For immigrants, a lecture

By Ruben Navarrette
San Diego Union Tribune

September 23, 2009

Some might consider this an impolite way to celebrate Hispanic Heritage Month. But this year, I'm giving Hispanic immigrants a gift straight from the heart: a lecture.

Now is a good time. Immigrants are one of the best things about this country, but with Congress about to restart the immigration reform debate, they will soon have to be on their best behavior. A lot of American citizens are asking what immigrants are prepared to do for America — in exchange for what immigrants want America to do for them.

First, the good news: Unlike many Americans who seem to think that some jobs are beneath their dignity, immigrants don't need to be told to work hard at whatever jobs they find. In fact, if you want to know why many employers prefer foreign workers to the native-born, it's not just because immigrants will often work for lower wages but also because immigrants see work as a higher calling. While many Americans do just enough on the job to get by, many immigrants do what it takes to get ahead.

Where immigrants — and particularly Hispanic immigrants — could stand some improvement is in their relationship with the United States. Too many of the foreign-born still act as if they're outliers when they need to be more integrated into the national fabric. Surely, one reason for this is how marginalized the foreign-born are made to feel by many of our institutions. But some of the blame falls on immigrants, some of whom refuse to become fully engaged in society, believing that doing so would make them disloyal to their home countries. They need to do a better job of bonding with their adopted country.

They should start by making a few goodwill gestures:

(1) All immigrants should enter the United States legally. If they enter illegally and aren't detected, some may still be eligible to try to legalize their status. They must do so.

(2) Learn English. U.S. companies, Hispanic marketing firms, and bilingual educrats have, for their own benefit, built an alternative universe that keeps Latino immigrants speaking Spanish. But English is the language of empowerment.

(3) Don't feel entitled to anything. Americans have this affliction — more concerned with rights than with responsibilities, and with what they think they deserve as opposed to what they've earned — and immigrants would do well to steer clear of it.

(4) Don't play the victim. Another national obsession to avoid. For those who feel put off or don't get what they want, the surest way to duck responsibility is to see themselves as pushed around by forces beyond their control.

(5) Assimilate. Like the Irish, Italians and Germans before them, today's Hispanic immigrants can preserve their heritage and culture and still blend into the mainstream by adopting new customs.

(6) Accept conditions to become legal. While some on the open-borders left demand that illegal immigrants be granted an unconditional amnesty, those who broke our laws have to make restitution and do whatever is required to get right with the law.

(7) Challenge both major political parties. Don't assume one is your dependable ally and the other your natural enemy. The way to remain politically relevant is to avoid being taken for granted by some and written off by others.

(8) Teach your children that education is indispensable. While many Hispanic immigrants value education for their children, they don't always value it for themselves. So the children rarely learn by example.

(9) Earn citizenship, then register and vote. Like a graduate school professor of mine used to say: “Politics is not a spectator sport. You take part, or you get taken apart.”

(10) Put down roots, give up the fantasy of returning home. No matter what you tell yourselves, or what nativists like to believe, most of you are not going home. The United States is your home now. The repairs, expenses, upkeep, and other obligations are your responsibility — just like for your fellow Americans.

Living in this remarkable country places you at a buffet table full of opportunities. But remember, there is no free lunch. Obey the law. Raise good kids. Pay your way. Don't take handouts. You'll do fine. And, like those who came before you, chances are you'll help make this country better than you found it.

---

me@rescam.org

John Edwards, a bad cad

By Eugene Robinson
THE WASHINGTON POST

September 25, 2009

Pretty much by definition, a man who can be described as a cad is not a wholly admirable human being. There are, however, cads whose behavior shows a certain panache, an undeniable flair, a sense of humor and a genuine, if deeply flawed, humanity. Former D.C. Mayor Marion Barry, I would argue, is one of these “lovable rogue” cads.

John Edwards is not. His caddishness, it appears, has no redeeming social or political value. He's just a bad cad.

