Increase legal immigration

Guess what these people have in common:

  • Albert Einstein
  • Enrico Fermi
  • John Audubon
  • John Muir
  • Elon Musk
  • Nikola Tesla
  • Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
  • Irving Berlin
  • Arnold Schwarzenegger
  • Levi Strauss
  • Dikembe Mutombo
  • Liz Claiborne
  • Mariano Rivera
  • Melania Trump
  • Andrew Carnegie
  • Audrey Hepburn
  • Yo-Yo Ma
  • Ayn Rand
  • Elie Weisel
  • Sergey Brin
  • Bob Marley
  • Sammy Sosa
  • Carlos Santana
  • Henry Kissinger
  • Rupert Murdoch
  • Alexander Hamilton

You’ve probably guessed it – each was born outside the United States, and immigrated here. Most became full, legal American citizens after undergoing the citizenship process, including passing history, civics and English language tests that most American college graduates would flunk.

The list could go on for thousands of pages, but you probably get the drift.

And by the way, you can add to the list a full quarter of the American winners of scientific Nobel Prizes. American technological prowess owes a lot to immigration.

Legal immigration is a strength of America, and always has been. America has been the most attractive place on earth for immigrants for a long time – due in part to the role of immigrants in making it so.

Do build the wall. Do secure the Mexican border. Do deport at least the illegal aliens who are criminals. Do require businesses to check the immigration status of employees, and do impose substantial fines on those who hire illegal ones.

Illegal immigration over the last generation became a tool of the anti-American left. Leftists intent on destroying Western Civilization used it to import the tools of destruction. Only slightly less bad are Democrats who used it to recruit a Democrat constituency.

The rest of America has finally seen the destruction wrought. And ironically, the leftists misread the political sentiments of the only immigrants who can vote legally – the legal ones. Those immigrants who worked tirelessly to come here legally – and vote legally – tend not to sympathize with illegal ones who want to cut the line, and tend not to vote for leftists or Democrats who want to help them do so.

One of the most racist assumptions of the Democrats was that legal Hispanics favor illegal immigration simply because many of the illegal immigrants have brown skin.

OK, the Democrats overplayed their hand. But let’s not overplay ours. We would be foolish to turn away the brave, the entrepreneurial, the smart, the industrious, the legal.

I miss the TV dads – and my own too

You know them. They were in your living room and part of your family conversations every night, especially during those 60-second breaks. 

Before America was siloed into warring tribes by ratings-hungry cable TV and, later, by click-hungry internet sites, these men defined fatherhood for two generations. They were uncool before uncool was cool.

I’m aware this isn’t Fathers Day, other than in a specific religious sense. But Christmas always brings back family memories for me, particularly of my dad, which gets me thinking about the role of dads everywhere.

You’ll have your own favorite dads, but here are mine, in no particular order. Feel free to add and subtract.

Ben Cartwright, of Bonanza

Ben came west, and founded the Ponderosa Ranch. He married and buried three women who gave him three sons. He was a strong and kind man back in the days when we thought that was a good thing.

Each episode of the show was a morality play, as much of television was back in the days when we had morality. A recurrent theme was the need for men to man-up. Ben taught that lesson many times, usually by example. And sometimes it meant something different than viewers initially assumed.

Frasier Crane, in Frasier

I suppose experts in comedy would say that a fussy, pretentious, good-hearted psychiatrist is easy material (Bob Newhart, anyone?) but Kelsey Grammer is so darned good as an over-actor (and also as a just-right actor on the Shakesperean stage) that he pulls it off. Best. TV Comedy. Ever.

Andy Taylor, of The Andy Griffith Show

I always wanted to dislike Sheriff Taylor (played by Andy Griffith) because the show was just so hokey. But Griffith was an accomplished actor, the writing was pretty good, and so I mostly failed.

I succeeded much better with Barney Fife. Bumbling incompetence with handguns does not amuse me.

Ward Cleaver, of Leave it to Beaver

Not really. Just seeing if you’re paying attention. I couldn’t – and still can’t – get past the fact that this dude calls his young son “The Beaver.” What’s up with that?

