Ellen Goodman recently wrote an opinion piece for The Boston Globe looking at the gender breakdown of political blogs.  Goodman noted:

The chief messengers are overwhelmingly men -- white men, even angry white men.

She then went on to discuss a spreadsheet purportedly created by a graduate student at Harvard's Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy which examined "the top 90 political blogs."  The researcher found that:

A full 42 percent were edited and written by men only, while 7 percent were by women only.  Another 45 percent were edited or authored by both men and women, though the "coed" mix was overwhelmingly male.  And, not surprisingly, most male bloggers linked to male bloggers.

Michelle Malkin is trying to obtain a copy of the fabled spreadsheet, but apparently has not succeeded on that front so far.  My understanding is that Ms. Malkin is interested in exploring the underlying assumptions and methodologies used in putting together the analysis of the "top 90 political blogs," however they were determined.  I hope that Ms. Goodman and/or her graduate student contact are able to respond to Ms. Malkin and I look forward to following whatever discussion comes to light on this topic.

But what struck me in reading Ms. Goodman's piece was a sense that we've seen this type of argument before.  It all started to fall into place in my head as I read through Hugh Hewitt's Blog: Understanding the Information Reformation That's Changing Your World.  Hewitt noted an October 4, 2003 press release from Perseus Development Corporation outlining their research results on blogs.  The research at that time indicated that approximately 4.1 million new blogs had been created on 8 identified blog services.  More interestingly in light of Ms. Goodman's article was the finding that 56% of blogs were created by women.

I went back to Ms. Goodman's piece and found, in fairness, she did note that "half of all 96 million blogs are written by women."  However, Ms. Goodman went on to comment:

But in the smaller political sphere, what is touted as a fresh force for change looks an awful lot like a new boy network.

She goes on to write:

But this is not just about counting, not just about diversity-by-the-numbers.  It's about the political dialogue -- who gets heard and who setts the agenda.  Cooper asks herself:  Are we going to do the same thing we've done all along, but with computers?  Or will we create a new institution that allows for marginalized voices?"

Unfortunately, Ms. Goodman never provides us with an idea of whose marginalized voices are not evident on the blogs.  She provides not a single example of a particular political view point, left, right, or center, which is somehow unable to participate in the world of the political blogosphere.

I would expect that with 96 million blogs (per Ms. Goodman's column) there must be something for everyone out there, even in the political blogosphere.  So in the end I find Ms. Goodman's argument that she is not concerned only with counting to be entirely unconvincing.  It is counting, and only counting, that is driving her article.  She is concerned that, in her view, too few women are posting on political blogs.

But as the Perseus Development Corporation press release also indicated:

the typical blog is written by a teenage girl who uses it twice a month to update her friends and classmates on happenings in her life

So 56% of blogs are created by women.  And the "typical" blog is written by a teenage girl.  Interestingly, Ms. Goodman noted that the "typical political blog reader is a 43-year-old man with an $80,000 family income." (emphasis added)

After reading Mr. Hewitt's book, and looking at numbers of blogs cited by Perseus in 2003 and Ms. Goodman in 2007, I have to believe that there is a place for any man or woman who wants to post to a blog on politics.  But, as former Harvard President Lawrence Summers found out, to even consider that possibility that men and women may, on average, have different interests and abilities as they relate to different subjects is anathema to the liberals who insist there must be no differences between the sexes.

Interestingly, Ms. Goodman acknowledges the existence of "'women's pages' on the Internet.  Technorati counts more than 11,000 'mommy blogs.'  There are 'women's issues' blogs like the funny and bracing Feministing."  I have never visited a "mommy blog" (though I would argue that one of my favorite sites, James Lileks' "The Bleat," could be a male version of this on some days) but my guess is that on these thousands of mommy blog sites, the posts and comments are overwhelmingly from women.  Is Ms. Goodman concerned about marginalized male voices on the mommy blogs?  Are there enough men reading and posting Feministing?

