Thursday, August 31, 2006
Sometimes I Hate Myself for Loving the Northwest
Thanks for the Memory to Ace of Spades and Vultures Row:
National Guardsman Brutally Attacked In Pierce CountyI hope they find these scumbags and prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law.
[That's Washington.]
PARKLAND, Wash. -- The Pierce County Sheriff's Department is searching for five people who allegedly attacked a uniformed National Guardsmen walking along 138th Street in Parkland Tuesday afternoon.
The soldier was walking to a convenience store when a sport utility vehicle pulled up alongside him and the driver asked if he was in the military and if he had been in any action.
The driver then got out of the vehicle, displayed a gun and shouted insults at the victim. Four other suspects exited the vehicle and knocked the soldier down, punching and kicking him.
“And during the assault the suspects called him a baby killer. At that point they got into the car and drove off and left him on the side of the road,” Detective Ed Troyer with the Pierce County Sheriff’s Department told KIRO 7 Eyewitness News.
Hot Dang!
Only three games out of first, and we've got Wells back. It's gonna be a fun September.
Dodgers Suck.
Musical Geography Question of the Day
If you ran out of things to say, where are you?
UPDATE:
Boy, I screwed this one up. Kudos to Vic for guessing it nonetheless and to Ken for correcting me.
UPDATE:
Boy, I screwed this one up. Kudos to Vic for guessing it nonetheless and to Ken for correcting me.
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
And the Nominees Are...
I recently picked up a great CD compilation: Elvis Presley Hitstory. It's a great compilation of his hits. And after listening to it over and over, I've reached a conclusion. With all due respect to Ace of Spades, Will Farrell, and Blue Oyster Cult, I would like to submit my nomination for the Lifetime Achievement Award for Best Use of Cowbell in a Song: The JXL Radio Edit Remix of The King's A Little Less Conversation. The bass is kicked up and the beat much more pronounced than the original.
Now, normally I abhor such remixes, viewing them as somewhat... blasphemous. But this one works, and for the most part, I think that's because Elvis' original performance is so Slick, so forveful, so masterful, that it doesn't get lost in the remix. Instead of taking over the song, the remix almost can be viewed as paying homage to the original, and the beat certainly does drive the point of the song home.
Now, normally I abhor such remixes, viewing them as somewhat... blasphemous. But this one works, and for the most part, I think that's because Elvis' original performance is so Slick, so forveful, so masterful, that it doesn't get lost in the remix. Instead of taking over the song, the remix almost can be viewed as paying homage to the original, and the beat certainly does drive the point of the song home.
The Happy Pitfalls of Fathering a Child Who's Developing a Love of Classic Literature at an Early Age
*sigh*
Oh, well. I suppose if he's going to insist he be read the same freaking book before bed every freaking night and every freaking naptime, he could have chosen far worse than Goodnight Moon.
Oh, well. I suppose if he's going to insist he be read the same freaking book before bed every freaking night and every freaking naptime, he could have chosen far worse than Goodnight Moon.
See The World
Thanks for the Memory to Dave at It Comes in Pints?
Here is a map of the world with all the countries I've visited in red:
create your own visited country map
Not very impressive, yet. But I still hold out hope of travelling more. My only criticism of the website that does the map is the fact that they list Turkey as being in the Middle East. That must be news to the residents of Istanbul and the rest of Thrace, who live in Europe!
Here is a map of the world with all the countries I've visited in red:
create your own visited country map
Not very impressive, yet. But I still hold out hope of travelling more. My only criticism of the website that does the map is the fact that they list Turkey as being in the Middle East. That must be news to the residents of Istanbul and the rest of Thrace, who live in Europe!
Musical Geography Question(s) of the Day
1. Where did the hairy-handed gent run amok?
2. Where had he been overheard lately?
2. Where had he been overheard lately?
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
Things You REALLY Don't Want to See on TV
A news report on a local attempted kidnapping/pedophilia case at the apartment complex where you lived only two years or so before having a child.
Seriously, folks, I need to restock on 12-gauge ammo.
Seriously, folks, I need to restock on 12-gauge ammo.
Monday, August 28, 2006
Our State Fair is a Pretty Good State Fair
As I mentioned in the comments, we spent the day yesterday at the Oregon State Fair in Salem. It was a good day, and we enjoyed the fair, but while I wasn't exactly disappointed, neither was I blown away.
Before yesterday, I'd never been to a State Fair. My only experience with fairs had been the Twin Falls County Fair & Rodeo (in Filer, ID), the Douglas County Fair (In Roseburg, OR), and the Del Mar Fair (San Diego's county fair). Each had a different flavor to it.
The Twin Falls County Fairs is amazing, especially considering it's held in a sparsely populated county in one of the least populous states in the Union. But it is also in a county that is an agricultural wonder -- when I was a kid it was the nation's center for the development of new strains of beans, and was in the heart of Idaho's sugar beet country. Farms there are so big that there are people who make a huge success out of the business of "Custom Farming" -- they own farming equipment but no land, farm owners pay them to help with the planting and harvesting. The 4H and FFA programs are huge there, and each had its own building as big as the entire livestock barn at the OSF. The rodeo, which is held concurrently with the fair, is a major stop on the PRCA circuit. Quilting, baking, canning, as well as several other crafts and hobbies, each have their own small display buildings.