Tony Soprano, of The Sopranos

This show was pretty edgy. Tony led a life of crime, but, out of love, he desperately wanted to guide his family into something legitimate. He ever got a therapist!

If only Joe Biden had been watching. 

Jed Clampett, of The Beverly Hillbillies

The hat. This one is all about the hat. I wanted the hat. Well, the hat and the jalopy. Well, the hat, the jalopy and Elly May.

Ricki Ricardo, in I Love Lucy

I never liked Lucille Ball, but to this day it’s remarkable that her husband Ricki was presented as a charismatic Latin immigrant bandleader married to red-headed Lucille.

You couldn’t do that today, because Ricki was the bad kind of immigrant – legal, Cuban and probably Republican.   

Jim Anderson, in Father Knows Best

This is another one that could not be presented today. Maybe you could get away with “Birthing Parent Has a Truth That Works For Them.”

Atticus Finch, in To Kill a Mockingbird

OK, this was a movie, not a TV show. And, OK, I offer it up mainly to show off my movie chops. But Atticus Finch (played by Gregory Peck in his finest role) sets the standard for strength and courage in explaining and exemplifying the nuances of both to his young daughter. Ben Cartwright would be proud. The writing isn’t bad either.

That’s my list from the past. Today, I look for the next generation of fathers in the entertainment media. Two come to mind.

One is Joe Biden, who is not an entertainer strictly speaking but that’s about all he’s good for anymore.

Joe does not make my list of fathers I admire most.

Another is Deion Sanders. I don’t know Prime, and don’t pretend to understand him or relate to him. But one thing is clear: He holds his sons to very high standards of professional (yes, professional) achievement.

But where’s Ben Cartwright, for God’s sake? Where’s Sheriff Taylor? We can’t even get our hands on a good-father mobster like Tony Soprano.

When I was young, I had a father who was quirky (OK, that’s an understatement) but full of decency. Sure, there were things he simply was not capable of. But maybe that had something to do with his own father dying in the depths of the Great Depression when Dad was five. Maybe it had to do with flunking the 6th grade twice due to dyslexia (which went under the medical term “stupidity” at the time). Maybe it had to do with dropping out of school in the 8th grade to support his widowed mother, the turmoil of joining the army underaged, earning his GED, and somehow working his way into the middle class to support a family of six in an 800 square foot house.

I never heard the man say “I love you” to anyone, including my mother. But I was certain this unusual person did love me, just as Sheriff Taylor loved lovable Opie and Ben loved unlovable Adam. That’s how dads were. Television said so.

In today’s world, there isn’t enough of that certainty. The more our world of global information fragments, the less our moral compasses point in the same direction. 

AI “thinks” hospital gowns make sense

Marc Andreessen is a very successful Silicon Valley venture capitalist. In picking and investing in early-stage tech companies such as Twitter and Facebook years ago, you could say he swims with the sharks, and swims very well. His firm has over $45 billion under management. He was recently the subject of a wide-ranging interview by Bari Weise, the intrepid founder of The Free Press.

The hottest thing in Silicon Valley these days is AI – the acronym for Artificial Intelligence. In its true definition, AI is much more than the next generation of powerful computers. If you ask Google Assistant or Apple Siri a question, it will search the internet for data pertaining to your question, aggregate that data, synthesize an answer, and write it up in understandable language.

It has what computer scientists call a heuristic ability. It learns. If it were playing chess with you, it would quickly learn your tendencies – and thoroughly kick your ass.

Andreessen remarked among other things that AI has been “a censorship machine . . . right from the very beginning.” That statement made in passing made headlines as an indictment of AI.

But that’s not exactly how Andreessen intended it. He actually thinks AI is a good thing and will make for a better world, and I tend to agree. But there’s a danger.

