Archive for 2013

WALTER RUSSELL MEAD: Immigrants Are Assimilating, Just Like Always. “A new poll indicates that Hispanic immigrants, just like the many immigrants before them, are assimilating in pretty quick order. More Hispanics get their news from English language sources than from Spanish ones, and the gap is growing as time goes by. . . . There are legitimate questions about the rate of immigration and every serious country needs to police its frontiers, but Americans can make immigration policy from a standpoint of confidence and optimism. We are actually pretty good at integrating newcomers into American society, and this poll is one more piece of evidence that we haven’t lost our skills.”

And also, Obama is helping our immigration problem by converting America into the kind of place people emigrate from, instead of the kind of place people immigrate to. . . .

THIS IS CERTAINLY TRUE FOR ME: Coffee Reduces Suicide Risk. On the other hand, without coffee, I wouldn’t have the energy to act on a suicidal urge, however strong.

FROM SEBASTIAN: The Continuing Saga of “Living with the Gun.” “When Heidi Yewman first published her highly controversial piece in Ms. Magazine, I thought she was honestly a bit irresponsible with how she approached the topic of gun ownership. After reading her continuing drama, now published by the Daily Beast, I believe she honestly lacks the moral clarity, level headedness, and common sense required of someone being a gun owner. On this we agree. Where we disagree is that the government’s job is to enforce responsibility, and that training can fix the problem for someone like her. Training will not help Heidi Yewman, she quite simply lacks the emotional makeup necessary for gun ownership. . . . One of the fundamental differences between us and the gun control advocates is that we generally trust that ordinary people will, much more often than not, do the right thing. Even Heidi Yewman, as someone who is not generally criminally irresponsible, knows what she’s doing is wrong and irresponsible. She committed those wrongs to make a point. She believes the government needs to step in and restrict everyone. She would put the decision in the hands of a bureaucrat, because she assumes you and I, and most everyone else, are unable to make that call.”

Lefties generally assume that everyone is as messed up and irresponsible as they are.

ASKING THE IMPORTANT QUESTIONS: Why Are Some People So Smart? “Zhao’s goal is to use those machines to examine the genetic underpinnings of genius like his own. He wants nothing less than to crack the code for intelligence by studying the genomes of thousands of prodigies, not just from China but around the world. He and his collaborators, a transnational group of intelligence researchers, fully expect they will succeed in identifying a genetic basis for IQ. They also expect that within a decade their research will be used to screen embryos during in vitro fertilization, boosting the IQ of unborn children by up to 20 points. In theory, that’s the difference between a kid who struggles through high school and one who sails into college.”

James Miller, call your office.

A STRANGE SORT OF JUSTICE, at West Point. Hard to feel the traditional support for institutions that have so broken with traditional American values.

HIGHER EDUCATION BUBBLE UPDATE: Why Your Little Alma Mater May Go Extinct.

My first thought was “good.” The college students I meet today seem to endure excessive admissions agony, in large part because getting into a good school is so much harder than it used to be. I could never be admitted to any of the schools I went to today, because they’ve gotten so much more selective since I applied. Most of the people I know say the same. Harvard now rejects almost 19 out of every 20 people who apply. Penn, my alma mater, rejects five out of six.

The result is that upper middle class kids spend their high school years desperately trying to acquire the credentials to get into a top school — “founding” dubious charities, doing “enriching” academic programs and “volunteer” work that will give them something about which to write an essay showcasing their ability to confront the tough realities of poverty, class and social obligation. Of course, later they may need to learn to engage in crass hypocrisy and button polishing to get ahead in their careers, but I don’t think starting that sort of education so early is a good idea.

But read the whole thing.

WHICH ONE OF THESE THINGS IS NOT LIKE THE OTHERS? What motivates a lawyer to defend a Tsarnaev, a Castro or a Zimmerman?

Reader John Steakley writes: “Tsarnaez = Castro = Zimmerman? Why not just throw in a Hitler? That’s usually how the question is posed at cocktail parties.”

UPDATE: Reader Nick Osborn writes: “Well, why not add Emmanuel Goldstein? You might think that would get you dropped from the A-List at parties, but I suspect the reference would go right over their heads.”

VIRGINIA POSTREL ON Glamour, Terror, and Rolling Stone. “Martial glamour is as ancient as Achilles. It promises prowess, courage, camaraderie and historical importance. It offers a way to matter. The West once recognized the pull of martial glamour–before the carnage of World War I, the glamour of battle was a common and positive phrase–but it ignores at its peril the spell’s enduring draw, especially for those who feel powerless and insignificant.”

JAMES TARANTO: In Praise of Juror B29: She did the right thing despite her prejudices.

B29 turns out to be the very model of civic virtue. She didn’t play God by mistaking her prejudice for omniscience. Instead she put it aside, examined the facts, applied the law, and concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. She was therefore obliged to find him not guilty, notwithstanding her personal feeling that he was not innocent.

Whether or not it was good form to speak publicly after the trial–and let us note that B29 was not the first Zimmerman juror to do so–she performed the juror’s role flawlessly.

And Lisa Bloom’s suggestion that B29 should have taken the opportunity “to stand her ground in the jury room”–ha ha, “stand her ground,” get it?–is irresponsible and despicable. Bloom is calling for jury nullification of fundamental constitutional rights: the presumption of innocence and the requirement that prosecutors prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

To be fair to Lisa, she went to Yale Law and thus may have only a hazy idea of how those things work. I don’t know what Kevin Drum’s excuse is for his legal error described in the item below . . .

SCANDALS GIVING AMERICANS “OBAMA FATIGUE?”

See, that’s the problem with the “dense pack” strategy. It dulls awareness of any particular scandal, but at the cost of making the entire Administration seem shady.