According to widely published reports, a former close Edwards aide has shopped a book proposal in which he claims that the former presidential candidate is indeed the father of his mistress' 19-month-old daughter — which Edwards has categorically denied. The aide, Andrew Young, is in a position to know: When the affair was revealed, Young allowed himself to be named as the child's father. That was a lie, Young now says, intended to salvage what was left of Edwards' political career.

But that's not the worst of it — and certainly not the tackiest. Young further claims that Edwards promised the mistress, Rielle Hunter, that he would marry her after his wife Elizabeth had died of her inoperable cancer. And that they would have a rooftop ceremony in New York. And that there would be music by the Dave Matthews Band.

That may be the most caddish thing I've ever heard.

I used to like John Edwards a lot. No, I wasn't dazzled by the perfect smile or the perfect $400 haircuts or the perfect unctuousness with which he looked you in the eye and projected a top-dollar trial lawyer's showy sincerity. Whenever I had a conversation with him, I felt as if I were in a jury box listening to a well-rehearsed closing argument.

I liked the fact that all his artifice and ambition were right there on the surface. I liked his combativeness, his skill as a debater, his quick intelligence. I liked his personal saga — his up-from-the-mills rise to the top. I liked his family, and I especially liked the story of his family — the long marriage that had survived so many cruel tests. At a lunch we had in 2006, I asked about Elizabeth, whose cancer was in remission. For a moment, the persona vanished and the person appeared. There was hope in his eyes, and love, when he told me she was still disease-free.

I thought the world of Elizabeth — her toughness, her commitment, her grace — and I guess I assumed that if she loved the guy, he couldn't be all bad. I forgot the first rule of journalism: Never assume.

So when reporters from the National Enquirer cornered Edwards at the Beverly Hilton, where he had arranged a secret meeting with Hunter and the baby, I was stunned. I knew that married men sometimes stray, especially married men who are rich, famous and male-model handsome. I also knew that cancer can be brutal on marriages, and that sometimes even the strongest don't survive. But he hadn't just betrayed his wife, he had betrayed the staffers, volunteers and voters who gave him their toil and trust. He had betrayed the Democratic Party and, potentially, the nation. What if this walking scandal had somehow won the nomination?

After all, Edwards knew the Enquirer was on his tail — the tabloid had done previous stories about the affair. Going to that meeting with mistress and “love child” in Beverly Hills showed a recklessness that was nothing short of pathological.

More pathology ensued. Edwards insisted it was a physical impossibility that he was the father of Hunter's daughter, as if the truth would never come out.

In the course of what Young describes as an elaborate subterfuge to conceal Edwards' paternity, two of the former senator's wealthy campaign donors were tapped for funds that went to Hunter as what would appear to be hush money. Edwards is being investigated by federal prosecutors for possible campaign-finance violations, though I think it will be hard for the law to lay a glove on him.

But looking forward, with his mistress, to the day when Elizabeth would die? Planning a post-funeral wedding? Choosing the rock band? Even if all this was just a fairy tale meant to reassure Hunter and keep her quiet, I can't have any “like” for John Edwards anymore. The forgivable kind of cad could never do such a thing. Only the worst kind would.

---

me@rescam.org

A deal with Iran possible?

By Thomas L. Friedman
THE NEW YORK TIMES

September 25, 2009

For the first time since Iran began enriching uranium that could be used in a nuclear weapon, we have a glimmer of hope for a diplomatic solution to this problem — as long as we are not too diplomatic, as long as the Iranian regime is made to understand that biting economic sanctions are an absolute certainty and military force by Israel is a live possibility.

The reason we now have a slight chance — and I really emphasize slight — for a negotiated deal is because Iran's nuclear program has always been a survival strategy for Tehran's ruling clique: what Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran expert with the Carnegie Endowment, calls “the small cartel of hard-line clerics and nouveau riche Revolutionary Guardsmen who run Iran today.”

After stealing June's elections, this ruling cartel is now more unpopular and illegitimate than ever. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad cannot hold a rally in Tehran without hearing “death to the dictator” chants more than “death to America.” As a result, his government can ill afford real biting sanctions that would make life in Iran not only politically miserable but even more economically miserable — and his dictatorial clique even more unpopular.

