The Washington Post reports that teen-poet, Mattie Stepanek, has passed away. Is it too churlish of me to point out that this teen's poetry was about what you'd expect from a kid? Sure, he chose his words as if he were 15 rather than 13, but let's not pretend we're putting down, say, Seamus Heaney for his stuff. Kudos to a kid with a tough life, but had he lived, his future was as a copywriter for Hallmark, not poet laureate.
Although the court case on everybody's mind is the Supreme Court's enemy combatant fiasco, Nathan Newman says the most important case of the last few years is a decision that allows anti-consumerists to use images of Barbie without Mattel's permission. Newman says it's not the intellectual property outcome that matters so much as the award of legal fees to the prevailing party.
It was obvious from the start that Mattel's suit was nothing more than harassment, and the Court's decision not to let Mattel bankrupt the defendant was an important part of making sure Mattel didn't get away with using the judicial system to create injustice. Newman applauds such awards, which penalize companies that use their legal resources to bully defendants who can't afford legal battles.
In England, it is common for the loser in litigation to pay the costs of the victor. This is done not just in cases of legal harassment, and the awards are rarely (if ever) punitive. A system where the loser pays has strong incentives to avoid being adjudicated the loser. Many have said America would benefit from such a system-- it would discourage frivolous suits and encourage people to settle instead of gambling on a jury. The Mattel case is a step in that direction.
It's probably a good step, although I'm not sure we should go so far as the English. There is something to be said for not adding the uncertainty of legal fees to the gamble of relying on a jury. It is only as trials progress toward narrowing down the uncertainty that settlement occurs, and a system that penalizes the loser also adds the uncertainty of legal fees in addition to the usual liability. And for every holdout penalized there will be a litigant with unreasonable faith in his case who will only be encouraged to hold out.
So I'm excited about the Mattel case, but cautious nonetheless. It will be interesting to see how far this goes and how well it survives.
Polis | 0 Writebacks | #
I attended an ACLU screening of Fahrenheit 9/11 last night. Moore was there and after the movie he answered a few questions. Here are the highlights:
- Moore was asked whether he believes Bush had foreknowledge of 9/11 or perhaps even had a hand in planning or executing the 9/11 attacks. He answered that based on the evidence he'd seen, the worst you could say is that some people in government (perhaps including Bush) knew something terrible was going to be attempted sometime soon and that it would look like 9/11. He kept saying "based on the evidence", which implied that he was keeping an open mind and didn't think such planning to be beyond Bush's capacity for evil.
- In answering a question about John Kerry, Moore veered into a rant about Nader. He repeated all the Democratic talking points about Nader's ego, coalition-abandonment, lies about campaigning in swing states, etc. He actually got quite agitated about it and made it clear he felt Nader had personally lied to him. He seemed quite sincere on this point.
- Later, he related a story about how screened F9/11 for a few hundred film students between 18 and 20 years old. After the movie he asked them how many of them were planning on voting for Nader. About half their hands went up. It scared and surprised Moore because film students aren't exaclty far left Che-lovers. Most film students I know are too narcissistic to be political. It also scared him because he'd just shown them a movie that was all about the need to beat Bush, and if that didn't sway the kids, nothing will. Moore wasn't the only person scared. John Kerry's daughter attended incognito and it scared her witless.
- Moore is clearly aware that his movie preaches to the choir. He doesn't have much hope of winning hearts and minds in conservative areas. His goal is to energize the base and make sure enraged lefties show up on election day. He talked about combatting cynicism and giving people a reason to vote. I thought this was a little odd because F9/11 is the most cynical movie I've ever seen.
- This film is going to be seen by a lot of people. F9/11 opened in two theaters in New York and set one-day records in both of them. It's presales for this weekend are almost the equal of Harry Potter 3's presales. In one of life's great ironies, the Carlyle Group, which Moore attacks in the film just purchased a part-ownership in the Loews movie chain, a theater carrying the film. Moore wondered if they would keep the film in theaters but guessed they probably would.
