Illegal Immigration: Also Bad for Our Kids

August 31, 2007

Here’s an excellent comment on the US immigration policy that favors poorly educated illegal workers over legal PhDs.

I’ll never understand Bush & Co’s preference for drug-dealing, murdering, grade school drop-out foreign invaders over doctors from India, carpenters from Holland, engineers from Taiwan, etc.

Sure, somebody has to haul the garbage but we have our own drop-outs for that (and garbage men make good money anyway). Drives me nuts when they say “who will” then: “mow the lawn”, “take care of the kids”, “clean the pool”, etc.

Do it the way it was done when I was growing up:

Mow your own lawn, make your kids do it or pay the kid next door to do it.

If you’re the parent, YOU are supposed to raise the kids.

What pool?

If they bring up lettuce, I read here or elsewhere less than 2% of the illegals are actually working in agriculture. The rest are in construction, landscaping (and other well-paid jobs – and simultaneously collecting welfare), or drug dealing or other crime (and simultaneously collecting welfare).

Lettuce is not a strategically essential commodity. It’s not a life-or-death vegetable. Lettuce is NOT in the same category as bread, milk, and eggs (if those basics were disappearing, I still wouldn’t approve of illegal workers – in that case, I’d call for government subsidies or something). Those farmers/corporations growing lettuce need to

a) find Americans who will do the work (if needed, pay more)

b) invent a machine that will do the work

c) become more efficient (IOW, MODERNIZE!), or

d) grow something else!

Lettuce won’t disappear. Even if every lettuce grower disappeared*, lettuce wouldn’t. Sure, a grower may be paying Americans $25 an hour to pick it and it’s only affordable to rich-people restaurants but it’d still be out there – let it turn in to a Thanksgiving or Christmas-dinner item only, no big deal, that’s the way it works some times (think cranberries at Thanksgiving).

*I saw an episode of “How it’s Made” – an educational/entertainment show on the Discover channel a while back with *enormous* hydroponic greenhouses growing lettuce. I don’t recall any Mexicans, I recall lots of white folks, mostly women.

Sure, the initial investment would be high but (I know squat about farming) the yield looked to be *very* high, with the lettuce heads almost touching each other. Plus I assume pesticides would be a minor issue or a non-issue. Those lettuce “factories” are probably more expensive that $5-an-hour Mexicans, but they’d also likely be a lot cheaper than $25-an-hour Americans.

Another advantage would be you could build them in at least somewhat colder areas rather than high-cost-of-everything California.

Our kids earned their pocket money from an early age by hauling out the trash, doing the laundry, mowing the lawn, and even picking the odd lettuce. They learned basic economics, the value of money, teamwork, responsibility, how to plan and execute routine tasks, self-sufficiency, and respect for manual labor.

Having poor illegals do these jobs not only exploits them but deprives our kids of the chance to learn the basic skills they’ll need as adults.


It Depends On The Meaning Of The Word “Consensus”

August 30, 2007

The Global Warmers are going to need Bill Clinton to nuance this.

Survey: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming

In 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of research papers on climate change. Examining peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003, she found a majority supported the “consensus view,” defined as humans were having at least some effect on global climate change. Oreskes’ work has been repeatedly cited, but as some of its data is now nearly 15 years old, its conclusions are becoming somewhat dated.

Actually, Oreskes’ was wildly misreported. But now (my formatting and emphasis):

Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007…

Of 528 total papers on climate change,

– only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus.

– If one considers “implicit” endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%.

– However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright,

– the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no “consensus.”

The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here.

Not only does it not require supporting that man is the “primary” cause of warming, but it doesn’t require any belief or support for “catastrophic” global warming.

In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.

Get out of that.


America’s Most Unwanted

August 30, 2007

Have been helpfully identified by Ms. Clinton’s felonious fund raiser.

The story (my format, ellipsis, and emphasis);

Sen. Hillary Clinton‘s presidential campaign announced late Wednesday that it will give all money donated by a leading contributor to charity after it was revealed that the donor, Norman Hsu, was a fugitive from the law…

Among those who have said they will return or donate money raised by Hsu are:

(Sen. John) Kerry (of Massachusetts)…

Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts…

(Sen.) Barbara Boxer (of California)…

(Sen.) Dianne Feinstein of California…

Al Franken, a Senate candidate in Minnesota…

(Rep.) Michael Honda (of California)…

(Rep.) Doris Matsui of California…

Rep. Joe Sestak of Pennsylvania….

Sen. Barack Obama‘s political action committee.

There’s a nice Pinter play here, in which the doomed protagonist is condemned to spend eternity locked up with this collection of liars, appeasers, and killers.


Cat’s Paws

August 29, 2007

For those of us struggling to explain why the US is cited as being more corrupt than the UK, here’s a possible explanation.

Transparency International measures the corruption levels of pols and public employees across the world using the reports of foreigners doing business there. The latest report is here, and shows the Brits at 8.6, and the US down at 7.3, even worse than France! – the higher the score, the less corrupt.