The Dougls County Fair was a smaller version of the same thing, with more of a focus on arts crafts and a smaller livestock exhibit.
The Del Mar Fair was huge, as big as a State Fair, but it was far more commercialized, with several buildings taken up with vendors (who only had one building each at the other two fairs I've mentioned). It seemed far more commercialized than the other two.
I'm not sure what I expected from a State Fair. I didn't like being funneled from the entrance through the carnival just to get to the exhibits -- just the opposite of the layout of the county fairs I'd attended, where the rides and games were off to one side. But while the exhibits by competitors were smaller, I realize that's because only the best from each county fair makes it to the State Fair, and I was impressed by their quality -- especially the woodworking and photography exhibits. There was a cedar strip canoe built by some high school students that was absolutely GORGEOUS! I also was impressed by the statewide talent competition, at least the little bit we got to see while eating our food. And of course, it had all the fair food items we considered required eating -- grilled corn on the cob, bratwurst from Mt. Angel (a German community near Salem), elephant ears, bedspring fries, caramel apple. There was a barbecue being held, with two huge pit smokers that made Old 97 look like a Weber Lil' Joe, but I figured I can throw down the 'Q as good as anyone, and opted for items you only get at the fair.
I was also proud of the fact that most of my fellow fairgoers made good use of the trash and recycling receptacles dotting the grounds, as well as the way people treated each other. I may not always agree with the popular politics in my home state, but Oregonians are, on the whole, a polite, respectful, considerate bunch, and they showed it yesterday.
We left early, because The Lad was getting tired, so I missed the art exhibit, but on the whole, it was a good day. No, it wasn't a seasonal, homespun Disneyland experience, but it was the most fun I've had in a while.
Before yesterday, I'd never been to a State Fair. My only experience with fairs had been the Twin Falls County Fair & Rodeo (in Filer, ID), the Douglas County Fair (In Roseburg, OR), and the Del Mar Fair (San Diego's county fair). Each had a different flavor to it.
The Twin Falls County Fairs is amazing, especially considering it's held in a sparsely populated county in one of the least populous states in the Union. But it is also in a county that is an agricultural wonder -- when I was a kid it was the nation's center for the development of new strains of beans, and was in the heart of Idaho's sugar beet country. Farms there are so big that there are people who make a huge success out of the business of "Custom Farming" -- they own farming equipment but no land, farm owners pay them to help with the planting and harvesting. The 4H and FFA programs are huge there, and each had its own building as big as the entire livestock barn at the OSF. The rodeo, which is held concurrently with the fair, is a major stop on the PRCA circuit. Quilting, baking, canning, as well as several other crafts and hobbies, each have their own small display buildings.
The Dougls County Fair was a smaller version of the same thing, with more of a focus on arts crafts and a smaller livestock exhibit.
The Del Mar Fair was huge, as big as a State Fair, but it was far more commercialized, with several buildings taken up with vendors (who only had one building each at the other two fairs I've mentioned). It seemed far more commercialized than the other two.
I'm not sure what I expected from a State Fair. I didn't like being funneled from the entrance through the carnival just to get to the exhibits -- just the opposite of the layout of the county fairs I'd attended, where the rides and games were off to one side. But while the exhibits by competitors were smaller, I realize that's because only the best from each county fair makes it to the State Fair, and I was impressed by their quality -- especially the woodworking and photography exhibits. There was a cedar strip canoe built by some high school students that was absolutely GORGEOUS! I also was impressed by the statewide talent competition, at least the little bit we got to see while eating our food. And of course, it had all the fair food items we considered required eating -- grilled corn on the cob, bratwurst from Mt. Angel (a German community near Salem), elephant ears, bedspring fries, caramel apple. There was a barbecue being held, with two huge pit smokers that made Old 97 look like a Weber Lil' Joe, but I figured I can throw down the 'Q as good as anyone, and opted for items you only get at the fair.
I was also proud of the fact that most of my fellow fairgoers made good use of the trash and recycling receptacles dotting the grounds, as well as the way people treated each other. I may not always agree with the popular politics in my home state, but Oregonians are, on the whole, a polite, respectful, considerate bunch, and they showed it yesterday.
We left early, because The Lad was getting tired, so I missed the art exhibit, but on the whole, it was a good day. No, it wasn't a seasonal, homespun Disneyland experience, but it was the most fun I've had in a while.
Friday, August 25, 2006
Thursday, August 24, 2006
Progress(?)
Well, as of two months ago, The LAd WAS walking. He isn't anymore.
He's running.
Seriously, he has two speeds: Asleep and Balls-to-the-Wall.
Did you other parents know about this? Thanks for the warning. Thanks a lot.
He's running.
Seriously, he has two speeds: Asleep and Balls-to-the-Wall.
Did you other parents know about this? Thanks for the warning. Thanks a lot.
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
Food Talk
I'm gonna cover a few food-related topics, so let's get started:
1) Wanda, a longtime friend of TFR (and mother of the second cutest toddler on the planet) asked for a synopsis of orientation day, so here goes:
Orientation started in the gymnasium of Lane Community College at 10:00 AM this morning, and after a brief welcome, we broke out into groups based on major. From 10:20 or so until 1, we had a general orientation for the college and a campus tour. Our orientation leader was not someone directly associated with the culinary program, so a lot of what she told us was completely irrelevant, and a total waste of time. But at least we discovered on the tour (and had confirmed later) that a lot of the planters around our building are planted with herbs. That will prove useful.