In the end, somehow Ms. Goodman is unable to wrap her head around the mere possibility that, for whatever reasons, men and women may have different levels of interest and participation when it comes to various types of  blogs.   Just as they may have different levels of interest an participation when it comes to school athletics.

But just as we have seen with school athletics and the effects of Title IX, my guess is that sometime in the future, as student blogs begin to proliferate, the Title IX advocates will be there, urged on by those like Ellen Goodman, to somehow enforce strict gender equality in all areas of blogging.  It will be seen as the only way to eventually level the "unfair" playing field in the blogosphere so that "marginalized voices" will be properly represented in the opinion of liberals.

And we will have taken yet another step to distance ourselves from the idea that someday, bloggers will not be judged by their gender, but by the content of their postings.

UPDATE:  First, in response to the discussion I had with my lovely wife, I just wanted to clarify that my use of "mommy blog" was simply a continuation of the terminology used by Ms. Goodman.  I think my wife's view that a better name would be "parenting blog" is sound.

Second, on a more substantive note, one thing that I also wanted to note with regard to Ms. Goodman's column is my concern that she is trying to have things both ways with regard to the question of whether there are any differences between men and women.  First she wants to argue that women are somehow under-represented on political blogs, even to the point of raising the idea that someday the progressive blogs need to "look more like the nation."  I don't know how to read that other than as a call for strict numerical equivalency based on representative sample size in the population, which is consistent with the view that there are no differences between men and women.

But at the same time, Ms. Goodman argues that somehow having more women involved in political blogging will help them address the issue of "who gets heard and who sets the agenda."  Presumably, then, Ms. Goodman believes it matters and will make a difference substantively if more women are involved in political blogging.

Perhaps my failure of imagination is merely the flip side of Ms. Goodman's apparent blind spot.  But I do not see how, if women and men are the same, it could possibly change the substance of blogs and the agenda being set if the gender makeup of the political blogosphere were somehow more in line with Ms. Goodman's view of what should be.

UPDATE:  One final bit from Mr. Hewitt's book, Blog, that relates to my musings above:

The first three generations of media are remarkably age-, race-, and gender-driven.  What had originally been a reserve of white males is now a region of tortuous balancing and hypersensitive massaging of unspoken quotas.  The blogosphere has none of that.  It is the real marketplace of ideas where there is no barrier to entry and Ragged Dick doesn't have to sell papers for very long if he's got talent.

I would like to think that Mr. Hewitt's view of the blogosphere is the one that will prove true in the end.  But I would not be surprised if the same age-, race-, and gender-driven idealogues like Ms. Goodman do their best to see that this generation of media experiences as least some of the same fate as print, radio and television.

Finally - Link Manager appears to be working again, so I have linked to the items mentioned.

Tiger Woods won the tournament held at Firestone Country Club this week in Ohio, shooting a cumulative score of 8 under par, well ahead of the second place finisher at even par.  Woods played the final round with Rory Sabbatini and Kenny Perry.  The pairing of Woods and Sabbatini was interesting in light of Sabbatini's comments earlier to the effect that he enjoyed playing with Woods because Woods is as beatable as he's ever been.  In the final round at Firestone, Woods began the day at 3 under par, 1 stroke behind Sabbatini at 4 under par.  At the end of the round, Woods had won the tournament after a round of 5 under on the day.  Sabbatini was nowhere in sight, shooting a 4 over on the day to finish even for the tournament.

Apparently the ninth hole of today's round was packed with action.  First, Woods managed to put his approach shot into some trees, where it fell onto a spectator who caught it in the crook of her arm when it fell on her rain cover.  While Woods received a drop and managed to scramble for his par, Sabbatini's end of the hole was even more interesting.

As the story at sportsline.com describes the scene:
 

Seconds later, after Sabbatini made a double bogey and was walking away from the ninth green, retired firefighter and paramedic Steve Banky casually said to him, "Hey, Rory. Still think Tiger's beatable?"

Sabbatini wheeled and pointed to Banky, telling a police officer that he wanted Banky removed from the course. He was escorted to the course's front entrance by two officers.