Of course many corrupt countries can be splendid to live in – for example Italy, which scores 4.9.

Still, I never encountered corruption in 25 years of working in the US and with US companies.

Seems I should have looked under the flight path from SFO:

One of the biggest sources of political donations to Hillary Rodham Clinton is a tiny, lime-green bungalow that lies under the flight path from San Francisco International Airport.

Six members of the Paw family, each listing the house at 41 Shelbourne Ave. as their residence, have donated a combined $45,000 to the Democratic senator from New York since 2005, for her presidential campaign, her Senate re-election last year and her political action committee. In all, the six Paws have donated a total of $200,000 to Democratic candidates since 2005, election records show.

It isn’t obvious how the Paw family is able to afford such political largess…

The Paws’ political donations closely track donations made by Norman Hsu, a wealthy New York businessman in the apparel industry who once listed the Paw home as his address, according to public records. Mr. Hsu is one of the top fund-raisers for Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign. He has hosted or co-hosted some of her most prominent money-raising events.

Indeed.

UPDATE:

It gets worse:

A Democratic fundraiser who has raised $1 million for presidential candidate Hillary Clinton says he has done nothing wrong and has asked no favors in return, but Norman Hsu didn’t mention that he’s a wanted man.

A California prosecutor says Hsu pleaded no contest to grand theft, was sentenced to three years in prison and then disappeared, The Los Angeles Times reported Wednesday.

He will no doubt claim he was sentenced out of context.


The Dark Heart Of England (Part 3)

August 29, 2007

This looks at the perps in the uniquely English practice of forced adoption.

England has a secret legal process that seizes newborns from their mothers for adoption. The law gives the mothers none of the protections it grants murderers, and grievously harms mothers and kids since behavioral genetics says kids are best raised by kin.

Here we identify the perpetrators and their level of complicity, starting with a ruling by the Brit equivalent of the Supreme Court (my emphasis to highlight the passive case):

The mother has a long history of problems with alcohol, although she has also had periods of stability and sobriety. When not abusing alcohol she is able to look after her children properly and to establish good relationships with them. Unfortunately, because of her problems, they have all suffered periods of separation from her, including periods in care.

The older three were all the subject of care orders when Nina was born.

Because of the mother’s history and abuse of alcohol during the pregnancy, Nina was placed in foster care when she left hospital soon after the birth.

Note the only harm noted by the judges is the kids being separated from their mother, and she’s accused only of “problems with alcohol”, which is not an offense. It’s also subjective – remember the old saw that an alcoholic is someone who drinks more than their doctor.

Of course these kids didn’t “suffer” care orders, the following people hurt them, in descending order of complicity

Social services employees.

Consultants who testified against the woman, maybe regarding her “alcohol abuse”.

The Judge and his support team in the secret Family Court

The pols who have passed the laws creating this system and the government workers that keep it ticking.

Next case (my ellipsis and emphasis):

Social services’ recommendation that the baby should be taken from…a 22-year-old charity worker who has five A-levels and a degree in neuroscience, was based in part on a letter from a paediatrician she has never met.

Hexham children’s services, part of Northumberland County Council, said the decision had been made because Miss Lyon was likely to suffer from Munchausen’s Syndrome by proxy, a condition unproven by science in which a mother will make up an illness in her child, or harm it, to draw attention to herself.

Under the plan, a doctor will hand the newborn to a social worker, provided there are no medical complications. Social services’ request for an emergency protection order – these are usually granted – will be heard in secret in the family court at Hexham magistrates on the same day.

Note, the mother’s crime is again subjective, and in this case junk science.

So add to the list of perps the maternity unit medical staff who take the baby when it’s born.

Then we must add the adoption agencies that advertise these purloined kids for profit.

And finally add those couples who fail to ensure that the kid they adopt has not been taken against its mother’s will.

So how many unique perps?

In 1995, about 800 babies were taken each year, and its seems plausible these were really at risk from their parents (psychopaths can be parents too). During Blair’s rule, an extra about 1,500 babies have been taken each year, and it’s reasonable to ascribe this to his incentivizing adoption.

The now-suppressed YouTube recording identified 4 social services perps. The court itself will have about 5 people who are complicit. Add three at the maternity unit and 1 expert witness, and we get a total of 13. Then add 2 adoption agency staff, 2 adopters who didn’t check the provenance of the baby, and management overhead of 50% to get a total of 25 per baby.

Over the 1500 babies that’s 37,500 perps. But many will be repeat offenders, so allow a factor of 4 overlap, yielding a perp core of 9,375. To which we can add a few hundred pols and central government workers who fly top-cover for this system.

So all this evil is likely the work of just 10,000 individuals!

Since that no other nation (possibly excepting Portugal) takes babies unless their is clear evidence of physical abuse by the parents, what enables these 10,000 English monsters to operate?

Despotism

This occurs when people operate without check because they have good jobs for life. My guess is about 40% of people in this position become despots.

Despotism probably afflicts many Family Court judges.