I made a couple of friends, guys I clickedwith right away, and I plan to eat in their restaurants some day. I found myself early on evaluating people (based on appearance, demeanor, body language, etc.): "Executive chef, exec, sous, dropout after 4 weeks, sous chef, exec...." Along with the Culinary Arts program, the college also has an excellent hospitality mamangement program, and some of our classes overlap, so I plan on starting my networking while still in school, so that some day I'll have contacts to run/staff the front AND back of the house when I open my own place.
General orientation, which was supposed to go till 1, was done before noon, so before we split for a 2-hour lunch, we went around the room introducing ourselves to each other, name, why we were there, and favorite dessert. It was interesting to watch a group of people who are all crazy about food react to each other, agreeingwith each other's thoughts and favorite desserts: even if they weren't our own favorite, they were damned good points. It was almost like a religious experience. Creme Brulee, Cheesecake, chocolate, etc... one classmate wants to own a wedding cake business. My favorite dessert, old school rustic blackberry cobbler, also got a good reception.
I'm more intimidated by the business end and the fast pace of production in a restaurant environment than I am about the technical skills and artistry of creating food. But I didn't make this big a leap because I had no other options -- I did this because I love food, I love to cook, and I'm damned good at it, and by God, one day you'll be able to order my food from a menu.
2) I'm no fan of Pate, but I applaud my felloe culinarians for taking this stand for freedom. I personally do not cook or eat veal, pate, or certain other dishes for ethical reasons, but I draw the line at banning those foods. I also find it highly ironic that the people who would ban pate tend to be on the end of the political spectrum that fights for the right to abort babies. Would you like a nice glass of hypocrisy to go with your double standard
3) As I mentioned in my criticism of Red Agave, some of the best food you'll ever taste is not high cuisine. And if you're willing to forgo delightful atmosphere, lovely presentation, and pampering service, you can get some %$@*& amazing tasting food for dirt cheap. My favorite example of this is the best Goram pizza I've ever had in my life:
Back in 2000, when TFR and I lived in San Diego, she had to take her state boards to practice esthetic (spa skincare), and the closest place to take them was in HelL.A. The test was in two parts over two days, so we spent the night in a cheap motel a couple blocks off of Wilshire. We got there pretty late in the evening the first day after her first session, and were famished. We went to the front desk and asked for advice on where to eat. the manager/owner, and Indian fellow, asked what kind of food we wanted, the started showing us all the brochures for places that were advertising through the motel desk. In a sudden, brief, and all-too-rare moment of brilliance, I suddenly stopped him and asked, "No. When YOU order food, where do YOU order from?"
He stopped and smiled at me with the same sly kind of smile I suppose Socrates or Buddha or Jesus might have smiled when one of their disciples had a moment of enlightenment, yet at the same time, it was the same sly, conspiratory look someone might give to a fellow member of a secret society after the handshake has been exchanged. Looking around as if to avoid detection by the KGB, he reached unter the counter and pulled out a well-worn, grease-stained menu for a place called Roman's, which billed itself as a Mexican-Italian-American Takeout & Delivery establishment. We ordered Pepperoni Pizza which took an hour or more to deliver due to police roadblocks of most of the surroung streets as the result of a high speed chase (California's official state sport).
Oh. My. Dear. Lord.
This pizza thin, almost New York thin, but with gallons of sauce on it. It was still hot. The crust was a perfect consistency -- not too soft, not too hard, with a mysterious combination of crisp bottom, and light, chewy upper crust. The cheese was perfect -- completely melted and bubbling, but substantial enough that you felt your teeth go through it. I took a bite of it and discovered what I thought was a bone (weird/scary), only to discover that it was the secret to the Nirvana-transporting flavor of the pie: the stem from the fresh oregano used in the sauce. It was... well, Lord, it was 6 years ago, I freaking HATE California, hate LA even worse, and I'm still getting nostalgic for that night. That pizza was perfect. That pizza ruined me, and every pizza I've ever had since has been judged based on how close it comes to being that good.
UPDATE:
Oh, yeah, a couple more cool, culinary-related personal notes:
As I mentioned, on her visit, my mother brought along some items I inherited from my family, as well as a few gifts she purchased for us. Among them were my great unvle's filet knife (razor sharp, old school hand-ground stainless steel), my grandparents' food/meat grinder (electric), and an apron she bought for me -- it's black denim, and it has a pirate's skull embossed on the chest. I've always been fascinated by pirates, and it's an appropriate apron since I've also taken an interest in hard core barbecue, and the word barbecue and buccaneer both come from the same root word: boucan.
1) Wanda, a longtime friend of TFR (and mother of the second cutest toddler on the planet) asked for a synopsis of orientation day, so here goes:
Orientation started in the gymnasium of Lane Community College at 10:00 AM this morning, and after a brief welcome, we broke out into groups based on major. From 10:20 or so until 1, we had a general orientation for the college and a campus tour. Our orientation leader was not someone directly associated with the culinary program, so a lot of what she told us was completely irrelevant, and a total waste of time. But at least we discovered on the tour (and had confirmed later) that a lot of the planters around our building are planted with herbs. That will prove useful.