"We're out here to do our job -- let us do our job," Sabbatini said later. "Have a little bit of decorum, a little bit of class out there. I guess a few too many beers were talking."

What baffles me about this is that, if all Banky did was what was cited in the story, I am confused on why he was removed from the tournament.  Are golfers so delicate that they can't be the target of an appropriate pointed question during a round?  I can see where making comments or noise during a player's swing is a problem, and heckling a player in a manner that is overly personal or disruptive needs to be prevented.  But simply making a comment or asking a question of a player who is having is clock cleaned like Sabbatini was, in the face of Sabbatini's own dumb comments about Woods' "beatability" (if there is such a word) hardly seems like it warrants removal from the grounds.  Would the same thing have happened to the fan if, instead of directing his comment/question to Sabbatini directly, he instead remarked loudly to a companion as Sabbatini walked by how foolish Sabbini's comments about Woods were?

Maybe there's more to the story.  Sabbatini's comment about too many beers talking may indicate that this was not all the guy said, or the only time he said something.  For now perhaps Sabbatini gets a bit of a benefit of the doubt.  But as the sportsline story further notes in quoting the spectator in question:

"I figured he was talking a better game than he was playing," said Banky, who was making his first trip to the tournament in 15 years. "I wasn't trying to dog him. At the press conference he had, he said Tiger was beatable. I just called him on it."

If Banky's actions are consistent with his comment that he was not trying to dog Sabbatini, maybe the fan got a raw deal.  It's one thing to follow a player and continue to heckle him and disrupt his round.  It seems to be another matter entirely to do only what Banky is described as having done here.

I may need to research the PGA Tour site to see if there is some kind of policy covering this, or even see if my PGA contact can explain why this result may be correct.

At this point, it's hard to tell if Sabbatini is a thin-skinned whiner who may be headed toward treatment like Colin Montgomerie and Sergio Garcia have received at US tournaments, or if he correctly had a boorish fan removed from the tournament.  With the PGA Championship now on the horizon, I wonder what kind of reception Sabbatini may face if the public/fan consensus is that he's soft and can't take pressure.  Might be a long week for him at Southern Hills.

On the eve of the Concert to Save the Planet, or whatever it was that Al Gore's global warming concerts were called, Governor Corzine signed a law that will purportedly move New Jersey toward carbon neutrality.  Specifically, the Global Warming Response Act indicates that "it is in the public interest to establish a greenhouse gas emissions reduction program to limit the level of Statewide greenhouse gas emissions, and greenhouse gas emissions from electricity generated outside the State but consumed in the State, to the 1990 level or below ... by the year 2020..."

I am just starting to wade through this legislation to try to figure out what it requires and tries to do, so this is hopefully the first of a series of posts examining the new law.

First, the state has until 1 year after this legislation passed to even determine and inform anyone what the 1990 level of greenhouse gas emissions in New Jersey were.  Does this make any sense?  Can we have any confidence that 18 years after the fact we will have some way to determine what greenhouse gas emissions occurred throughout the state in 1990?  I am at least open to the possibility that a ballpark figure may be determined based on economic, environmental and other data, but it seems that any such attempt should have to pass a pretty rigorous scientific peer review before people start accepting it as an established target.

I see that there is also a provision calling for an "independent research review panel," which provides:

9.  (New section)  a.  No later than June 30, 2008, the department shall designate an independent research review panel consisting of economists, business managers, nonprofit environmental organization representatives, and public officials, and scientists from academia, industry and the government, to review the recommendations and evaluations submitted by the department and any other State agencies, as appropriate, in the reports required pursuant to section 6 of this act.
     b.  The independent research review panel shall review the recommendations and evaluations of the department and any other State agencies, as appropriate, and shall, within 12 months of the date of transmittal of the reports required pursuant to section 6 of this act, prepare and transmit a report evaluating the ecological, economic and social impact of the proposed recommendations submitted by the department and any other State agencies, as appropriate, to the Governor, to the State Treasurer, to the Legislature pursuant to section 2 of P.L.1991, c.164 (C.52:14-19.1) and to the members of the Senate Environment Committee and the Assembly Environment and Solid Waste Committee.