Masculinity

Mrs G says that no-one who has born a child would take another woman’s kid, and thinks the primary perps must be men, supported by childless women.

Psychopathy

Remember 3% of the population enjoy hurting people, and they’ll gravitate to jobs where they can do that without check

My guess is the bulk of the social service employees perps are psychopaths. They’re quite poorly paid, so don’t qualify for despotism, and many are women (three of the four in the YouTube tape were female, and the male was a classic psychopath).

We conclude the main characteristic of these 10,000 or so is psychopathy, tainted with a bit of male despotism. The Brit population contains about 1.8 million psychopaths, so there are plenty to fill the available slots.

But that doesn’t explain why the English are unique in allowing this – after all, every society has the same 3%.

And it’s not a small evil – Italians, French and folks in all the other nations we’ve lived in would explode with violence if anything remotely similar was attempted in their countries. Somehow their sane 97% keeps the evil 3% under control.

So we have to look for weaknesses in the English character, and that’s the subject of the next post.

For those depressed by reading this far, take heart!

In our final posts we’ll explain how abused English mothers can use asymmetric warfare to keep their kids.


How Junk Science Makes Our Kids Poor

August 29, 2007

Governments’ use of Junk Science makes the general population disdainful of all science, Junk and honest. So less kids become scientists, moving scientific progress from our societies that distort science to those that don’t.

The most damaging distortion is a failure to quantify – here’s a Brit example:

Shocking pictures highlighting the danger of smoking are to be put on cigarette packets to try and persuade people to kick the habit…

One picture is expected to show a woman with an empty pram alongside the warning that smoking reduces fertility.

Another is likely to warn that smoking causes impotence by showing a drooping cigarette to symbolise erectile dysfunction.

The problem with this advert is that it defies common sense – until the 1960s, smoking was the rule rather than the exception, and yet:

In 2004 the UK fertility rate was 1.77 children per woman, considerably lower than the 1960s peak of 2.95 children…

Most young Brit families know that a) they have less kids than their parents and grandparents and b) said parents and grandparents smoked. Our household jokes that Mrs G’s smoking and drinking while pregnant with Gandalf junior stunted his growth to a mere 6′ 7″.

The second damaging distortion is pols politicizing science to increase tax and regulation.

This is another Brit example, on of course the Global Warming scam.

The opposition Tories just dropped their deranged Greenfly project (my ellipsis):

(The Torry leadership has) rejected a widely ridiculed proposal by David Cameron to restrict people to one return short-haul flight per year at a standard rate of tax and charge more for subsequent aircraft trips.

Only to replace it with another, even nuttier scheme (my emphasis):

Plans that would curb drastically the number of flights taken by British travellers are being considered by the Conservatives with new taxes on air travel and a halt to airport expansion.

Short-haul flights would receive particular attention: VAT would be levied on fuel for domestic flights for the first time and airlines would be forced to give over airport slots to long-haul trips. All flights would be subject to a separate per-flight tax based on the amount of CO2 generated, replacing the air passenger duty and shifting the burden from passengers to airlines, although this might force up ticket prices anyway.

This entire policy is based entirely on the views of 52 scientists:

…the widely touted “consensus” of 2,500 scientists on the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is an illusion: Most of the panelists have no scientific qualifications, and many of the others object to some part of the IPCC’s report.

The Associated Press reported recently that only 52 climate scientists contributed to the report’s “Summary for Policymakers.”

(The link is an excellent demolition of the scam by Fred Singer, Emeritus Professor of Environmental Science at UVa).

The Brit public might be inclined to shrug off one mistake, but after decades of false alarms (Global Cooling, mass epidemics of herpes/AIDS/CJD/SARS), they now conclude all scientists are dishonest.

So smart Brit and American kids decide to be lawyers or hackers rather than scientists.

And that hands the future to the many Asian nations that have a stricter regard for the truth.


Muscular Christianity

August 28, 2007

You probably saw this story, but may have missed the robust demonstration of Victorian values.

…four Fijian missionaries were on a proselytising mission on the island of New Britain when they were massacred by Tolai tribesmen in 1878.

They were murdered on the orders of a local warrior chief, Taleli, and were then cooked and eaten…

Thousands of villagers attended a reconciliation ceremony near Rabaul, the capital of East New Britain province, once notorious for the ferocity of its cannibals.

Their leaders apologised for their forefather’s taste for human flesh to Fiji’s high commissioner to Papua New Guinea.

So far, so touchy-feely.

But the unfortunate Fijians were under the command of a doughty British clergyman, and he was not amused:

He reluctantly agreed to launch a punitive expedition, ordering his men to burn down villages implicated in the murders and destroy wooden canoes.

At least 10 tribe members blamed for the attack were killed in an area known as Blanche Bay. Rev Brown claimed the raids made the region safe for Europeans.

In a letter to the general secretary of the London Missionary Society he wrote: “The natives respect us more than they did, and as they all acknowledge the justice of our cause they bear us no ill will.”

That’s the stuff.