I made a couple of friends, guys I clickedwith right away, and I plan to eat in their restaurants some day. I found myself early on evaluating people (based on appearance, demeanor, body language, etc.): "Executive chef, exec, sous, dropout after 4 weeks, sous chef, exec...." Along with the Culinary Arts program, the college also has an excellent hospitality mamangement program, and some of our classes overlap, so I plan on starting my networking while still in school, so that some day I'll have contacts to run/staff the front AND back of the house when I open my own place.
General orientation, which was supposed to go till 1, was done before noon, so before we split for a 2-hour lunch, we went around the room introducing ourselves to each other, name, why we were there, and favorite dessert. It was interesting to watch a group of people who are all crazy about food react to each other, agreeingwith each other's thoughts and favorite desserts: even if they weren't our own favorite, they were damned good points. It was almost like a religious experience. Creme Brulee, Cheesecake, chocolate, etc... one classmate wants to own a wedding cake business. My favorite dessert, old school rustic blackberry cobbler, also got a good reception.
I'm more intimidated by the business end and the fast pace of production in a restaurant environment than I am about the technical skills and artistry of creating food. But I didn't make this big a leap because I had no other options -- I did this because I love food, I love to cook, and I'm damned good at it, and by God, one day you'll be able to order my food from a menu.
2) I'm no fan of Pate, but I applaud my felloe culinarians for taking this stand for freedom. I personally do not cook or eat veal, pate, or certain other dishes for ethical reasons, but I draw the line at banning those foods. I also find it highly ironic that the people who would ban pate tend to be on the end of the political spectrum that fights for the right to abort babies. Would you like a nice glass of hypocrisy to go with your double standard
3) As I mentioned in my criticism of Red Agave, some of the best food you'll ever taste is not high cuisine. And if you're willing to forgo delightful atmosphere, lovely presentation, and pampering service, you can get some %$@*& amazing tasting food for dirt cheap. My favorite example of this is the best Goram pizza I've ever had in my life:
Back in 2000, when TFR and I lived in San Diego, she had to take her state boards to practice esthetic (spa skincare), and the closest place to take them was in HelL.A. The test was in two parts over two days, so we spent the night in a cheap motel a couple blocks off of Wilshire. We got there pretty late in the evening the first day after her first session, and were famished. We went to the front desk and asked for advice on where to eat. the manager/owner, and Indian fellow, asked what kind of food we wanted, the started showing us all the brochures for places that were advertising through the motel desk. In a sudden, brief, and all-too-rare moment of brilliance, I suddenly stopped him and asked, "No. When YOU order food, where do YOU order from?"
He stopped and smiled at me with the same sly kind of smile I suppose Socrates or Buddha or Jesus might have smiled when one of their disciples had a moment of enlightenment, yet at the same time, it was the same sly, conspiratory look someone might give to a fellow member of a secret society after the handshake has been exchanged. Looking around as if to avoid detection by the KGB, he reached unter the counter and pulled out a well-worn, grease-stained menu for a place called Roman's, which billed itself as a Mexican-Italian-American Takeout & Delivery establishment. We ordered Pepperoni Pizza which took an hour or more to deliver due to police roadblocks of most of the surroung streets as the result of a high speed chase (California's official state sport).
Oh. My. Dear. Lord.
This pizza thin, almost New York thin, but with gallons of sauce on it. It was still hot. The crust was a perfect consistency -- not too soft, not too hard, with a mysterious combination of crisp bottom, and light, chewy upper crust. The cheese was perfect -- completely melted and bubbling, but substantial enough that you felt your teeth go through it. I took a bite of it and discovered what I thought was a bone (weird/scary), only to discover that it was the secret to the Nirvana-transporting flavor of the pie: the stem from the fresh oregano used in the sauce. It was... well, Lord, it was 6 years ago, I freaking HATE California, hate LA even worse, and I'm still getting nostalgic for that night. That pizza was perfect. That pizza ruined me, and every pizza I've ever had since has been judged based on how close it comes to being that good.
UPDATE:
Oh, yeah, a couple more cool, culinary-related personal notes:
As I mentioned, on her visit, my mother brought along some items I inherited from my family, as well as a few gifts she purchased for us. Among them were my great unvle's filet knife (razor sharp, old school hand-ground stainless steel), my grandparents' food/meat grinder (electric), and an apron she bought for me -- it's black denim, and it has a pirate's skull embossed on the chest. I've always been fascinated by pirates, and it's an appropriate apron since I've also taken an interest in hard core barbecue, and the word barbecue and buccaneer both come from the same root word: boucan.
I'm as Excited as a Little Schoolgirl
...er, Schoolgeezer, in this case. Scholl starts in a month, and this morning I'll be attending Freshman Orientation. I'll also be fitted for my uniform -- Black pinstripe pants and a white chef's tunic. I can't believe this is finally happening! I just hope I'm not biting off more than I can chew -- TFR has already told me that my housekeeping skills suck. At least she acknowledged that I'm being a good father.
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
Tom Jumps the Shark from Oprah's Couch
Paramount Pictures has severed ties with Tom Cruise, citing creative differences with Tom's Thetans Cruise's erratic behavior.
It Worked!
I managed to goad Smallholder into another post on Immigration.