It is probably too much to hope that some of the nonprofit environmental organization representatives will be from outfits other than Earth First, WWE, or the like.  If anyone can recommend contact information for a nonprofit environmental organization that is skeptical of the role of human activity in any possible global climate change, I would be happy to try to get in touch with them to see if they can try to get someone involved on this panel, if only to play devil's advocate when necessary.

Finally, what brought this law to mind was actually a seemingly unrelated item in yesterday's Trenton Times.  For those who may not recall, Governor Corzine was injured rather severely in an automobile accident in April.  He was traveling from Atlantic City back to Drumthwacket, the Governor's mansion in Princeton, to meet with representatives from the Rutgers women's basketball program in the wake of the Don Imus brouhaha.  The State Trooper assigned to drive Corzine's vehicle was apparently traveling over 90 miles per  hour with the sirens on, and I think using the shoulder to pass.  Fortunately, no one was killed in the accident that occurred when Corzine's vehicle was apparently cut-off by another driver (which apparently involved no wrong-doing by the driver of the other vehicle, and no charges were filed).

What caught my eye in this piece were the recommendations to increase the size of the State Trooper detail assigned to the motorcade unit, and to increase the use of state police helicopters to transport the governor.  Is this good from an environmental standpoint?  I certainly have not done any research, but my hunch is that a helicopter is slightly less fuel efficient than even the SUV the governor's motorocade currently uses.  So how does this square with the Global Warming Response Act?  Shouldn't the same governor who proudly announced the signing the of this legislation at the opening of Al Gore's concert at the Meadowlands step forward to announce that he will not agree to increasing the use of helicopters for his travel?  Shouldn't the governor be tooling around in a Prius or some other hybrid if he is really serious about greenhouse gas emissions and signing laws that will impact statewide, and regional, economic activity?

And if Corzine is still worried about getting places quickly enough and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, I think Al Gore may know someone who has proved that the Prius can get you where you're going in a hurry.

 

Hard to believe that it has been 20 years since President Reagan gave his speech in Berlin and challenged Gorbachev to come to the gates at the Berlin Wall, open the gates, and tear down the wall.  Curious about what Mr. Reagan recorded in his diary about the speech, I went to The Reagan Diaries, edited by Douglas Brinkley, that my thoughtful wife gave me recently.  The entire reference to the speech consisted of:

"Then it was on to the Brandenburg Gate where I addressed tens & tens of thousands of people - stretching as far as I could see.  I got a tremendous reception - interrupted 28 times by cheers."

That's it.  I had to skip ahead to find this entry, as I am only in early 1982 in reading the Diaries itself.  I'm now curious whether there will be any mention of this later, perhaps as Reagan's second term winds down and he may reflect on what has gone before, but given what I have read of the Diaries so far, it seems unlikely.  Most of the entries are recaps of events, people, places, and some insights into Reagan's view on issues as they were being addressed during his presidency.  Interesting stuff, and I may return to the book later as I go through it, if only because I have been struck by some of the policy issues cited by Reagan as top of the agenda matters early in his first term that appear to still be kicking around over 25 years later.

There are also some pretty amusing comments about behind the scenes personality flaps and matter-of-fact comments on what, at the time in 1981-82 were apparently big political topics / scandals, but that in Reagan's diary come across as tempests in teapots.  One matter in particular involved allegations of bribery involving National Security Advisor Richard Allen.  While I remember Reagan's election in 1980, I was not paying that much attention to Washington politics as a sophomore in high school, so I have no recall of the Richard Allen flap.  What was interesting in the Diaries were Reagan's comments that it was much ado about nothing, and simply another instance of the irresponsible press running wild with the story just to score cheap political points.

Some things never change.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Friday that Washington is taking steps to address Mexican concerns  the U.S. is not doing enough to stop illegal weapons from being smuggled across the border and into the hands of brutal drug gangs.