Overall, my opinion of Moore improved from seeing him in person. He wasn't nearly as obnoxious and egotistical as I thought he would be. He had a self-deprecating sense of humor, making fun of his own failings, weight, wit, etc. And he treated all but one question with absolute respect, even the ridiculous wingnut questions.
Over all, the movie is an impressive piece of propaganda. It doesn't really add up to much of an indictment of the Bush administration, but you are definitely left with the feeling that Bush and co. are bad guys who should be run out of town on a rail. It's a good bit of cheerleading and judging from audience reactions (a ten-minute standing ovation? please.), it will do much to rouse the rabble on the left.
Go see it. It's an historical bit of election-year propaganda and no matter who wins in November, Moore has already earned a victory of his own.
Polis | 0 Writebacks | #
You would think a guy whose name means "the frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex," would have shit for brains, but it seems Rick Santorum got it right. Letting gays marry is leading to all sorts of man on dog action. The beastly matrimony spreads beyond just Massachusetts, though. It's even reached India.
Polis | 0 Writebacks | #
I stopped drinking coffee a few years ago to reduce my caffeine intake. I didn't bother switching to decaf because, well, decaf is to coffee as piss is to beer. It tastes like shit, you get no buzz, and your friends will mock you endlessly for drinking it.
The reason decaf tastes so bad is that the process of removing the caffeine also removes much of the taste. The only way to get a decent decaf is to grow coffee plants that don't have the caffeine in them in the first place.
Now, through the wonders of genetic engineering, scientists are doing exactly that. They are growing decaf coffee. They've basically knocked out the genes that create caffeine in the plant. Of course, these coffee beans are GMO, so if you're some ecoterror hippy shade-grown whackjob, you're out of luck.
Or are you? The frankenfood coffee guys have competition from the earth-friendly, natural Gaia coffee guys. They've discovered coffee plants in the wild that don't produce caffeine. They've started cross-breeding with their other coffee plants, which seems a lot like genetic engineering to me, but whatever.
So there it is-- you can have big, scary trans-national conglomerate decaf or you can have patchouli beans. Can Middle East peace be far behind?
Via Apostropher.
In a stunning victory for humanity, the New York State Court of Appeals swept death row clean of its inmates. The Court ruled that the sentencing instructions required by statute violate the state constitution. Read the ruling. It's wonderful.
State law provides a default sentence in cases of capital murder. If a jury deadlocks and can't decide between sentencing a convcited murderer to death and sentencing him to life without parole, the default sentence is imposed. That sentence is life in prison with a parole eligibility after 20 to 25 years.
This sentencing scheme has been criticized because the default sentence is more lenient than either of the two sentences available to the jury. When jurors are told of the default option, they impose death sentences where they otherwise would not because people switch positions to avoid deadlock and thus avoid giving the murderer any possibility of parole. The statute is thus thought to coerce jurors into imposing death sentences where otherwise they would not. (It is possible juries sometimes are coerced into not imposing death sentences, but of course that isn't unconstitutional.)
Because the sentencing rule has this coercive effect on juries, the Court is concerned that we've sentenced people to death even when they haven't met the legal standard for deserving a death sentence. In other words, our death sentences are unreliable.
Unreliable death sentences are the undoing of our capital punishment system, and our state constitution rightly rightly voids them where they can be found. In this case, the sentencing rule touches every capital case in New York, and so all four inmates will be spared.
While this is a victory for death penalty opponents, it won't be difficult for Albany to pass another, constitutional statute. The legislature and the Governor are all pro-death. And the Court of Appeals is not particularly against the death penalty, so I'm sure New York will go back to its killing ways soon enough. Even if Pataki loses re-election, my guess is his Democratic replacement will be quite hesitant to undo the death penalty.
Still, a victory for the day is very much a victory and we should celebrate where we can. If you're very much against a renewed approach to capital punishment, let your state Senator and Assemblyperson know.
