The century-old American institution of Scouting is going down the diversity trail to perdition, including Spanish-language materials and a rejiggering of the basics to suit Mexicans and other Hispanics [Boy Scouts launch campaign to boost their Latino ranks and staff, LA Times, Jan 4, 2009].

Aiming to boost their sagging numbers, the Boy Scouts are launching a million-dollar campaign to draw more Latinos, a group that has long resisted Scouting’s appeal.

But the Scouts’ national officials acknowledge that it may be a tough sell. Only three of every 100 Scouts are Latino, and some immigrant families see such groups as an indulgence of the well-to-do in their home countries. Some also bristle at the uniforms.

“We go in in a uniform that looks like the Border Patrol,” said Paul Moore, head of the Scouts’ Los Angeles Area Council. “Then we ask [adult volunteers] to fill out complex applications that ask for their Social Security numbers. I think we’ve found some good ways in L.A. to deal with some of these things, but we have to do a better job of getting parents to see Scouting as something that aligns with their hopes and dreams for their kids.”

One reason for getting Social Security numbers of adult leaders is to screen out perverts trolling for children. Will the Scouts accept useless Matricula cards for identification from Hispanics? It’s unclear from the article whether Hispanics will be held to lower standards, identity-wise.

Furthermore, what will happen to the Scouting tradition of teaching patriotism and loyalty to America with the new emphasis on globalist diversity? (Check out a selection of Norman Rockwell Scout paintings to refresh your memory about Scouting’s connection to patriotism.)

The Boy Scout Oath emphasizes duty to country — not a popular value among hispanic immigrants for the most part, unless the country is Mexico.

On my honor I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country
and to obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong,
mentally awake, and morally straight.

In addition, the traditional uniform style (”that looks like the Border Patrol”) has apparently been discarded in favor of yellow t-shirts and forest green jackets, judging by the photo in this AP article: Boy Scouts aim to recruit Latinos, which includes more details of “outreach”:

[Rick] Cronk made Hispanic outreach a focus after he realized that just translating brochures into Spanish, or combining Cub Scouting with soccer, was not enough to meet the goal of doubling Hispanic membership by the group’s centennial in 2010.

If Spanish and soccer aren’t big enough enticements, what’s left?

A better question might be: Why destroy an American institution for an ethnic group that has neither interest nor aptitude?

Dr. Norm Matloff writes:

Most discussion of the H-1B work visa program focuses on IT, not suprising since the computer fields take a plurality of the visas. Yet H-1B’s impact on science and academia is equally important, with the abuse being equally rampant (though, as with IT, fully legal). Enclosed below is a piece by Beryl Lieff Benderley in Science Careers, a publication of Science Magazine, highlighting this issue. It’s startling but gratifying to see such a staid publication take such an un-PC, though correct, stance. (I’ve also enclosed a second article by Benderley.)[Taken for Granted: Brother, Can You Spare a Temporary Worker Visa?, By Beryl Lieff Benderly]

Many readers of this e-newsletter will recall that I’ve brought up the subject myself in various ways, most recently in connection with Douglas Prasher, the “almost-Nobelist” who is working as a van driver for a Toyota dealer. I urge you to read my entire posting here, as Prasher exemplifies what Ms. Benderley writes about in the enclosures even better than her own Dr. “Otto B. Doing-Better.” In summary: Prasher’s work was central to research that led to this year’s Nobel Prize in chemistry, and one of the winners said he could well have been selected for the award himself. Yet he went through a series of jobs in science, with shorter and shorter duration and less and less security. In the end he was reduced to driving the van for a living.

The point is that Prasher is a victim of a crushing oversupply of scientists, in turn caused by a large influx imported from abroad under the H-1B program, just as Ms. Benderley describes. What Benderley probably doesn’t know, though, is that all of this was deliberate. When the National Science Foundation was lobbying Congress to establish the H-1B program in the late 1980s, the NSF cited as a major goal holding down PhD salaries, which would be accomplished by flooding the labor market with H-1B PhDs. The NSF also noted that the low salaries would drive away American students from PhD programs, which is of course exactly what has happened. See Eric Weinstein’s investigative reporting on this, here and quotes of it here.

Bottom line: The H-1B program is being used in academia for cheap labor, just like in IT. It’s ruining the careers and lives of people like “Otto B. Doing-Better,” even to the point of forcing a Nobel-level researcher into blue collar work to earn a living. And all this is occurring unseen behind the hype that “Johnnie can’t do science” and the U.S. is on the verge of losing its technical edge.