Unfortunately, I don't trust the comments over there to work yet, so I'll just respond here.
Smallholder writes:
(Self-congratulatory note to self: Bush and Congress did exactly what I predicted. Absolutely nothing of substance. Sure, we might have sent a few thousand guardsman to the border and generated a few headlines for the November election, but Congressmen are smart enough to know that illegal immigrants are good for the economy, regardless of what they tell their innumerate constituents during campaigns.)
Congratulations. You were right about Bush. Sadly, so was I. Please note that I never expressed support for the President's position on the issue. We may disagree about what should be done, but we did agree on what would be done under the current administration. Why do you think I have been so angry about it the whole time?
For the record, I think Memento is misguided, not racist. Characterizing the opposition to illegals as boiling down to "brown people are icky" was too broad of a stroke in the same way as "liberals hate America" is too broad of a stroke.
And yet, it is exactly the stroke YOU painted in an earlier post. Just holding you to your own words.
Seriously, Brian, I consifder you to be one of those exceptions: I don't think you are a racist. Can we bury the hatchet, please?
Only if you'll make me a promise: When addressing Illegal Immigration in direct response to any post of mine, can you please try not to bring that canard up at all? If it doesn't apply to me, it's not germain to rebuttals of my arguments.
Dealing with a) first. I guess Brian is still trying to fight the FBI. You see, when everyone was jabbering about the crime caused by illegals, I linked to the official government report by the FBI. Law enforcement data shows that illegal aliens are slightly less likely to commit crimes than native-born citizens.
Ah-HA! I was hoping you'd trot this argument out again. PLEASE go back and read that FBI study to which you linked again. As I've pointed out before, and as you've NEVER addressed. the study addresses crime rates among immigrants, it never addresses Illegal immigrants. Now, repeat after me: Immigration and Illegal Immigration are not the same issue.
There are a few hardened narco-trafficers, but there are also native-born narco-trafficers.
Please don't tell me that you honestly believe that the only criminal element sneaking across our borders is "hardened narco-trafficers". I know you're not stupid, but you certainly are accepting that assumption uncritically.
Despite what law enforcement says
Most law enforcement sources I have read contradict YOU, Mark, including the LAPD and most agencies on the West Coast and in Texas, where II's are the most prevalent. And the one source you rely on is irrelevant, since it addresses Immigrants, not illegal immigrants. The FBI, which SH quotes, seems reluctant to make the distinction and single out illegals. But others have offered some thoughts you might want to consider -- see the links in the comment by Lurch, where he is responding to this post.
the answer from the anti-illegal side is "nuh-uh."
I find it highly ironic that Smallholder would use this particular criticism of his opponents. In earlier discussions of the issue, when he was provided with evidence, either by me or by Naked Villainy readers like Polymath, that most economists who study the issue have concluded that even taking into consideration positive benefits of illegal immigration like lower prices on goods produced by II's and the (somewhat suspect) claim that they contribute to tax revenues on an equal level with legals, that illegal immigrants constitute an economic burden on the U.S. economy, Smallholder's response has been that these economists must not really be counting all the benefits (as if people become well-respected economists by practicing bad math), and that their findings are wrong -- in other words, "Nuh-uh" -- the very criticism he has of us for not kowtowing to his claims because of one (misquoted) FBI study. Sauce for the goose, my friend.
Others go back to the old canard: If they are willing to break one law, they will be automatically break another law.
Um, no. You've done this before in this debate -- taking an actual argument used by his opposition, exaggerating it, and then refuting the exaggeration. While I'm of a belief that this particular argument, while valid, is the weakest of the crime-related arguments in favor of tougher border and immigration enforcement, I'll address it nonetheless. The REAL argument, not Smallholder's strawman facsimile of it, is "If they are willing to break one law, and find that they can do so with impunity, many will be more incline to break another law." That's quite different from "all will automatically". Furthermore, I'd argue, that the truly evil criminal element in other countries, when they observe how easy it is for anyone to cross the border into the US illegally, avail themselves of that easy opportunity and use the porous border to prey both on the US and on their weaker, less violent fellow illegals.
This belief conflicts with reality - the government's own statistics show this.
NO, no they don't. The only government statistics you've referenced address immigrants in general, not illegals.
I'd like to take a moment to address more specifically the point made in that FBI study, and why I think in reality it comes closer to supporting my position than Mark's:
The report points out that statistically, immigrants are less likely to commit crime than native born US citizens. Quite frankly, not only do I not refute this claim, I am unsurprised by it. In a moment I'll explain why that conclusion seems not only plausible, but intuitive.
But first, I'd like to repeat and belabor the point that the study addresses immigrants, and that at no point does it make the claim that these statistics are for illegal immigrants. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that the crime rates among legal immigrants is even lower than the rate listed in the study, and the rates among illegals higher, and that the rates listed in the study either apply to only legal immigrants, or if they apply to both, are an average of two. I'd argue that not only is it unreasonable to think that the same rates of crime apply to both sets of immigrants, it is unfair to legal immigrants to suppose that they are only as law-abiding as their illegal immigrant counterparts. Here's why:
Legal immigrants to the US, whether temporary or permanent immigrants working towards citizenship, have, by the very act of going through the immigration process, submitted themselves to a very rigorous process of application, and must jump through some very strenuous hoops to get and to stay here. This tells me that they are people who are willing to play by the rules, no matter how hard and unfair those rules may (or may not) be. This speaks volumes as to their propensity for law abidingness. Furthermore, for the entirety of the time they are here as an immigrant, whether that be until they attain citizenship or until their visa expires, they are under the scrutiny of the INS. They do not have the same level of privacy and freedom of movement that a US citizen has, and they are not shadow entities like illegal immigrants. They know that if they break the law, they will most likely be deported and all of the effort they have gone to will be in vain. For this reason, it is logical and unsurprising that immigrants in general are more law-abiding than even native citizens.