Update: TalkLeft has more.
Polis | 0 Writebacks | #
I blogged about New York's slow crawl towards legalizing medical marijuana and noted that while an Assembly bill had been introduced, no complementary bill yet existed in the Senate. That has changed. S4805, introduced by Valmanette Montgomery, is the mirror of the Assembly bill.
As I mentioned, it is Pataki who is the real obstacle to these bills. Call him at 518-474-8390 and urge him to support A5796 and S4805. Although the legislature just ended their session, they will be back in special session to pass all the bills they forgot (like the budget). So there's still time. Call Pataki today.
You can read the whole bill on the Assembly website.
Polis | 0 Writebacks | #
Apostropher ruminates on the debates. He anticipates Ralph Nader complaining about being shut out of the debates and concludes that Nader lacks the support necessary to get on stage. He says if we let Nader in we have to let in every two-bit half-ass clown candidate with zero support and no platform.
There is a way to draw a really simple line between candidates who should be in the debate and candidates who should not. If a candidate is on the ballot in enough states that he could theoretically garner the electoral votes to win it, they should let him debate.
Any candidate who is on the ballot in enough states to contend for 270 electoral votes would need money and organization in a bunch of states, which demonstrates seriousness and some measure of support. Even if the candidate only registered in the biggest states, he would need 11 states to hit 270.
If this isn't enough, we can draw the line higher, but it is the only objective way to measure a candidate's candidateness. No matter where you draw the line, very few presidential candidates are on the ballot in enough states to qualify, so this would reduce the number of debaters to just a handful.
Politicians always complain that there will be too many people on stage, that it will be too confusing and take the focus from the "real" candidates. But primary debates often feature as many as 8 or 9 candidates and the viewers are smart enough to laugh at Al Sharpton and listen to John Kerry. I doubt those viewers would suddenly forget how to differentiate between Nader and Bush just because they stand on the same stage.
Some of America's greatest and most enduring policy shifts have come because of third-party pressure. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid wouldn't exist without third parties. All our beloved environmental protections wouldn't exist without third parties. I'm told Reagan's tax reform started as third-party pressure. Just because these parties have scant support doesn't mean we should let them push their ideas. The natural flow of politics and policy depends on giving third parties their due.
Polis | 3 Writebacks | #
How to get out of Gitmo? Lie. Let America fudge your status, your past, your history and your crimes. Because they're only letting you out if they can cover their asses.
Polis | 0 Writebacks | #
Say Uncle posts about a man killed during a no-knock raid. The search and arrest warrants that underlied the raid were later tossed out by a court. Another innocent victim of the war on drugs.
It's really simple. Execution of no-knock warrants will, with statistical certainty, result in lots of innocent deaths. Bursting in to people's homes ready to shoot anything that moves is a really good way to kill people. It's not a good way to apprehend people.
And the people killed are often innocent. Sometimes it's because the police kick in the wrong door. Often it's bad information or uncorroborated tips. In many cases it's just that criminals live with people that aren't criminals. That person you shoot in the dark after kicking in the door often turns out not to be the suspect but instead it's his daughter. And other times, the suspect is guilty of some relatively minor, nonviolent crime, one we would never punish with death in any other circumstance.
We should stop this no-knock nonsense. Or we should raise the bar extremely high so that police need to show both the necessity of such tactics, certainty of guilt, and the ability to eliminate risk to innocents.
Polis | 3 Writebacks | #
As anybody who ever reads this site knows, Judges, who are increasingly constricted by mandatory minimum sentencing laws, find themselves unable to inject any rationality into sentencing, especially for drug offenders. The system is so messed up that major heavies are getting lighter sentences than nickel and dime baggers dealing to feed their habits.
The problem is that judges lack the discretion to tailor senteces to the criminals and the situations. We let ourselves get so outraged by a handfull of overly lenient sentences that we decided to screw everybody who comes before the court (unless they're rich or famous) and doesn't roll over for the prosecutor.