The danger is the oldest danger in computing: it’s GIGO, or “Garbage In Garbage Out.” AI is not in contact with the real world. What it knows about the real world is what it gathers on the internet. Its answers are only as good as you yourself could get on the internet if you took the time to do so. And it does not have the rich context of a human’s lifetime of experience in interpreting casual language, particular circumstances and unreliable sources.

AI has infinite knowledge and zero judgment.

I saw this recently when I was in the hospital for some minor open-heart surgery. As hospitals do, they insisted that I wear one of those “gown” contraptions that are open in the back so that your buns hang out.

I find this piece of apparel quite annoying and embarrassing, and I know you do too. I’m guessing the hospital employees do as well, since an average hospital patient is not someone whose buns you would want to ogle.

So, I asked Google Assistant why hospital gowns tie in the back – where they cannot be tied at all. Here’s the answer I got back:

Hospital gowns tie in back for a variety of reasons:

Translation: There’s no good reason, but there’s a “variety” of them. Google Assistant listed them:

*Easy access: The open back design allows medical technicians to quickly and easily access any part of the patient’s body for examinations, treatments, or procedures without the need to fully undress the patient.

It allows easy access alright. But there’s a big but. The big but is that it allows access to only the patient’s big butt. In my personal experience, that part of the patient is not the focus of many medical procedures. And, contrary to what Google implies, the patient in a gown is completely undressed apart from the gown.

There’s more.

* Patient Comfort: The loose fit and open back design can help prevent overheating and discomfort, especially for bedridden patients.

Patient comfort? So, will patient gowns catch on outside hospitals? Will they be the next big thing in fashion, replacing jeans and hoodies? Because they’re just . . . so, darned, comfortable?

And overheating? I find hospitals to be cold, if anything. I cannot remember a time when my buns were so hot – in any sense of the word – that I wanted to whip them out.

* Modesty: While the open back design might seem counterintuitive, it can actually provide a sense of modesty. The ties can be adjusted to ensure the gown stays securely in place, covering the patient’s back and providing a sense of privacy.

That’s not just “counterintuitive.” It’s a bald-faced, butt-on lie. The ties are not long enough to extend around to the front in order to cover the patient’s back, as AI admits in its very next bullet point:

* Efficiency: Tying the gown in the back is a quick and simple process, saving time for both the patient and the medical staff.

How on earth is tying a string behind your back “quick and efficient”? Try it sometime, Google Assistant.

Overall, the design of hospital gowns is a balance between practicality, comfort, and modesty. The open back with ties is a design that has been found to be effective in meeting the needs of both patients and healthcare providers.

That’s all a big fat lie. But don’t blame AI. AI thinks it’s true because . . . Garbage In, Garbage Out.

This is a trivial example to prove Marc Andreessen’s point. AI is only as good – and is just as bad – as the information it receives. AI thinks hospital gowns are efficient, convenient and modest because the internet says so. If I were to say something contrary to that, AI would say I’m wrong.

This extends to everything – global warming, Jan. 6, Russian collusion, the Kennedy assassination, election rigging, and drones over Jersey.

That’s the sort of censorship we’re looking at. It’s a pervasive, insidious thing. We cannot put AI back in the genie bottle, nor should we. But we should carefully monitor and dispute the information it relies on for its pronouncements, and take those pronouncements with a large grain of salt. That won’t be easy.

Trump’s powerful America will produce a safer world

Henry Kissinger argued that geopolitical negotiations are successful only if they are backed by an implicit or explicit threat of force. In that argument, he echoed Teddy
Roosevelt’s quip a century earlier that America should “speak softly and carry a big stick.”

The contention that adversarial negotiations are successful only if you have some leverage to exert is an obvious truism. But American leaders need to re-learn this truism every so often. They naively – and sometimes malevolently – come to believe that the way to get along with the bad guys is to kowtow to them.

Our latest example began with Barack Obama. He was asked whether he believed in American exceptionalism – a basic American tenet which goes back to Thomas Jefferson’s empire of liberty, Abraham Lincoln’s almost-chosen people, and Ronald Reagan’s shining city on a hill. Obama answered,

“Yes, there’s American exceptionalism, but I suspect the Brits also believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.”