Ilegal immigrants don't live under the same constraints. They are hiding from the government to begin with, and quite successfully, so it is easier to hide other crimes as well. Furthermore, they have snuck in once, they know they can do it again, so while they desire to avoid deportation, it doesn't hold the same level of loss and risk that it does for someone who has been working for years to stay here legally.
Of course, the study doesn't support or refute my assertions about illegals vs. legals, but then, neither does it support nor refute Smallholder's -- it merely states that immigrants in general have a lower crime rate. Good news for those of us who support legal immigrants, but useless for sorting out the illegal immigration debate.
As for the rest of the paragraph in question:
In addition, the "illegals are more lawless and will steal your car" types are also blind to their own hypocrisy. I would wager that the vast majority of our readers (yes, you!) have, at one time or another, committed a victimless crime. This does not make us all more likely to commit armed robbery. The Minister of Propaganda, for instance, has violated 43 states' restrictions on extra-marital hanky-panky. Yet he has not, to my knowledge, been knocking over liquor stores in his spare time. Absolutists who demand law enforcement and harsh punishment for every violation of law - "down with illegal border crossers for illegally crossing the borders" have yet to explain their plan for prosecuting the Minister of Propaganda's sluttishness. Or, for that matter, prosecuting Polymath and my "experimentation" with alternative fuels.
A couple points:
A) Illegal Immigration is not a victimless crime. Smallholder wants to believe it is, but he has yet to provide satisfactory proof of his claim that ILLEGAL immigrants (not immigrants in general) provide a net gain to the economy, and his argument that any American jobs lost to illegals are lst because American workers are lazy smacks of "The victim(s) had it coming, so it's as good as victimless".
B) Just because All A are B does not mean all B are A. While it is certainly true that not everyone who has at some point committed some minor offense goes on to become Babyface Nelson, I'd be willing to wager that most hardened criminals started out with much less extreme offenses -- very few people who've never commited any crime wake up one day and say "I think I'll knock over a 7-Eleven today". Furthermore, we're not talking about people who have committed an occasional criminal act, however minor. We're talking about people who are intentionally and actively pursuing a lifestyle that is in violation of the law. And while many may stop at that, the fact that they are allowed to do so means that they and we are developing a subculture that neither respects our laws nor fears the consequences of breaking them. It should come as no surprise that many decide to break other laws besides those pertaining to immigration.
Memento Moron, who refuses to accept the validity of the government statistics
I accept their validity, I refuse to accept, and believe I've quite ably refuted, their relevancy. Again, the statistics you used spoke of immigrants in general, not illegals.
using a weak piece of datum to reinforce his own (erroneous) belief in the lawlessness of illegals reminds me of a quote I heard from Joel Salatin this weekend:
"Science can never convince. We only believe science when it agrees with our heart."
True words.
Sort of like... refusing to accept the analyses of experts regarding hte economic impact?
Pot... Kettle...
As for statistic, again, find me some that address illegals specifically, then get back to me.
But let me try one more time to lift the veil from Memento's eyes. (I know that it is pointless, but hell, I'm a teacher.
Oh, a personal insult, nice. So much for burying the hatchet.
When the San Bernadino policemen, trained officers of the law, suspect someone is an illegal alien, they check to see if they are. Surprise, surprise, 500 of 600 suspected illegals are indeed illegal. Is this the whole sample of criminals?
Actually, yes. Sorry if I stated it poorly, but the report seemed to indicate that all incoming inmates pass by these screeners, and that 500 out of 600 was the ratio of illegals to all incoming inmates. If I misunderstood, and this is not the case, then I retract the point.
As for part "b," I'm gobsmacked that Memento would even bring this weak crap.
Correlation, my friend, does not imply causation.
Again, my fault for not presenting the report properly. The report did go onto say that the CDC had reason to believe there was causation. I'm not sure what that reason or reasons were, but the report made it clear that the CDC did believe that illegal immigrants were the primary source of the higher levels of the disease.
Didja miss me?
Until you decided to add personal insults and condescension to the mix, yes.
I still think you mean well. But you insist on repeating certain tropes that I have refuted, and then either acknowledge my point, but go on with the same error (such as your tendency to use Immigrant and illegal immigrant interchangeably), or ignore my counterpoint altogether (I pointed out months ago that the FBI report only addresses the general immigrant population). You've used Ad hominems (the "icky" argument), non sequiturs (Using data on immigrants in general to support your claims about illegal immigrants), and straw men (misrepresenting or exaggerating the position taken or argument made by my side of the argument and then refuting that exaggeration). You know, you call yourself a "squishy centrist", but with that debating style, you'd fit right in amongst the "hard left" at DU.
Unfortunately, I don't trust the comments over there to work yet, so I'll just respond here.