I wouldn't exaggerate this because this regime has never minded inflicting pain on its people, but this time it may be more vulnerable. That is why we may be in a position to say to the Iranian regime that continuing to grow its stockpiles of low-enriched uranium outside international controls, and suffering real economic sanctions, could threaten its survival more than it would help.

On Oct. 1, William Burns, the American under secretary of state, will join diplomats from Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China for talks with Iran's chief nuclear negotiator to see whether any deal is possible.

While real sanctions are necessary to exploit this moment, they are not sufficient. We also need to keep alive the prospect that Israel could do something crazy. I don't favor Israeli military action against Iran and hope we're telling Israel that privately. But I do believe that U.S. officials, particularly the secretary of defense, Robert Gates, need to stop saying that publicly. Gates is a smart power player. He knows better. If any U.S. official is asked for an opinion on whether Israel should be allowed to strike Iran's nuclear facilities, there is only one right answer: Refer them to former Vice President Dick Cheney's 2005 comment that Israel “might well decide to act first” to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, and say nothing else. Why should we reassure Iran?

I would hope by now that the murderous crackdown on Iran's mass democracy movement by the country's oil-funded ruling cartel would have removed the last scales from the eyes of those Iran watchers who think this is simply a poor, misunderstood regime that really wants to repair its relations with the West, and we just have to learn how to speak to it properly. This is a brutal, cynical, corrupt, anti-Semitic regime that exploits the Palestinian cause and deliberately maintains a hostile posture to the West to justify its grip on power. A regime that relates to its own people with such coercive force is not going to be sweet-talked out of its nuclear program. Negotiating with such a regime without the reality of sanctions and the possibility of force is like playing baseball without a bat.

The U.S. is being advised to explore a variety of sanctions, including encouraging capital flight from Iran, thereby creating a run on the Iranian currency. It is also considering a global ban on companies doing business with Iran's oil industry, which would be a big blow to the regime, because its oil industry — which provides the vast majority of government revenues — needs modernizing and that requires foreign technological help and financing.

By improving relations with Russia, President Barack Obama has done a good job of increasing his leverage with Iran. But as the negotiations begin, there is another dimension that we have to keep in mind: Obama officials want to be careful not to say that all they care about is a deal that neutralizes Iran's nukes, and, if we get that, we have no problem with those in power in Tehran. That would be a rebuff of Iranian democrats. This will get tricky.

“The Obama administration must reconcile how to deal with a disgraced regime, which presents urgent national security challenges, while at the same time not betray a democratic movement whose success could have enormously positive implications for the U.S.,” said Sadjadpour.

“If we neglect to be vocal about human rights,” he added, “our message to the Iranian people is ‘We don't care about you. We only care about nukes.’ Ultimately, it has to be Iranians themselves who change their history. We can't want it more than they do. But it should be a U.S. foreign policy imperative not to do anything to deter the green movement's success or alter its trajectory. We cannot forget that the underlying problem we have with Iran has more to do with the character of its regime than its nuclear ambitions.”

---

me@rescam.org

Neville Chamberlain tried a deal with a similar regieme years ago and historically it can be said DEALS DON'T WORK the way you think they will

Any DEAL made IMHO would be to succumb to POLITICAL BLACKMAIL!

Ask any past Iranian hostage what THEY think about dealing with IRAN!