In other words, Americans are exceptional in the same way that everybody else is – which is to say they are not exceptional at all. Moreover, implicit in his answer is that the only true exceptionalism in American is their conceit in believing in it.

Poisoned by his distaste for American civilization, Obama went about his stated task of “fundamentally transforming” it. His first act in this transforming was to go around the world apologizing for American misdeeds of the preceding two centuries.

Forget about America winning the Cold War; helping to win two World Wars; delivering billions in gifts to countries around the world; taking the world’s tired, poor, huddled masses yearning to breathe free; rebuilding Japan and Germany from totalitarian ashes; putting a man on the moon; spending a trillion dollars to create a well-intentioned but failed Great Society to pull up its underclass; and inventing Silicon Valley.

Forget all that. It is time, Obama preached, for America to apologize to the world.

And so, he did. For eight years, he did what he could – and that was a lot – to reduce American power and prestige in the world. He thought a smaller, weaker, apologetic America would result in world peace.

Barack Obama is nothing if not insincere. I suspect his peace-through-weakness approach was not designed so much to achieve peace, but to achieve his fundamental transformation of America. His vision had less to do with Liberty Gleaming, and more to do with Workers Uniting.

Obama’s reign of pusillanimity – his war on America – continued for eight years before briefly yielding to a four-year interruption. But the interruption was too brief, too chaotic and too sabotaged. Obama then returned in the form of his hand-picked puppet and eff-up in chief, Joe Biden.

Joe was too shallow to grasp Obama’s scheme of fundamental transformation, but he certainly knew what side his bread was buttered on, and he knew who knew about the skeletons in his closet.

Joe did what he was told, willingly and even eagerly. By golly, the man from Scranton was determined to outdo his teacher. With that eagerness, combined with a degree of plain incompetence that bordered on its own kind of exceptionalism, Joe took another step toward the fundamental transformation of America.

And the world. From Afghanistan to Ukraine to Gaza to the Mexican border and to everywhere else, Joe succeeded in projecting American pusillanimity and incompetence to produce worldwide chaos, violence and death.

Joe was the anti-Midas; everything he touched turned to shit. Sometimes, as in the border, it was on purpose.

Now there’s a new boss in town who’s not the same as the old boss. He was elected a month ago, and won’t assume office for another month, but already he’s making waves, and not the pusillanimous kind.

In response to his threat to impose steep tariffs that would decimate their economies, Mexico and Canada have already promised to clamp down on illegal immigration from their borders into the United States.

In response to his candid support of Israel and his no-nonsense threats against barbaric terrorists, a fragile truce has emerged in that forever conflict. Jefferson, who forcibly subdued the Barbary pirates, would nod.

Nearby, in response to his tough stance against Russian imperialism, rebels in Syria were emboldened to reclaim their country from years of a Russian-sponsored dictatorship.

In response to his muscular defense posture but unwillingness to write blank checks forever in an unwinnable war of attrition, Ukraine and Russia are quietly negotiating peace. Kissinger would approve.

In response to his indefatigable populism, the people of France are once again inspired by the people of America. Those people yearning to be free are demanding a government that represents . . .  wait for it . . . people yearning to be free.

Those people of France begged him to attend the re-opening of their Lady of Paris – the Notre Dame – while Joe Biden mumbles and stumbles around in the swamps of Brazil.

His enemies in America say this guy who supports the Jewish nation of Israel is just like Hitler. Other enemies say he’s too volatile to be in charge. Still others say he has surrounded himself with stupid yes-men (like Elon Musk?). But his American enemies mostly disbelieve their own rhetoric – they’re just bad sports and sore losers.

In the rest of the world, his enemies are lying low like rats in the basement. They’ll stay there – but only for so long as they see America as an unabashed empire of liberty, a strong and chosen people, a shining city on a hill.

Donald Trump and his progeny have an opportunity unseen in two generations. They’re off to a good start.

“Transgender Miners at the Supreme Court . . .”