Smallholder writes:
(Self-congratulatory note to self: Bush and Congress did exactly what I predicted. Absolutely nothing of substance. Sure, we might have sent a few thousand guardsman to the border and generated a few headlines for the November election, but Congressmen are smart enough to know that illegal immigrants are good for the economy, regardless of what they tell their innumerate constituents during campaigns.)
Congratulations. You were right about Bush. Sadly, so was I. Please note that I never expressed support for the President's position on the issue. We may disagree about what should be done, but we did agree on what would be done under the current administration. Why do you think I have been so angry about it the whole time?
For the record, I think Memento is misguided, not racist. Characterizing the opposition to illegals as boiling down to "brown people are icky" was too broad of a stroke in the same way as "liberals hate America" is too broad of a stroke.
And yet, it is exactly the stroke YOU painted in an earlier post. Just holding you to your own words.
Seriously, Brian, I consifder you to be one of those exceptions: I don't think you are a racist. Can we bury the hatchet, please?
Only if you'll make me a promise: When addressing Illegal Immigration in direct response to any post of mine, can you please try not to bring that canard up at all? If it doesn't apply to me, it's not germain to rebuttals of my arguments.
Dealing with a) first. I guess Brian is still trying to fight the FBI. You see, when everyone was jabbering about the crime caused by illegals, I linked to the official government report by the FBI. Law enforcement data shows that illegal aliens are slightly less likely to commit crimes than native-born citizens.
Ah-HA! I was hoping you'd trot this argument out again. PLEASE go back and read that FBI study to which you linked again. As I've pointed out before, and as you've NEVER addressed. the study addresses crime rates among immigrants, it never addresses Illegal immigrants. Now, repeat after me: Immigration and Illegal Immigration are not the same issue.
There are a few hardened narco-trafficers, but there are also native-born narco-trafficers.
Please don't tell me that you honestly believe that the only criminal element sneaking across our borders is "hardened narco-trafficers". I know you're not stupid, but you certainly are accepting that assumption uncritically.
Despite what law enforcement says
Most law enforcement sources I have read contradict YOU, Mark, including the LAPD and most agencies on the West Coast and in Texas, where II's are the most prevalent. And the one source you rely on is irrelevant, since it addresses Immigrants, not illegal immigrants. The FBI, which SH quotes, seems reluctant to make the distinction and single out illegals. But others have offered some thoughts you might want to consider -- see the links in the comment by Lurch, where he is responding to this post.
the answer from the anti-illegal side is "nuh-uh."
I find it highly ironic that Smallholder would use this particular criticism of his opponents. In earlier discussions of the issue, when he was provided with evidence, either by me or by Naked Villainy readers like Polymath, that most economists who study the issue have concluded that even taking into consideration positive benefits of illegal immigration like lower prices on goods produced by II's and the (somewhat suspect) claim that they contribute to tax revenues on an equal level with legals, that illegal immigrants constitute an economic burden on the U.S. economy, Smallholder's response has been that these economists must not really be counting all the benefits (as if people become well-respected economists by practicing bad math), and that their findings are wrong -- in other words, "Nuh-uh" -- the very criticism he has of us for not kowtowing to his claims because of one (misquoted) FBI study. Sauce for the goose, my friend.
Others go back to the old canard: If they are willing to break one law, they will be automatically break another law.
Um, no. You've done this before in this debate -- taking an actual argument used by his opposition, exaggerating it, and then refuting the exaggeration. While I'm of a belief that this particular argument, while valid, is the weakest of the crime-related arguments in favor of tougher border and immigration enforcement, I'll address it nonetheless. The REAL argument, not Smallholder's strawman facsimile of it, is "If they are willing to break one law, and find that they can do so with impunity, many will be more incline to break another law." That's quite different from "all will automatically". Furthermore, I'd argue, that the truly evil criminal element in other countries, when they observe how easy it is for anyone to cross the border into the US illegally, avail themselves of that easy opportunity and use the porous border to prey both on the US and on their weaker, less violent fellow illegals.
This belief conflicts with reality - the government's own statistics show this.
NO, no they don't. The only government statistics you've referenced address immigrants in general, not illegals.
I'd like to take a moment to address more specifically the point made in that FBI study, and why I think in reality it comes closer to supporting my position than Mark's:
The report points out that statistically, immigrants are less likely to commit crime than native born US citizens. Quite frankly, not only do I not refute this claim, I am unsurprised by it. In a moment I'll explain why that conclusion seems not only plausible, but intuitive.
But first, I'd like to repeat and belabor the point that the study addresses immigrants, and that at no point does it make the claim that these statistics are for illegal immigrants. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that the crime rates among legal immigrants is even lower than the rate listed in the study, and the rates among illegals higher, and that the rates listed in the study either apply to only legal immigrants, or if they apply to both, are an average of two. I'd argue that not only is it unreasonable to think that the same rates of crime apply to both sets of immigrants, it is unfair to legal immigrants to suppose that they are only as law-abiding as their illegal immigrant counterparts. Here's why:
Legal immigrants to the US, whether temporary or permanent immigrants working towards citizenship, have, by the very act of going through the immigration process, submitted themselves to a very rigorous process of application, and must jump through some very strenuous hoops to get and to stay here. This tells me that they are people who are willing to play by the rules, no matter how hard and unfair those rules may (or may not) be. This speaks volumes as to their propensity for law abidingness. Furthermore, for the entirety of the time they are here as an immigrant, whether that be until they attain citizenship or until their visa expires, they are under the scrutiny of the INS. They do not have the same level of privacy and freedom of movement that a US citizen has, and they are not shadow entities like illegal immigrants. They know that if they break the law, they will most likely be deported and all of the effort they have gone to will be in vain. For this reason, it is logical and unsurprising that immigrants in general are more law-abiding than even native citizens.