---

Classic WU= 7,237 Classic Hours= 42,079

What would happened had Chamberlain not given Hitler what he wanted? all out war on England. Guess what? England was in no way ready to fight the already equipped and wholy prepared for war Nazis. His only real option was to appease the Nazis. He knew the Nzis weren't satisfied with just taking a few hectacres of suedetenland. The wrting was on the wall and War was coming. Chamberlain gave his country time to get prepared for war. Sadly his part of the preparations looks bad but it takes a big man to fall on his sword to protect his own country

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

"Nearly 62 years ago, the United Nations recognized the right of the Jews, an ancient people 3,500 years-old, to a state of their own in their ancestral homeland. I stand here today as the Prime Minister of Israel, the Jewish state, and I speak to you on behalf of my country and my people. The United Nations was founded after the carnage of World War II and the horrors of the Holocaust. It was charged with preventing the recurrence of such horrendous events. Nothing has undermined that central mission more than the systematic assault on the truth. [Wednesday] the President of Iran stood at this very podium, spewing his latest anti-Semitic rants. Just a few days earlier, he again claimed that the Holocaust is a lie. ... To those who refused to come here and to those who left this room in protest, I commend you. You stood up for moral clarity and you brought honor to your countries. But to those who gave this Holocaust-denier a hearing, I say on behalf of my people, the Jewish people, and decent people everywhere: Have you no shame? Have you no decency? A mere six decades after the Holocaust, you give legitimacy to a man who denies that the murder of six million Jews took place and pledges to wipe out the Jewish state. What a disgrace! What a mockery of the charter of the United Nations! Perhaps some of you think that this man and his odious regime threaten only the Jews. You're wrong. Dead wrong. ... I speak here today in the hope that we can learn from history -- that we can prevent danger in time. In the spirit of the timeless words spoken to Joshua over 3,000 years ago, let us be strong and of good courage. Let us confront this peril, secure our future and, God willing, forge an enduring peace for generations to come." --Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu

While I completely agree with the point that Netanyahu is making, both he and the previous Israeli governments have shown little "moral clarity" and even less "honor" for years.

---

Join the PACK!

While I completely agree with the point that Netanyahu is making, both he and the previous Israeli governments have shown little "moral clarity" and even less "honor" for years.

Obama should invite Netanyahu and Ahmadinejad over for a beer. Perhaps that will smooth things over... lol.

Seriuosly though, Ahmadinejad is crazy! Who knows what he is going to do with a nuclear weapon and a rocket that could reach Europe.

I would just like to say... bollocks.

---

me@rescam.org

[quote]While I completely agree with the point that Netanyahu is making, both he and the previous Israeli governments have shown little "moral clarity" and even less "honor" for years.

Obama should invite Netanyahu and Ahmadinejad over for a beer. Perhaps that will smooth things over... lol.

This one will require a kegger. :)

Seriuosly though, Ahmadinejad is crazy! Who knows what he is going to do with a nuclear weapon and a rocket that could reach Europe.

No argument there. He is a first rate jerk (a technical term) who happens to have the support of the Revolutionary Guard (designated thugs) and the Supreme Leader (a bitter old man who really is crazy).

---

Join the PACK!

I would just like to say... bollocks.

AKA Bovine manure.

---

Join the PACK!

For years the Bush administration tried to get a missile "shield" for Eastern Europe. The Russians opposed this adamantly, despite our explanation that the defense system was not meant as a defense against Russian missiles, but for defense against unnamed rogue nations; anyway, the Russians have no interest in firing on Europe, their biggest trading partners, so why did they oppose it?

Now Obama has agreed that we will not help build this missile defense system. Just about two weeks later the Iranians have launched a missile with a range capacity to reach Europe (and of course, Israel). Where did they get the technology? Could it be . . . from Russia? All of a sudden the Russian opposition makes sense.

Bush had it right. Obama gave away the farm. Where will this lead?

For years the Bush administration tried to get a missile "shield" for Eastern Europe. The Russians opposed this adamantly, despite our explanation that the defense system was not meant as a defense against Russian missiles, but for defense against unnamed rogue nations; anyway, the Russians have no interest in firing on Europe, their biggest trading partners, so why did they oppose it?

Now Obama has agreed that we will not help build this missile defense system. Just about two weeks later the Iranians have launched a missile with a range capacity to reach Europe (and of course, Israel). Where did they get the technology? Could it be . . . from Russia? All of a sudden the Russian opposition makes sense.

Bush had it right. Obama gave away the farm. Where will this lead?

