the 1960s the multiple was closer to 24 or 25... have CEOs improved ten-fold over that period in time? As hourly wages are frozen or barely keeping up with inflation, the top tier take home more and more. Now not all companies are like this (consider Whole Foods which caps CEO pay at 14 times the average employee's pay, plus stock options), but enough are that I am surprised stock holders do not rise up and in a fit of disgust sell out everything they have (and given the current market, bonds might be a better short-term deal). I dunno, perhaps it was a fact of growing up poor and believing that hard work will be valued that I find myself in disbelief when I see such reports on compensation.

The second article is from the Wall Street Journal (23-June-2006) titled "Hidden Burden: As Workers' Pensions Wither, Those for Executives Flourish" (you can find a summarized version here. All you hear today is how employee pensions are a drag to business and must be jettisoned for many companies to survive. One quote from GM: "Our extensive pension and [post-employment] obligations to retirees are a competitive disadvantage for us". But the Journal, after looking at the reported numbers, states "The pension plans for its rank-and-file U.S. workers are overstuffed with cash, containing about $9 billion more than is needed to meet their obligations for years to come." At the same time, the pension obligations for executives are a liability to the company of $1.4 billion! And Lucent's employee pension actually brings in money to the company (over half of its profit comes from revenue from the employee pension). Disgusting! If you have the time, track down a copy and read it... but take your blood pressure medicine first.

I'll write more about this later, but right now I am so angry I can't see straight.

Wisdom From Lord of the Rings

The skill of the Elves can reforge the sword of Elendil – but only you can wield it.
– Elrond, to Aragorn

It's difficult not to find things that make you stop and think in The Lord of the Rings but this morning that line hit me out of left field. I was fortunate enough to work from home today and when I do I like to put something in the VCR to help break the silence. I had intended to watch the second disk of The Two Tours but what got popped in was the second disk to Fellowship of the Ring and my random button pushing stopped it right on that line. Suddenly I was hit with implications of what Elrond was telling Aragorn, and not just in Professor Tolkien's wonderful world of Middle Earth! Just as that choice was put before Aragorn it is put in front of each and every one of us today. Consider the following: Society can help create opportunities, but they cannot really make us take those opportunities and make something of them. We have to be active. The elves could repair the sword (heck, they made the sword), but they could not fight the battles that were not theirs to fight. Government can allocate all the money it wants and create as many quotas it wants, but unless those qualified take the opportunities granted to them and make something of them it comes to naught. You cannot make people go to college, succeed at studies, take certain jobs, and be successful in life unless they actually have some desire to do so. If you try to force them, or create artifical environments in which they work (that is, make the wrong weapon... not the needed "sword of Elendil", but the "salad fork of Martha Stewart", both useful but not interchangable), they will fail at their task. Not only will they fail, but they will more likely than not screw it up for those coming behind them (after all, if you went into battle who would you want to follow, someone with a sword or someone with a salad fork?). People can do things to help me, social organizations and even occasionally government can help create situations for me, it is up to me (or you in your case) to grab the pommel, to take the sword and use it as it was meant to be used.

Truth Hurts

Posted by Picasa
I'm a Christian and a conservative (and let's complete it, I am a conservative Christian), but I have gotten so disgusted with Republican pandering that I want to run out and join the ACLU in protest! The most difficult thing about this editorial cartoon is that it really is an accurate portrayal of what is happening today with our Republican "representation". Rather than deal with many of the hard issues of the day they would rather do things such as hold silly votes over the definition of marriage (which is a local issue last time I checked). Our students are being dumbed down by our educational system, we have government failures at all levels during emergencies such as what happened with Katrina, Our deficit is running out of control, people are worried about losing their jobs due to outsourcing, our infrastructure in crumbling, a sizeable percentage of our legal population is without adequate health care, a vast majority of Americans may never get to retire without living in fear, and what do we get? "Our country is threatened by homosexuals being able to marry!" and "Let's make English our national language, sort of, kinda, well, without actually doing anything to make it anything special!" "Let's proclaim smoking bad and slap a big nasty tax on cigarettes!"
I mean really, if you are going to waste our time and our (the taxpayers' monies), at least really DO something. You want to protect the sanctity of marriage? Make divorce illegal! You want English to be the established language, then make language classes required for citizenship and stop publishing documents in 140 different languages. If smoking (or fast food or whatever) is so bad, then make it illegal! Seriously, lawmakers are a joke anymore. There is no longer governance and leadership coming from our seats of power, only politics. But until we the voter population get serious as well, nothing will change. As they say in the re-enactments on television, "The names have been changed", but the stench of the policy remains.