A meeting here of attorneys general from the U.S., Mexico and six other Latin American countries
focused on Mexican complaints weapons from the United States are fueling a wave of cartel-related executions and violent crime that is battering the nation.

"We are concerned about the number of weapons coming into Mexico and Central America illegally from the United States," Gonzales said. "There is more that we can do, and we are looking to do, to try and stem the flow of illegal weapons into Mexico."

As noted earlier in explaining the name of this blog, I receive a daily wrap-up of web-based sports stories from WSJ.com called The Daily Fix.  Today's column included an email submitted by the WSJ.com's fellow staff writer, Jonathan Eig, who has written a new book about Jackie Robinson.  Eig wrote to the Daily Fix to comment on Barry Bonds and his pursuit of the all-time major league home run record.  Bonds now sits 9 homers short of Aaron, and his pace has slowed in recent weeks, leading to much speculation of when Bonds may break the record.

Eig apparently has tickets to a Cubs-Giants game scheduled for July 17, and indicated that he is considering not going to the game if it could be the game in which Bonds ties or breaks the home run record.  Interestingly, Eig indicates his reason for not attending is not because he thinks Bonds is a fraud, but because he thinks Bonds is a jerk.  Eig then posed the question to the Daily Fix writers, who threw it open to their readers:  "What would you do if Bonds is sitting on 754 or 755 and you had tickets?  Go to the game?  Sell the tickets?  Throw them away?"

In mulling this over, I think I've concluded that I don't believe Eig's reason for not wanting to attend the game.  Or at least, I have big doubts that the fact of Bonds being a jerk is the determinative factor.  As I read the Daily Fix and Eig's question, my understanding is that Eig's position is that if Bonds had hit all his home runs without having to continually obtain larger jerseys, caps, batting helmets and spikes, so there was no steroid controversy at all, then Eig would plan to stay home rather than chance being at the game where Bonds ties or breaks the record.

But there have been other sports figures who have been jerks and who have also set/broken records.  What if Eig had tickets to the game on September 11, 1985, when Rose hit a single off Padres pitcher Eric Show to pass Ty Cobb with 4,192 hits?  Or if he had tickets to the May 1, 1991, game when Rickey Henderson stole the 939th base of his career to pass Lou Brock (though perhaps he could have had tickets that same day to see Nolan Ryan throw his 7th career no-hitter, defeating the Blue Jays)?  Of if he had tickets to the January 1, 2007, game when the Texas Tech Red Raiders defeated the New Mexico Lobos to give Bob Knight victory number 880 to pass Dean Smith?  Presumably, Eig would have stayed home rather than attend any of these games, so as not to be there when each of these "jerks" broke a record.

Still, I think the Bonds situation is somehow different.  Rose may be a jerk, and that was always my view of him (albeit as a biased Cubs fan), even before the mess with gambling on baseball.  And Henderson may be a jerk in light of his self-promotional statements about his own accomplishments.  And Knight may be a jerk for any number of reasons, going all the way back to the Jim Wisman incident, Puerto Rico, tossing a chair, pulling his team off the floor against the Russians, the Connie Chung interview, the Neil Reed episode, kicking Pat Knight's chair, and well, that's probably enough.

One key difference between each of these individuals and Bonds, though, is that not one of these other record breakers was in a position to break his respective record because he somehow defrauded his sport and its fans.  I think each of the other "jerks" like Rose, Henderson and Knight enjoyed broader support than Bonds is getting now, and it's precisely because of Bonds' role as a fraud and a steroid cheat.  Without the taint of steroid use, there would likely be a grudging acknowledgment among the fans and media that, "Yeah, he's a jerk, but the guy sure is an amazing ball player."  Now, with the looming steroid issue, I think the much more broadly taken view, by both fans (outside San Francisco) and the media is that not only is Bonds a complete jerk, but he's also a cheater.  Any grudging acknowledgment of his considerable baseball talent is usually noted as an afterthought, and in the past tense.  Thus, the only time I recall people talking about Bonds' greatness as a ball player since he started using steroids is in the context of noting that Bonds was putting up Hall of Fame numbers without having to cheat.  His steroid use after the McGwire / Sosa chase of the single season home run record has completely overshadowed how good Bonds was without cheating.