It will lead right where Obama's campaign contributions came from, Jewish Hollywood, as Israel now has a real reason to impose a holocaust on Iran. Better stock up on iodine tablets and dust off those bomb shelter plans.

You didn't even note how Eastern European countries are having a fits of apoplexy over the cancelation, suddenly worrying when they will have tanks rolling through the streets again. Just think of Ossetia.

There is a monument out there that says that we should hold the population of humans on the planet to no more than half a billion. It is looking more and more like that number is more correct than the multi billion we now have. I suspect Darwin's law is going to operate upon us and cut our population down to a sustainable number a hard way if we don't wake up and do it the easy way PDQ. And that has some implications to the Drake equation doesn't it, just to be really on topic.

---

For years the Bush administration tried to get a missile "shield" for Eastern Europe. The Russians opposed this adamantly, despite our explanation that the defense system was not meant as a defense against Russian missiles, but for defense against unnamed rogue nations; anyway, the Russians have no interest in firing on Europe, their biggest trading partners, so why did they oppose it?

Now Obama has agreed that we will not help build this missile defense system. Just about two weeks later the Iranians have launched a missile with a range capacity to reach Europe (and of course, Israel). Where did they get the technology? Could it be . . . from Russia? All of a sudden the Russian opposition makes sense.

Bush had it right. Obama gave away the farm. Where will this lead?

Russians opposed the missile system because they view it as an initiation to an arms race. It has little to do with providing Iranians with unfettered strikes into Europe or Israel.

Besides, Iranian missile technology has been around for years. They had 3 stage, long range missiles before GW Bush. What you've been hearing about lately are missile tests. It does not mean they are new missiles.

Here's a good link describing Iranian missile technology from the mid 90s and beyond.

The assessment on many of these missiles is that they are actually North Korean missiles. Some are identical to the No-Dong and the Pakistani Ghauri II

The US and Russia have cooperative missile defense systems in place.

The Obama administration has said since it wants to repair ties with Moscow.

The practical implications of Mr. Rasmussen’s comment on cooperation over missile defense were not clear. The alliance and Russia already cooperate on short-range missile defense systems.

The consensus in the international community is that Iranian missiles (even long range ones) are not capable of reaching Eastern Europe (namely, the US base in the Czech Republic for which the defense was primarily intended). Therefore, placing a missile defense system looks a lot like it is for Russian missiles.

As far as Israel goes, they already have a robust missile defense system. One of the best in the world and better than our own.

For years the Bush administration tried to get a missile "shield" for Eastern Europe. The Russians opposed this adamantly, despite our explanation that the defense system was not meant as a defense against Russian missiles, but for defense against unnamed rogue nations; anyway, the Russians have no interest in firing on Europe, their biggest trading partners, so why did they oppose it?

Now Obama has agreed that we will not help build this missile defense system. Just about two weeks later the Iranians have launched a missile with a range capacity to reach Europe (and of course, Israel). Where did they get the technology? Could it be . . . from Russia? All of a sudden the Russian opposition makes sense.

Bush had it right. Obama gave away the farm. Where will this lead?

Probably to a safer Europe.

Obama, his Republican Secretary of Defense, and Republican-appointed Joint Chiefs concluded that placing ground-based, anti-ballistic missiles on one site and radar on another in Europe was not the best defense. There has been significant progress in the development of the sea-based Aegis BMD systems and the next generation of highly mobile Patriot BMD systems.

The Navy currently has 3 Ticonderoga class cruisers and 15 Arleigh Burke class destroyers upgraded with the Aegis BMD capability with three more ships scheduled to be upgraded for the Atlantic Fleet. Patriot systems can be rapidly deployed anywhere in the world. Expect many more to be built.

All Bush did was antagonize the Russians and committed to build two great big juicy targets right in their back yard. He had it wrong.

---

Join the PACK!

Astounding! If President Bush said the sky was blue most of you people would deny it to give all the reasons why it's actually green. Don't let your personal hatred for the man blind you to reality.