. . . Is how a headline reads in today’s Wall Street Journal. To which my reaction was, what next?

First, the trannies were in the closet. Then they came out, apparently just to go to the bathroom. The one for girls.

Then they were in the Cabinet of the future former President and current organized crime boss who both commits and pardons family criminal acts. (One stop shopping, is he.)

The next thing we knew, they were competing in athletic contests against real women – or, as much of the media dubs them, “birthing persons” or “menstruating persons” or “persons with a bonus hole” or (my personal favorite) “non-transgender women.”

Now, no less than the Wall Street Journal informs us that we have transgender miners. Yep, they’re in the mines. Those would be the mines on federal land, no doubt.

“Glory Hole” takes on a whole new meaning.

Not only that, but these transgender miners have a case today before the Supreme Court – a Court that is not especially sympathetic to identity politics (though they did rule a few years ago – centuries ago in terms of the cultural climate – that businesses cannot discriminate against tranny employees).

Given the composition of the Supreme Court, one might expect a miner of all people to know that the first thing to do when you’re stuck in a ditch is to stop digging.

What’s that you say? The WSJ headline refers to “minors” and not “miners”? And the Supreme Court case is about transgender children, not transgender miners?

Nehva mind . . .

In that case, let me put on my legal hat.

The claim being heard by the Supreme Court is that state laws prohibiting hormone manipulation and gender mutilation (er, “affirmation”) of children having some growing pains are a violation of the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution.

The gist of the argument is: If a boy who thinks he’s a boy can get certain hormones to affirm his boyhood, then why can’t a boy who thinks he’s a girl get other hormones to affirm his girliness? If the second boy can’t get his hormones, then you’ve discriminated against him on the basis of sex. The boy got the hormones, and the boy who thinks he’s a girl was refused them.

The argument has a circular quality to it. The boy thinks he’s a girl, and so he’s entitled to receive hormones to make him one. To refuse him those hormones is to discriminate against a boy who thinks he is a girl but is not  because he hasn’t received the hormones, and so it’s sex discrimination.

If you can follow that, you should be a lawyer.

There’s another, more basic flaw to the argument that boys who think they’re girls have a Constitutional right to receive hormones to make them girls (sorta). Recent studies in Europe have shown that gender “affirmation” treatment generally has a poor outcome. To be sure, a boy who becomes a “girl” has his genitals mutilated. But also – as if the genital mutilation is not a bad enough outcome – gets nowhere in his psychological well-being. He’s just a prone to suicide, for example – an act that is tragically common among trannies.

Moreover, many “transitioned” children later regret their transition, and seek to “de-transition.” If you thought the transition surgery was dicey, imagine the de-transition surgery.

Countries in Europe have now stepped back from gender “affirmation” treatment for children, and several have outlawed it – just as many states here have.

So, the Supreme Court can dodge the Constitutional Equal Protection issue that even lawyers have a hard time articulating, and decide the case in a more basic way that even you and I can understand.

They can say: This treatment is controversial and unproven. The states can, in the exercise of the plenary powers reserved to them, make a reasonable judgment that it should not be performed on children.

This is anything but unprecedented. Note that most states prohibit children from getting tattoos. But now there’s supposed to be a Constitutional right for them to mutilate their genitals in the interest of a faddish identity group that is recruiting them?

This was predicted by me – at least twice

The news tonight is that Worst President Ever (hereinafter “WPE”) has pardoned his son.

You know the one – the crack-smoking, drug-addicted, whore-mongering, influence-peddling, gun-toting, tax-evading, lie-teller.

After stating time and again – but that was in the past, so it doesn’t count – that he wouldn’t, WPE proved himself to be as big a liar as the miscreant son.

Don’t say I didn’t warn you. I explicitly warned that WPE would do this, but for obvious reasons he would wait till after the election.

I also proposed that the pardon would seal the judgment of historians on WPE – that he is indeed the WPE.

So there we are. WPE has been officially crowned . . . Worst . . . President . . . Ever.

May the whole decrepit family rot in hell.