One judge decided to speak out. After being forced to hand out several irrational sentences, he wrote a memo in which he decries cutting deals with cold-blooded killers and kingpins to put away cornermen. He said the sentences were unconstitutional and asked that a higher court use its authority to reverse them. He believes he lacks that power.
He might be right, but he is not entirely without control here. Our system has a mechanism for dealing with railroaded defendants and unfair sentencing: the jury. The whole reason the jury system is enshrined in our constitution is because colonial defendants were being railroaded by the British judicial system. The jury was put in place to prevent injustice by giving it the power to refuse to cooperate with a corrupt and rigged court.
Judges who find their hands tied should educate juries about jury nullification. It would be messy and ugly and we run the risk of undersentencing, but if juries started rebelling, we'd have sentencing reform within the year.
Via Drug War Rant and TalkLeft.
Polis | 1 Writebacks | #
The Mo has an interview with Michael Lewis, author of Moneyball. Moneyball is slowly changing the way baseball evaluates, selects and compensates players.
The interview has some great bits of baseball information, including musings on the Red Sox curse, fans and speculation on trading Nomar or Pedro. Lewis also talks about how the ideas he exposed in Moneyball are spreading beyond baseball. People in football and basketball are interested, but more interestingly, people in Hollywood are interested.
Quantifying talent goes against everything we learn in kindergarten, but the ability to determine a person's true contribution is immensely valuable to any effort.
Via The Morning News, comes news of a Target promo. 5000 BTU air conditioners for $75, being sold in the street off the back of a truck in Herald Square. Tomorrow afternoon. Hella cool hella cheap.
The stunt will be repeated on Saturday at 2nd Ave and 23rd Street.
Maybe it's just me, but I find it a bit unseemly that President Bush refers to America's most recent terror victim, Paul Johnson, Jr., by his first name.
Polis | 1 Writebacks | #
Although he hasn't actually come out and said so, it seems that Say Uncle is now a father.
Uncle didn't see fit to provide the usual data on name, sex, weight, and future occupation, so it appears that he is already shirking his fatherly duties. I've let him know we all expect pictures of wrinkly beans as soon as the shock wears off.
Why not head on over and congratulate him?
Assembly bill 5796 is an act "to amend the public health law, in relation to medical use of marihuana". It proposes a pretty straightforward scheme to allow medical marijuana in "certified medical use" to treat "certified patients" with "serious" medical conditions.
Under the bill, doctors can certify patients as having life-threatening medical conditions (or symptoms/complications of such conditions) that are most effectively treated with marijuana. The doctor can then write a prescription for up to 30 days worth of marijuana. The patient or her caregiver can then possess, manufacture or buy marijuana for the duration of the prescription. They can smoke anywhere that isn't public. Pretty easy.
Patients get their weed from registered pharmacies, government agencies or private facilities (like cannabis clubs). There are a bunch of rules about preventing diversion of marijuana and paying some small licensing fees, and the funniest one is the requirement of a label in either uppercase or boldface type declaring marijuana to be a : 'CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE, DANGEROUS UNLESS USED AS DIRECTED'.
Over all, this is a pretty sane bill. It provides marijuana with a prescription to people that need it. My only complaint is that the bill only helps people with life-threatening conditions. Either that term is going to be read very widely or the law is written too narrowly.
Governor Pataki is the main man who decides whether this happens or not. If you think this bill is a good idea, give him a call and urge him to do the right thing: 518-474-8390. The Assembly bill is A. 5796. There is no Senate bill yet.
Polis | 1 Writebacks | #
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has reportedly promised to bring the Hate Amendment to a vote in the Senate some time next week. There's no way he has the votes, but Americablog says we should call Frist and let him know how we feel about bigotry, just to be sure: (202) 224-3344.
Oh, and Virginia is for Haters.