Ilegal immigrants don't live under the same constraints. They are hiding from the government to begin with, and quite successfully, so it is easier to hide other crimes as well. Furthermore, they have snuck in once, they know they can do it again, so while they desire to avoid deportation, it doesn't hold the same level of loss and risk that it does for someone who has been working for years to stay here legally.
Of course, the study doesn't support or refute my assertions about illegals vs. legals, but then, neither does it support nor refute Smallholder's -- it merely states that immigrants in general have a lower crime rate. Good news for those of us who support legal immigrants, but useless for sorting out the illegal immigration debate.
As for the rest of the paragraph in question:
In addition, the "illegals are more lawless and will steal your car" types are also blind to their own hypocrisy. I would wager that the vast majority of our readers (yes, you!) have, at one time or another, committed a victimless crime. This does not make us all more likely to commit armed robbery. The Minister of Propaganda, for instance, has violated 43 states' restrictions on extra-marital hanky-panky. Yet he has not, to my knowledge, been knocking over liquor stores in his spare time. Absolutists who demand law enforcement and harsh punishment for every violation of law - "down with illegal border crossers for illegally crossing the borders" have yet to explain their plan for prosecuting the Minister of Propaganda's sluttishness. Or, for that matter, prosecuting Polymath and my "experimentation" with alternative fuels.
A couple points:
A) Illegal Immigration is not a victimless crime. Smallholder wants to believe it is, but he has yet to provide satisfactory proof of his claim that ILLEGAL immigrants (not immigrants in general) provide a net gain to the economy, and his argument that any American jobs lost to illegals are lst because American workers are lazy smacks of "The victim(s) had it coming, so it's as good as victimless".
B) Just because All A are B does not mean all B are A. While it is certainly true that not everyone who has at some point committed some minor offense goes on to become Babyface Nelson, I'd be willing to wager that most hardened criminals started out with much less extreme offenses -- very few people who've never commited any crime wake up one day and say "I think I'll knock over a 7-Eleven today". Furthermore, we're not talking about people who have committed an occasional criminal act, however minor. We're talking about people who are intentionally and actively pursuing a lifestyle that is in violation of the law. And while many may stop at that, the fact that they are allowed to do so means that they and we are developing a subculture that neither respects our laws nor fears the consequences of breaking them. It should come as no surprise that many decide to break other laws besides those pertaining to immigration.
Memento Moron, who refuses to accept the validity of the government statistics
I accept their validity, I refuse to accept, and believe I've quite ably refuted, their relevancy. Again, the statistics you used spoke of immigrants in general, not illegals.
using a weak piece of datum to reinforce his own (erroneous) belief in the lawlessness of illegals reminds me of a quote I heard from Joel Salatin this weekend:
"Science can never convince. We only believe science when it agrees with our heart."
True words.
Sort of like... refusing to accept the analyses of experts regarding hte economic impact?
Pot... Kettle...
As for statistic, again, find me some that address illegals specifically, then get back to me.
But let me try one more time to lift the veil from Memento's eyes. (I know that it is pointless, but hell, I'm a teacher.
Oh, a personal insult, nice. So much for burying the hatchet.
When the San Bernadino policemen, trained officers of the law, suspect someone is an illegal alien, they check to see if they are. Surprise, surprise, 500 of 600 suspected illegals are indeed illegal. Is this the whole sample of criminals?
Actually, yes. Sorry if I stated it poorly, but the report seemed to indicate that all incoming inmates pass by these screeners, and that 500 out of 600 was the ratio of illegals to all incoming inmates. If I misunderstood, and this is not the case, then I retract the point.
As for part "b," I'm gobsmacked that Memento would even bring this weak crap.
Correlation, my friend, does not imply causation.
Again, my fault for not presenting the report properly. The report did go onto say that the CDC had reason to believe there was causation. I'm not sure what that reason or reasons were, but the report made it clear that the CDC did believe that illegal immigrants were the primary source of the higher levels of the disease.
Didja miss me?
Until you decided to add personal insults and condescension to the mix, yes.
I still think you mean well. But you insist on repeating certain tropes that I have refuted, and then either acknowledge my point, but go on with the same error (such as your tendency to use Immigrant and illegal immigrant interchangeably), or ignore my counterpoint altogether (I pointed out months ago that the FBI report only addresses the general immigrant population). You've used Ad hominems (the "icky" argument), non sequiturs (Using data on immigrants in general to support your claims about illegal immigrants), and straw men (misrepresenting or exaggerating the position taken or argument made by my side of the argument and then refuting that exaggeration). You know, you call yourself a "squishy centrist", but with that debating style, you'd fit right in amongst the "hard left" at DU.
Musical Geography Question of the Day
Where are there people who care a little about me and won't let the poor boy down?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)