Another way of putting this is that I can't imagine someone putting the same question out there on the eve of Rose's, Henderson's or Knight's respective record breaking games.  But it doesn't  surprise me in Bonds' case.  Not because Bonds is a jerk, which he is, but because he's a steroid using fraud and a jerk.

So what would I do if I had tickets to a game where Bonds may tie or break the home run record?  In a case like Eig's, I would probably go.  This assumes I didn't buy the tickets to a Giants game with the thought that it may be a record setting game.  Thus, I wouldn't be looking for tickets to upcoming Giants games now, knowing that Bonds may tie or break the record.  But if I had tickets that I had purchased far in advance, without planning to witness a record, then I would go to the game as planned.  If the record happens when I'm there, I'd probably boo Bonds.

And I'd like to think that if I caught the record tying or breaking home run ball, as a die-hard Cubs fan I would throw it back.

Fred Barnes had a column today on The Weekly Standard's site outlining various alleged strengths of the proposed immigration legislation, and why conservatives should support this legislation.  Specifically, the sub-headline to the piece is, "What conservatives are missing"

Barnes argues that the new legislation is a net "win" for conservatives, as it "gives conservatives a large chunk of what they've wanted for years, plus some things they don't want."  Specifically, he points to "four major reforms favored by conservatives:  border buildup, the trigger, temporary workers, and an end to chain migration."

Let's take these in order.  First, as for "border buildup," Barnes points to "significantly beefed-up security along America's southern border."  Let's play along for the moment and agree that it's simply "buildup" that conservatives would like to see.  What the draft legislation and the commentary indicate is that, yes, there is a big target as far as the number of border patrol agents, which would hopefully be hired in the coming years to get to a total of 28,000 or more agents.  If merely having a bigger payroll were somehow the touchstone for conservatives worried about stopping illegal immigration, this would be wonderful.  Unfortunately, Barnes is confusing process with results.  Conservatives want the borders enforced and protected, illegal immigration stopped, and, within reason, those here illegally removed and returned to their home countries as appropriate.  Undoubtedly, having more border patrol agents may be important to reaching those goals.  But the mere fact of hiring them is not evidence that there will be any actual progress on the more important goals of enforcement.

Second, Barnes points to "the trigger."  The selling point here, per Barnes, is that "[i]t delays further reform - including issuance of Z visas allowing the estimated 12 million illegals in the United States to stay indefinitely - until all the steps to tighten border security have been taken."  This again sounds nice as far as it goes, but it ignores the fact that illegal aliens will not need the actual Z visas to stay indefinitely.  If this bill becomes law, then on day one, 12-20 million illegal aliens could file their applications for Z visas, and provided the data bases and computerized background checks do not reject the applicant by the end of the next business day, they will be issued a probationary visa.  They cannot be deported.  They can work for any employer.  They can move freely within the country.  They are here until they move through the system.  There's no trigger that has to be satisfied before actually granting the illegal immigrants everything they would want to make their lives here much much simpler, and making it much much harder for them to be deported.

To be fair, Barnes acknowledges that "Washington has a credibility problem on border security."  His suggestion in how to fix this image problem?  "...the bill can be improved, notably by adopting a suggestion of columnist Charles Krauthammer that success in securing the border by quantified - he suggested a 90 percent reduction in illegal immigration - before the trigger is activated."