Polis | 0 Writebacks | #
Alex Tabarrok, over at Marginal Revolution, discusses drug patents and argues against reducing patent terms or grey market drugs:
Price controls or other such plans such as reimportation may bring cheaper pharmaceuticals for a short period but we will then have a much smaller supply of new drugs forever. Only the shortsighted would buy that prescription.
He adivses patience and for people to be happy with last decade's drugs, which, when talking to people who can't afford life-saving drugs, is sort of like advising them to fuck off and die.
Even if you believe that Big Pharma needs its current high rate of return to spur further research, there's no reason why that return has to be paid mostly by Americans instead of spreading the cost more evenly across many populations.
America provides the infrastructure that its medical research community is built upon. We educate, fund, and support the people that produce these miracle drugs. Our reward for doing that shouldn't be to pay higher prices for these drugs than the rest of the world.
Polis | 3 Writebacks | #
Kevein over at Lean Left thinks Joyce is overrated. I agree and put Joyce in the same box as Faulkner and Woolf-- self-indulgent writers who seek less to communicate than to show off their ability to play with words.
Yeah, yeah, I know. I only say that because I don't understand their genius, etc. But genius isn't always valuable. These folks might have been operating at superhuman level, but given that their art is all about communicating with humans, I'd say that's a weakness rather than a strength.
Drug War Rant and TalkLeft happily report that a medical marijuana bill is close to passing the state legislature.
The fact that this bill might make it out of committee is amazing. Albany is famous for being run by "3 guys in a room". Those guys are Speaker Silver, Majority Leader Bruno and Governor Pataki. 99% of bills never see a vote unless those three guys have already decided to pass and sign the legislation. When a bill is even debated in the legislature, it makes the front page of the NYTimes metro section.
If the House and Senate are going to vote on this, it would usually mean Pataki is already willing to sign it. But in this case, that doesn't seem to hold. Pataki hasn't quite signed on to the bill, saying only that he woud "review" it. That's Pataki-speak for "I don't want to sign it, but I won't take a stand unless I'm forced to".
The Governor's mixed signals aren't too mysterious. While medical marijuana is a no-brainer in New York, enthusiastically waving the weed flag wouldn't help his national ambitions.
It will be interesting to see what he does next, but the only way I see him signing this bill is if he thinks it will become a big deal in the election next year. And that means he needs to see some public outcry on this issue.
Remember, this is the guy that prevented reform of the Rockefeller drug laws, standing against demonstrations, critical editorials, and opinion polls. It's going to take a lot for him to bow on this issue.
So call Governor Pataki and tell him to get behind medical marijuana: 518-474-8390. The Assembly bill is A. 5796. There is no Senate bill yet.
Polis | 0 Writebacks | #
A cartoon that tries to capture the complexity of loving Reagan, despite his flaws.
From Orangebones.
Polis | 0 Writebacks | #
Drug War Rant contemplates Manhattan DA Robert Morgenthau's support for medical marijuana in New York. I'm a big fan of Morgenthau, but unfortunately, his ability to influence policy and legislation is fairly low. His support is good for the fliers and brochures, but it doesn't raise my hopes that New York will make a sane move on drug policy.
As a side note and an illustration of Morgenthau's lack of power, I note that Morgenthau has spoken in favor of reform of New York's notoriously draconian Rockefeller sentencing laws.
Update: Drug War Rant has more on the support lent by Robert Morgenthau and Montel Williams. Morgenthau is well-respected and his opinion carries a lot of weight, but he doesn't swing votes, money or jobs, so he doesn't have much to bring to the table except his long record of emminence, liberalism and just being right on almost every issue.
Polis | 4 Writebacks | #
Via Dean Esmay comes news of a new, high-tech uniform, soon to be standard Army issue. Dean thinks they're ugly but practical. I agree that they could use some tailoring, but am impressed with all the thought that has apparently gone into their design.
One aspect of the uniform concerns me. A soldier's name, rank and identifying patches are attached to the new uniform with velcro instead of being sewn on. According to the article, "This spares troops the hassle of sewing on, and later removing, patches. The Velcro also allows all the patches and such to be removed before the uniforms are sent to the laundry."