666 Silliness

What a cool marketing ploy, releasing The Omen on June 6, 2006. Great for movie marketing, but what makes me sad is how many Christians get caught up in such silly ideas as assigning any meaning whatsoever to today's date. And of course the press has just salivating over showing what ignornate rubes we are. While at the gym this morning each television in the aerobics area was showing a different morning "news" program and every single station (four in all) had a segment within minutes of each other talking about the significance Christians applied to 666 (or 06-06-06). Unfortunately they never spoke with me.

So where does this come from? In the book of Revelation we are told:

He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name. This calls for wisdom. If anyone has insight, let him calculate the number of the beast, for it is man's number. His number is 666" (Rev. 13:16-18)

Well, I have yet to hear of the emergence of a world leader nor have I heard of people being forced to accept "the mark" to be able to conduct any commerce. Interesting isn't it how Scripture is pretty clear that this "mark" is the "name of the beast". Not a date (especially not June 6, 2006... why not June 6 1906, 1806, 1706, etc?) but a name, it has to be associated with the person who is called "the Beast".

How much more plain does it have to get? Personally, I think stupidity is the mark of the beast, after all, what better allies can Satan have than people who proclaim the name of Christ yet can't even interpret the plain teachings of texts like this one, discrediting those of us who struggle against such popular perceptions.

Remember... And Be Worthy

Today is Memorial Day and what more fitting quote than that of General George S. Patton:

It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died, rather we should thank God that such men lived.

Yet how many of us really do thank God that such men (and women) lived, those who as Lincoln said "gave the last full measure of devotion"? And just as importantly, are we making ourselves worthy of the their sacrifice? Have you ever stopped and thought about what it really is that we ask of the young men and women in our armed services? In today's editorial section of the San Diego Union Tribune we are reminded:

The soldiers and Marines who are casualties in this war didn't make the policy. They went where their country sent them and did what it asked them to do against murderous enemies

I hope you realize that we cannot abstract this request as "the Government" told them to do this, it wasn't me. Oh, but it was you, and me, who did it, we cast our ballots, we get lazy and think in a sloppy manner and go through mental acrobatics to absolve ourselves of responsiblity, but we don't hold our "leaders" accountable in any meaningful way. The left is a shrill whose hatred of George Bush the Republican and public evangelical *gasp* makes them a parody of what political opposition should be, while the right takes the tax cuts and cares about nothing else. SHAME ON YOU BOTH! Saying "We hate all Republicans and everything they stand for" (thanks Mr. Dean for the great soundbite) or "I'm a loyal Republican" is not part of argument any sane person would make. This is your government, whether you voted for the man or not. If I cannot convince you of this, perhaps Lincoln can:

It is rather for us the living, we here be dedicated to the great task remaining before us--that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they here gave the last full measure of devotion--that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.

Now go, whether you support the war or not, make yourselves worthy of these people who gave their life and limb for our country... no, for you.

I Suspected Draco... But Harry Too?

My friend Angelique passed the first link on to me today and I found the second on on my own. Depending on how sacrosanct you hold Harry Potter, you may not like them but I found them hilarious. Enjoy!

Harry Meets South Park?
Which Hogwarts Boy Is...

Problems With Statistics

If you were to look at the unemployment statistics for San Diego you would think that we were living in boom times. According to the San Diego Workforce Partnership unemployment for April 2006 was 3.7% (4.5% for the United States which, in the thinking of economics students across the country, means we are at full employment). We are constantly told that San Diego is a haven of job security. Why, if you lose your job for whatever reason you should have no problem at all finding another one. Given the numbers, that may be true, but before you decide to take out that loan against your house's equity perhaps you should look a little closer at those jobs. Our political and civic "leaders" want to tell us that we are a big draw for high paying jobs such as biotech and technology. After having lived here for seven years I am still looking for all of those high-paying high tech companies. True, we do have Qualcomm, and Intuit does have a pretty big presence here, but except for those two and Sony what we have at best are small "mom and pop" shops. While they are doing some interesting work, the salaries I have been quoted by various agencies are not all that promising. I get the same feedback from my friends working in similar technical positions. Salaries for the most part have been stagnant and new offerings at the same level of experience has been a little lower than existing positions. Not good considering the ever increasing cost of living in southern California. And as for biotech, the vast majority of companies here employ less than 100 people. While the benefits are pretty good, again the pay for most positions has stagnated or slightly declined. Now, we are losing jobs in what many have been saying is our strongest area (biotech). In today's San Diego Union Tribune business section there appeared an article titled Diagnostics plant will close; toll is 150 jobs. The parent company of Applied Biotech, a Massachusetts company by the name of Inverness Medical Innovations, is closing its plant here and moving the jobs to China. What I found stunning was the admission in the article that

... while there are no reliable figures on how many U. S. life science jobs have been lost to the practice [offshoring] the toll is beginning to be felt in San Diego.