It doesn't take a genius to see the connection between giving up their European missile shield and Iran testing missiles that can hit Europe. Yes, the Iranians have had missiles, but the technology comes in large part from other countries, including North Korea and Russia. (No one would've cared if Korea had complained about a missile defense system.)

The Iranians say their nuclear program is peaceful. I don't believe what they say, but apparently many of you take their words at face value.

My points were only that there is no clear link to Russian technology in Iranian missiles. As a matter of fact, most of the Iranian missiles are North Korean specifically. Furthermore, there is no link to Russians opposing missile shields in Eastern Europe to give Iran unfettered missile strike capability; the location of the proposed missile defense systems in Eastern Europe could only be used to stop Russian missiles. Iranian missiles do not have the range.

I don't disagree with Bush on this issue because he's Bush. I disagree with him because he was in error. This is not an issue of Bush calling the sky blue. This is an issue of Bush calling the sky green.

If you want missile defense systems to defend against an Iranian attack, then put the defenses at sensitive locations that the Iranians have the capability to hit in the first place.

The Iranians say their nuclear program is peaceful. I don't believe what they say, but apparently many of you take their words at face value.

Do I believe them? No, I don't. However, they are entitled to pursue nuclear energy as afforded to them under the IAEA article III

Here is the problem though; the difference between nuclear energy and nuclear weapons is almost non-existent until the final product is constructed. The research and infrastructure required for both is the same. This makes it very easy to claim you're going for nuclear energy when you're really wanting to produce weapons. I think Iran does want a nuclear weapon. However, until we have concrete evidence of that, we should uphold the IAEA (which we are a part of) and afford them the same rights to energy that anyone else is entitled to. It is only when we have solid evidence that they have made weapons that alternatives should be considered.

Newspulper Headlines:

What Would We Do Without Almost 90% of Americans?: "Almost 90% of Americans Think Media Helped Get Obama Elected" --NewsBusters.org

Where's Acorn When You Need It? -- I: "Hooker Furniture Takes 1Q Loss as Sales Slide" --Associated Press

Where's Acorn When You Need It? -- II: "Sex-Service Number Given Out as Government Hotline" --CBC.ca

Everything Seemingly Is Spinning Out of Control: "John Jay College Overrun by Bed Bugs" --WCBS-TV Web site (New York)

News of the Tautological: "Pelosi Seeks to Make Health Reform Bill More Liberal" --CBSNews.com

Bottom Stories of the Day: "Despite Long Debate, Health-Care Costs Could Soar" --Seattle Times

(Thanks to The Wall Street Journal's James Taranto)

Astounding! If President Bush said the sky was blue most of you people would deny it to give all the reasons why it's actually green. Don't let your personal hatred for the man blind you to reality.

Personal hatred??? I don't "hate" anyone. As for Bush, I never met the man. I understand he's a good guy.

I do find it very interesting that whenever a criticism of Bush's policies and failures are pointed out, "you people" (to borrow your term, Qui-Gon) immediately attribute it to a "personal hatred" of the former President. I've even heard Rush Limbaugh claim that "liberals" (defined as anyone who doesn't hold the same views as Rush Limbaugh) are "hateful". To quote the sage Misfit, "bullocks!".

It doesn't take a genius to see the connection between giving up their European missile shield and Iran testing missiles that can hit Europe.

That's one possibility. Another is the Iran felt compelled to do some chest pounding after the US, UK, and France announced the development of the secret nuclear facility near Qom. We caught them with their pants down in front of the entire world (while Ahmadinejad was giving an interview, no less). Iran is also positioning themselves for the meeting with the US, France, UK, China, Russia and Germany (P+1) that starts Thursday.

The Iranians say their nuclear program is peaceful. I don't believe what they say, but apparently many of you take their words at face value.

I don't trust them at all. They have been lying for years. In my opinion, they are actively working on nuclear weapons and the ability to deliver them.

However, I don't believe that the ABM system proposed for eastern Europe would either deter Iran or adequately protect us or Europe from missiles launched in Iran.

---

Join the PACK!