While convenient, I believe identifying information about a soldier should not be so easily removed. I've seen police with tape-concealed badge numbers beat people up. I've been threatened by police after asking for badge numbers. And the cops who don't engage in this behavior enable the bad cops by turning a blind eye to such activities. For victims, the lack of badge numbers and identifying information makes it impossible to address abuse.
America's professional army is rightly the envy of the world. Although imperfect, our ability to curb corruption and abuse is unmatched. Accountability is crucial to deterring bad behavior, and we should be wary of so easily providing soldiers anonymity.
Polis | 3 Writebacks | #
After a bitter and protracted legal battle, the US and Iraq have worked out a joint custody arrangement regarding Saddam Hussein. The agreement calls for Iraq to have full legal custody over Hussein while America maintains physical possession of his body and full torture rights. Iraq will be permitted to visit two weekends a month and gets to incarcerate Hussein on alternate Ramadans. America will pretend to consult Iraq in all important matters related to Hussein's care and interrogation.
Rumor has it, Iraq is working on a similar arrangement with America for custody of its oil.
Polis | 0 Writebacks | #
Today we have the happy task of welcoming Simply Appalling to the blogroll. Dry wit, pithy prose, and incisive logic make for good blogging. We're looking into getting some of that stuff around here.
Via TalkLeft.
Via the Lean, Mean Left, comes news that Rep. Chris Bell plans to pursue ethics charges against House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. DeLay's forces of concentrated evil have promised to fight back with... mysterious ethics charges of their own.
Bell accuses DeLay of
soliciting campaign contributions in return for legislative favors; laundering illegal campaign contributions through a Texas political action committee; and improperly involving a federal agency in a Texas partisan matter.
DeLay accuses... unnamed Democrats of unmentionable crimes. Clearly he must have some invisible proof of unspeakable horror.
I can't wait for this battle royal of moral superiority. It will be a massive cockfight that leaves no congress critter standing. I could really get behind the prospect of a cleaner, vermin-free house, with the exposure of corrupt leaders of both parties.
Bring it on!
Polis | 0 Writebacks | #
Wow, a gun question on which I stand to the right of Say Uncle. Good thing my health care plan covers therapy.
Say Uncle believes that it's wrong for homeowners to shoot fleeing intruders. I think it's more complicated than that.
Standard doctrine says the justification of self defense only applies when you're actually defending yourself. When the threat has ended, if you keep hurting somebody, your violence is not excused and you are liable under both criminal and civil law.
The hard part, though, is knowing when a threat has ended. The law uses an objective, reasonable standard to determine when you should stop shooting.
But that's half retarded if you ask me. Here's a guy who is home at night and somebody kicks in his door. He's been thrust into a confusing and dangerous situation. He doesn't know who, how many, or how dangerous are his attackers. He doesn't have an objective or reasonable grasp of the boundaries involved in his danger. All he knows is that somebody invaded his home.
In such situations, you can't hold a person to objective, reasonable standards. You have to hold him to the standard of somebody full of adrenaline and in fear for his life. You can't expect people defending their homes (and perhaps their families) to be reasonable because those people are physically incapable of being reasonable. This incapacity being caused by the intruder, it is proper for the intruder to suffer the effects of the problem he created.
The intruder created a dangerous situation. Getting shot while fleeing is part of the risk of invading somebody's home, and I have no sympathy for him.
Polis | 6 Writebacks | #
Everybody has an opinion on the cigarette tax hikes, and that opinion is that the new taxes suck (unless you're some government flunky trying to squeeze every last dime from the yellowed fingers of addicts). And I agree that the tax hikes suck, but I'm reminded of a different kind of cigarette tax, which I call the Pack Tax.
In many bodegas in NYC, you can buy single cigarettes for around 50 cents each. You put down two quarters and the man behind the counter hands you a Newport, then lights it for you with a lighter he keeps by the register for just this purpose.