Again, Barnes is talking past the problem.  It's not about how great the trigger is.  As is pointed out later in the column in comparing the "wins" for Senators Kennedy and Kyl in negotiating the proposed legislation, "Kennedy's triumph is in allowing 12 million illegal immigrants to stay here indefinitely..."  Yes, and most importantly, and problematically, Kennedy's triumph will be realized from the word "Go" if this becomes law.  But the first of Kyl's purported triumphs fall more into the J. Wellington Wimpy world of "I would gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today."  So more border patrol agents will be HIRED, and there won't be PERMANENT Z visas, but there will be no actual requirement that illegal immigration be stopped or significantly reduced in any way prior to granting illegal immigrants probationary status that is all they'll ever need to live freely in this country.  And if the argument is that this is the best we can hope for now, and any immigration reform legislation under a successor Democrat would be worse, then what confidence should we have that the kind of amendments Barnes suggests like Krauthammer's quantifiable notion would ever come to pass under such a Democrat?  It seems far more likely that we'll see amendments from the Democrats watering down of even the marginally promising provisions in this legislation in the event they retain control of the Senate and House, and also gain the White House.

Third, the inclusion of a temporary worker program is an alleged victory for conservatives as "[w]e desperately need one."  The problem is not whether we need temporary workers.  In many industries, perhaps we do.  But as John Derbyshire has already explained in his post on The Corner at National Review Online, there are currently 6 types of visas for temporary workers.  Why do we need another temporary worker program?  Why not just amend the numbers for the already existing programs as necessary?  And Derbyshire's more important point, based on his own person experience of having come here on an H-1B temporary worker visa in 1985, he's still here.  He never left.  Derbyshire explained, "'Temporary worker program' is hogwash.  There are no temporary workers, only settlers.  I'm here to tell you."

The fourth purported "win" in this legislation is the end of chain migration.  Barnes explains, "Currently, extended families of immigrants are given preference in entering America, and then the extended families of these extended families get priority, and so on.  The chain goes on forever.  This so-called 'family unification' has meant we have practically no control over who comes in.  Sixty percent or more of legal immigrants in recent years have arrived through this policy."

Ending chain migration does sound like a good idea.  Unfortunately, as we speak, the Democrats are cranking out proposed amendments to the immigration legislation that would keep chain migration alive.  If a fight breaks out over chain migration, would Vegas put its money on the Republicans who were willing to give 20 million illegal immigrants the indefinite right to stay in the country, without penalty, on the promise that someday there will be 28 million border patrol agents on the payroll and the illegal immigrants won't get a permanent, laminated, Z visa, but only the temporary one, or the Democrats who won the ability to hand 20 million illegal immigrants a "stay here as long as you like" card on day one?

Barnes notes that, "...the president should vow to enforce immigration laws vigorously this time and prepare the federal bureaucracy to carry out reform measures that may be enacted.  It will take much reassurance to persuade the public that Washington really means it this time on immigration."  This is the crux of the problem.  Even if he "really means it this time on immigration," we've now been through 20 years, and 20 million plus instances, where it is clear that Washington doesn't mean it on immigration.  After that kind of track record of complete disregard for stopping illegal immigration, there is nothing short of actual results in sealing the borders that will demonstrate that anyone in Washington is serious about this issue.

Ok, the test worked.  I have deleted the post as the link was to the blog I created at .Mac that has various family photos and digital video of the kids.

I find myself more in the camp of wanting the Feds to actually make an effort and a showing that they have secured the borders and are enforcing CURRENT laws on illegal immigration.  That includes deporting already identified illegal alien criminals (I know, some would say that's redundant, but for argument's sake, I'm talking about illegal aliens who have then committed another crime in the US, or perhaps have been found to be escaped criminals from other countries), cracking down on employers who hire illegal aliens, etc.  Let's give that a good 5 years and see where we are.

Seems like the supporters of the proposed immigration legislation are saying they want to start this whole probationary Z-Visa system because it will mean those who don't come "out of the shadows" will be easier to find and deal with.

So are we really just quibbling over the size of the group in the shadows, where my preference is to keep them all there for now, enforce the existing laws, seal the border, and see how it plays out over time, while the other side is telling us they just want a smaller group in the shadows, without enforcing the existing laws, and we'll see how it goes trying to naturalize those who come forward for Z Visas?