The article discusses what happened to another San Diego biotechnology company, Discovery Partners International, that let go half of its workforce when it lost a contract with Pfizer to "a rival overseas firm". Discovery is now trying to sell most of its remaining operations with the fate of its remaining employees unclear.

Oh well, given the strength of the San Diego employment market, if I lose my high-tech job I suppose I could always be a bartender (hospitality had the highest increase in jobs created for the category "non-farm and salaried jobs). I couldn't afford my rent, my car payment, or my utilities, but our "leaders" would be happy to know that I was still employed and helping to keep that unemployment figure down.

Marcel For Today

My reading program this year includes the works of the French philosopher and playwrite Gabriel Marcel. I have found some very interesting insights from this "Christian existentialist" that, though written more than 60 years ago, are very applicable today. Consider this passage from Man Against Mass Society (it is a bit long, but please bear with me):

... this sinister ambiguity in the popular argument for equality - that those who demand the greatest equality claim to be thinking of the nation's economic strength, when in fact they may be secretly encouraging its weakness - has not really been cleared away; and that levelling down, that is to say the basest and easiest way of seeking social equality, is the principle which seems to underly most of the legal arrangements which in France weigh so heavily on our day-to-day existence.

Substitute American for France and we have a pretty accurage picture of those who scream "Equality" the loudest. Rather than really trying to help raise people up, hold them to certain standards, the current point of view is to lower the bar.

This is all part of a broader "degradation" that Marcel addresses in this marvelous work that seems to speak across the decades to me. As I read more I promise to share them with you, if for no other reason to show you that not all Frenchmen are bad.

Immigration This Time Around

Over and over again we are told by President Bush that "America is a nation of immigrants". While this statement is true as far as it goes, we must understand that this time it's a bit different. If we only stop and think about the various waves of immigration prior to the current time of debate we can easily see the following important differences that the supposed defenders of our American ideals and American way of life, for what ever reason, seem to miss (greed is my bet, what's yours?):

• Virtually all previous waves of immigration have been from distant shores. The original settlers of the late 17th century were mainly northern Europeans. The second wave of immigrants coming in the late 19th century and early 20th century were mainly southern Europeans, the Irish, the Poles, and the Asians. Coming here meant separation from your "mother country" to begin a new life. You really had to try to assimilate, and since the migration here was largely controlled (there are only so many steamers crossing the Atlantic and Pacific) it was, for the most part, successful. This is not the case with the current immigration problem with Mexico. Not only is it continuous, but with the United States sharing a border, there is no real reason to separate yourself from your place of origin. Let's face it, with our porous border illegal aliens can move back and forth pretty much as they wish. I would bet that if there was a large body of water separating the two countries rather than what currently exists (almost nothing), the assimilation issue would go away within a couple of generations. But what we have is a continuous influx of new Mexican arrivals which diminishes the need for assimilation into the culture. And let's face it, in their greed American businesses are not helping. As Victor Davis Hanson so bluntly puts it in his book Mexifornia

A Pole once accepted that she would perpetually stumble through the Cleveland phone book if she kept speaking Polish; a Mexican accepts as a given that Pacific Bell will double the size of its directory assistance just to accommodate her Spanish.


• According to various polls (such as this Zogby poll) and the expressed thoughts of organizations in this country such as The National Council of La Raza and Mecha, the majority Mexican citizens believe that the American Southwest "rightfully belongs to Mexico". Their attitude is, "This place is ours, not yours, so we have every right to come here when we want regardless of whatever laws you pass." Where in the other mass movements to the United States have we see this attitude so prevalent?



• The proximity of the United States plus the attitude of the majority of Mexicans give the Mexican government a great incentive to keep this up. After all, if the poorest people keep leaving the country then the government will have little incentive to deal with the problems of their countrymen (and lets not forget all the money that is sent back... that sum is supposedly the second largest source of revenue for Mexico). It's interesting that we have Latinos protesting here when our own government makes the slightest whisper of any inclination towards a desire of doing anything about the issue of illegal immigration, yet there seems to be no protests by Latinos in Mexico against how that government treats its poor. To see just how important it is to the Mexican government to keep this social pressure valve open you need only consider the recent rumblings within the Mexican government about using any means to prevent the United States from reinforcing its border protection. What we do on our side of the border is really none of their business, but they make it their business because of the benefits they gain.

So if I can figure this out without the aid of thousands of analysts and millions of dollars in strategic studies about the issue why can't Washington?