The young men that hang on the corner in front of the bodega smoke all night long, and they go into the store and buy their Newports one at a time instead of by the pack. They can do the math. They know it's a ripoff. And yet they persist in what looks like economically irrational behavior.
But of course it's not irrational. As it turns out, buying 20 cigarettes at fifty cents apiece works out to be cheaper than buying a pack for $7.00. This is because whenever any of them has more than one cigarette, the other few guys on the corner each bums a smoke. If he only has one, he can say "Sorry, man, it's my last one."
The "Pack Tax" must be more than 6 cigarettes a pack, which erases any savings of buying a whole pack at a time. I'd be curious as to know how much the bodega could charge for individual cigarettes before buying a pack and paying the tax became an attractive option. I suppose it would depend on how many guys were hanging on the corner that night.
Of course, being rational, economical people, a few of these guys were constantly trying to reap the savings of buying a pack while avoiding the Pack Tax. When nobody was looking one would run to the counter and demand a pack of Newports. "Hurry, hurry," he'd say. He'd throw down exact change and shove the pack in his pants. Then he'd buy a single cigarette, calmly wait for a light and saunter outside. During the rest of the night, he'd sneak his smokes from the pack while pretending to buy them from the bodega.
Bard DeLong reports that Seymour Hersh, who has seen more Abu Ghraib horror documentation than anybody, says the stuff we know about is only the tip of the spear. The stuff we don't know about is the abuse of women and children and secret CIA prisons.
It might be theoretically possible to invade and hold a hostile country in a humane manner, but nobody has ever done it. When we beat the drums for the next war, we shouldn't pretend we can magically solve this problem. Because we can't and we won't. We should honestly factor this kind of abuse into our calculation and force the hawks to justify war in terms of these costs.
Polis | 0 Writebacks | #
No, no, no, Iyad Allawi is a freedom fighter! If you want to be uncharitable you can call him a saboteur. But until he's no longer of any use to America, the one thing you can't call him is a terrorist.
Polis | 0 Writebacks | #
Marginal Revolution looks at immigration data and concludes that there is no immigrant backlash in America. We're still taking them and they're still coming, whether they be pink, brown, yellow or fruit stripe gum.
What I think is interesting is where in the US these folks are headed. A majority are headed to California, New York, Florida or Texas, which is a good indication that those are the states with the jobs and the abilty to absorb immigrants. Indeed, most people would say those states depend on immigrant labor to keep their economies going. If you look at which cities these folks were headed to, Los Angeles and New York City absorbed the most peope.
The hot new destination in 2002 was the Dakotas, collectively drawing 36.5% more immigrants than they did in 2001. The big loser was New Mexico, which attracted 34.7% fewer immigrants than it did in 2001. To put this in perspective, no other state changed more than 25% that year. I don't follow New Mexico news and frankly I thought the Dakota was a super lux apartment building on the Upper West Side, so I can't really tell you why these states's fortunes have changed so much more than the others.
In other, related news, Guam attracted exactly 0 immigrants for the fifteenth year in a row. Poor Guam.
Polis | 2 Writebacks | #
Via Hit & Run, we find an interview of Ralph Nader by Pat Buchanan. The interview is in The American Conservative and is touted as Ralph's pitch to the right.
Nader's pitch includes cutting and running in Iraq, raising taxes, some support for ending marriage discrimination (a shift from his 1996 position of eschewing "gonadal politics"), slashing military budgets, raising the minimum wage, opposition to the partial-birth abortion ban, driver's licenses for illegal immigrants, economic protectionism, and a slew of other positions the right can't stand.
To be fair, Nader admits he and the right don't agree on all issues. He says the reason consevatives should vote for him is because he's relatively isolationist, against corporate welfare, against the Patriot Act, and against corporate pornography (whatever that is).
I don't get it. Sure he might toss a few meatless bones to the conservative pit bulls, but... they're pit bulls. They want the bones, the meat and the love.
Polis | 0 Writebacks | #