Finally, on a quasi-related note, I'm wondering if one thing to think about with the proposed legislation is clarifying that no illegal alien gets either probationary or permanent visa status until EVERY visa applicant who has followed the rules for legal immigration has been processed.  Essentially, if illegal aliens who were here before Jan 1, 2007, are eligible for Z Visas, then they get in line behind every legal applicant in the system as of that same date.  Seems fair.

So if I understand President Bush's and Secretary Chertoff's arguments, the proposed immigration reform is a good thing because it will create a database to track (former illegal) immigrants, and we'll have this great automated system of information that will help make the borders more secure.

How'd that work out for a single known person with a serious infectious disease?  We have one guy with a highly drug resistant form of TB, who is told by doctors and CDC not to travel.  He's even put on a list so that TSA agents will stop him.

So we have some kind of database and computers and automation.  Problem solved!

Oh, maybe not.  Turns out the border patrol agent [apologies for mistakenly referring to a TSA employee here] who actually checked the guy at the US - Canadian border "didn't think he looked sick" so he let him come right back into the country.

Then we have the continuing saga of Flight 327.  To recap, in 2004, aboard a Northwest Airlines flight, I believe between Detroit and LA, 13 Syrian men acted very suspiciously (they were apparently together in the terminal, then separated and acted as if they did not know one another on the plane, seated themselves at various positions proximate to exits, spent significant time in succession in bathrooms, gave each other hand signals, etc) and some of the passengers were concerned enough to talk to the flight crew.  On landing, the Syrians were cursorily interviewed, claimed they were musicians, and were eventually allowed to leave the country and return to Syria.

So now, in 2007, we get a redacted government report indicating that this may in fact have been some kind of dry run, but that the investigators at TSA did not want to flag this as any kind of threat that should have been passed up the chain as a cause for concern.

So when we have databases with accurate information, like with the TB case, we don't know how to use them properly.  And as the Flight 327 case indicates, we have real problems with the bureaucratic mindset so that maybe we shouldn't have much confidence in what information does and does not get into a database.

We should have confidence that DHS and the immigration authorities will be able to accurately  and efficiently create and implement a database of 12 to 20 million illegal immigrants why, exactly?

I receive an email each day letting me know when The Daily Fix, a sports round-up column on WSJ.com, is posted.  The subject line of today's email:

"THE DAILY FIX:  Milan's Delayed Gratification."

Naturally, I assumed this had something to do with the 1954 Indiana high school basketball championship team from Milan, Indiana.  "But how could that team somehow have delayed gratification," I wondered.  "They won the title.  Wasn't that gratifying?"

Turns out the big news in sports yesterday was some silly soccer game involving a team from Milan, Italy.  Nice of them to name a town after the fine folks in Indiana to honor the Milan Miracle.

After toying with the idea of setting up a blog, the recent news coverage of the proposed comprehensive immigration reform legislation has prompted me to take the plunge.

While I have no particular expertise in immigration, I have a lot of questions on the topic in light of what is being promised and what has happened in the past.  Common sense tells me to be very skeptical of grand compromises crafted by politicians behind closed doors.  And after listening to Hugh Hewitt and Laura Ingraham at various times on my commute, I would like to discuss further questions prompted by the conversations they have had with lawmakers and government officials involved in this process.

I will start making an attempt to read through the proposed legislation itself, with the annotated version at N.Z. Bear's site as a good starting point.  I also will look to think tanks like Heritage Foundation and Cato to see what their experts have to say and what questions they prompt.

At this point, my view of the immigration situation in our country is that we should actually try to enforce the laws that currently exist and shut down, to the maximum extent possible, illegal immigration along our southern and northern borders.   This may be a completely naive view, but I put it out there as an initial frame of reference to guide further inquiry and thought on this topic.  So we'll see what the new law says, what the experts think, and see where that leads us.

Along the way, I also expect to ruminate on other topics in the news, some serious and some not serious at all.  I look forward to learning some new things, possibly making contact with others on the internet who are interested in some of the topics and issues on which I may comment, and having some fun.