Illegal Citizens Go Home!

I saw a story on the CNN website today about a 13-year-old girl (born
in the U.S.) whose illegal immigrant mother had been deported. This
is exactly why only the children of LEGAL immigrants/visitors/etc.
should be given the status as U.S. citizens. Why should anyone
dropped here illegally be considered a valid citizen just because
their parents cheated and thumbed their noses at the law? What point
is there in honoring illegal behavior with the prize of citizenship
for your offspring? I truly feel sorry for this girl, but quite
frankly why did she not return home to her mother's country of origin
with her? She is a minor after all.

We do welcome the huddled masses yearning to breathe free...so long as
they enter legally. What's so hard to understand about following the
rules. And more to the point: Why should I feel guilty about sad
situations people bring upon themselves and their children? Do the
right thing and this won't happen.

- RL

Common Sense Can Triumph

There are many stories in the leftist city. This is one of them. They say that no man is as great a friend as a former enemy. David Mamet has made the move (along with other great former leftist/liberals like David Horowitz) to the side of common sense and intellectual honesty. Rather than attempt to explain his reasons for doing so here, read them yourself from his amazing article in The Village Voice: Why I Am No Longer A Brain-Dead Liberal .

Enjoy.

-R.L.

Dreaming Big

Too often I whine and complain here (which is in part why I started this blog), but when I came across this video the other day I was simply inspired. How great to see someone pursue their dream and make it. How inspirational to hear this wonderful music, see the reaction of the audience (especially the judges) and be awed by the humility of the performer.

A triumph of the common man indeed.

Conventional Thinkers Need Not Apply

Freedom of speech. Freedom of thought. Freedom my @$$. If you don't tow the darwinian party-line you can forget about being heard in the science departments of today. I'm anxious to hear what ol' Ben Stein finds out on this issue. No big surprises really. Liberals simply want to take things over so they can shut everyone else out (because since they're right about everything anyway, why would you need a differing viewpoint?).

I'm not expecting athiestic/agnostic scientists to prove the existence of God, what I would like to see is the ability to admit one's underlying presuppositions and further admit how those presuppositions influence one's work. Science is observable and repeatable. Let's work on that, shall we? I don't care what you think you can prove, or what you want to believe. I want science to be science, not pseudo-religious darwinian demagoguary.

God made you. You know it (whether you admit to yourself or not). Get over it and do some real science.

- R. L.

The Myth of the Lonely American Male

I remember in my twenties hearing about the lonely American male.  Evidently men in their late thirties and early forties had no friends, little social contact outside the workplace, and lived lives of solitary, mundane drudgery and desperation.  These men were to be most pitied--so I was told.

However, as I have now entered the latter years of my 4th decade (that's my 30's for those of you who have trouble with math), I see this interpretation of reality for what it is: a complete misreading of the facts, and an attempt by younger men (and/or single people of any age) to force a social construct upon maturing masculinity.

Men, at this middle stage of life do indeed often withdraw from close friendships outside of work.  This, however, is by desire and design and should not be considered a problem.  Quite frankly, we don't have time to do otherwise.  Each stage of life brings more and more responsibility, and therefore a lessening of free time to socialize.  In our middle age period we are reaching new heights in our careers, becoming ever busier at work.  Our families are growing (in either number, stature, or both) and requiring more of our time and energy (remember when it was just the two of us, honey).  We do not have the luxury of extra moments for friendship outside of these two spheres (barring, of course, church or other similar, family-based group interests).

I have always wondered at the double-standard we have toward strong public figures who spend inordinate amounts of time to attain social or political standing while sacrificing their families.  We honor their hard work and achievement and then shake our heads in disdain as their families and children implode (e.g. President Bush and his daughters; Newt Gingrich and his ex-wife).  What did we expect?  Anyone who will sacrifice their family on the altar of success should anticipate no other outcome.

No one is beyond the constraints of time.  If you wish to succeed in one area, other areas will require sacrifice.  Would I love to sit around every Friday with friends, staying up late watching movies and playing video games like I did in my twenties?  Sure, but that's what my kids are for now.

I have friends at work and church, and I look forward to the day when I face the empty nest again and have more time alone with my wife.  Perhaps I'll even squeeze in a few rounds of gaming with my old gang of compatriots after the kids are gone.

Am I a lonely American male?  Depends on whose construct you're going to use.  But as I spend time with my wife and children which I no longer have to spend with friends, I don't regret a minute of it.

- RL

Dear Sandra: Activate This...

I didn't even have to read the entire article to know what she was
going to say, but CNN.com reported today that ex-supreme Sandra Day O'Connor was a trifle upset at the label "activist judge" being applied to our judiciary (supreme or otherwise). So sorry, Sandy.

But, Sandra, it's not really your fault. It's ours. We Americans
are lazy. Let's face it. We harp about Al Gore's living, breathing,
copulating constitution. Rightly so. But Al's only half wrong. The
constitution does have a way to live on beyond the era of our
founders. It's called the amendment process. Problem is we're too
worried about Monday Night Football to deal with a lengthy
constitutional debate. Let's just turn it over to the judiciary.
We're getting what we deserve.

So remember, friends, when they come for you and yours I sure hope
you enjoyed the game.

- R.L.

Airport Starbucks = Terrorist Hot Spots

My headline may be attention getting, but it is hardly far from the truth.  At least according to Bruce Sterling's recent article in this month's Wired Magazine: Barbarians at Gate 8.  I don't often agree with Mr. Sterling's politics, but his writing is always enjoyable and thought provoking.  While that great promoter of anti-Babel, the Internet, seems to be a Westernizing influence at first glance, it is much more akin to the amoral flame.  The same fire that heats your home from the fireplace, can burn it down if not contained.

When it comes to terrorism, the Internet is not too far removed from the telephone.  Both allow for free and open communication.  Both can be monitored (more or less) by law enforcement (one more easily and more often than the other, perhaps).  Both technologies are in and of themselves amoral.  Both have certainly been used in the commission of petty misdemeanors and felonious atrocities.  Both have become too important to commerce to be removed from society without a much-improved replacement.

As far as travel is concerned, while it is certainly easier today than ever there are still significant hurdles to the cultural migrations Sterling mentions--short of using the U.S.-Mexican border.  Travel is expensive, but necessary for terrorism to succeed.  Travel is less necessary for commerce (I'm talking about the movement of human beings, and excluding the shipping of merchandise).

I don't have any great insight in how to resolve this particular issue (both freedom and liberty can be used against themselves--see Rousseau), but I think this article is worth some pondering.

- R.L.