Well, WHY is it unseen? Are Benderley and Weinstein and I really the only ones who know this? Of course not. Any academic with her eyes open knows it. Shirley M. Malcom, head of education and human resources at the American Association for the Advancement of Science, knows there is a huge oversupply of scientists, and surely understands the role of H-1B in it. She spoke of the oversupply on NPR (without explicitly mentioning H-1B); see How the U.S. Measures Up in Math and Science.[NPR Talk of the Nation, November 9, 2007]

But almost no one is willing to rock the boat, as the personal consequences would be severe. Though I must note that my own university has been remarkably tolerant of my gadfly writings on H-1B, even bestowing its Distinguished Public Service Award on me in part because of H-1B. But if for example Dr. Malcom had mentioned H-1B explicitly in that NPR segment, her days at AAAS likely would have been numbered, and she would been blocked from obtaining other positions of that type. Greg Zachary of the Wall Street Journal wrote some great pieces on H-1B in the mid-90s, then later changed 180 degrees; why the change of heart? Several academics who have been strongly H-1B have in the last year or so come out in favor of expanding the employer-sponsored green card program, in spite of that program having essentially the same adverse effects as H-1B.

Hal Salzman, whose Urban Institute report is cited by Benderley (see below), was on that show with Malcom, and he didn’t mention H-1B either–in spite of the fact that he was the investigator on a 2001 congressionally-commissioned study which found that use of H-1Bs as cheap labor is rampant. Again, I believe that this reticence on his part is due to H-1B being a kind of Third Rail in the research world.

Meanwhile, those with huge vested interests in the program–academia, industry and last-but-not-least the immigration attorneys–have been flooding the press with PR, which is the source of the “Johnnie can’t do science” perception. By the way, Benderley appears to be unaware that one report she cites, by NAP, was written by a researcher who has been quite partisan in favor of the industry and whose funding is suspected to come from the immigration lawyers group. See Stuart Anderson criticizes Miano study.

And these people, e.g. Google CEO Eric Schmidt, have Barack Obama’s ear. Not coincidentally, Obama’s Secretaries-designate of Commerce, DHS and Labor all are in favor of expanding H-1B and employer-sponsored green cards. Obama’s own position paper, linked to in Benderley’s article, might as well have been written by the industry, and may well have been.

And even though Obama’s fellow senator from Illinois, Dick Durbin, has sponsored a good H-1B reform bill and Durbin was one of Obama’s most active supporters in the election campaign, Obama doesn’t seem to have been educated by Durbin very much, or worse, Obama sees that reform of H-1B is a political nonstarter. I’m sure the Durbin-Grassley bill will languish this coming year just as it did during the Bush years.

Voices like Lindsay Lowell, whose outstanding Urban Institute study with Hal Salzman is cited below by Benderley, are lost in the shuffle. Though UI is well-respected in DC and is especially valued by Democrats, you could knock on doors on the Hill all day and not find more than one or two staffers who are aware of the Lowell/Salzman report. Similarly you could talk to all the science and business reporters at the New York Times and likely not find any who know about Lowell/Salzman.

Nor for that matter would you find congressional staffers who are aware of Congress’ own findings, in two of its commissioned reports (the one by NRC that Salzman contributed to, as mentioned, and another by GAO), that H-1B is used widely as a means of cheap labor–as reported by the employers themselves. You might find some staffers who know of a recent DHS study that found a substantial percentages of irregularities (some fraudulent, most not) in H-1B applications, but that is missing the real point, which is that most abuse of H-1B for cheap labor is fully legal, due to the loopholes, as pointed out in the GAO study.

The sad truth is that Congress hears what the monied and powerful want them to hear.

Norm

[Taken for Granted: Brother, Can You Spare a Temporary Worker Visa?, By Beryl Lieff Benderly]
January 02, 2009

“Postdocs hired at U.S. universities have become, for some time now, a new kind of cheap labor … who are most of the time only allowed to do those experiments that please their bosses, and, on the other hand, cannot many times contribute to the creative scientific process.” –Otto B. Doing-Better[More]

[Bill] Richardson, who is the governor of New Mexico, is facing a federal grand jury investigation into whether he exchanged government contracts for contributions to his failed presidential bid last year.

NBC News on Sunday reported that Richardson denies any wrongdoing but the investigation won’t be finished before he has to go to a Senate confirmation hearing.

“Let me say unequivocally that I and my administration have acted properly in all matters and that this investigation will bear out that fact,” Richardson told NBC News. “But I have concluded that the ongoing investigation also would have forced an untenable delay in the confirmation process….”

The Associated Press reported last month that a grand jury is investigating whether the California firm CDR Financial Products paid to push through a contract with the state of New Mexico.

Democratic strategist Mary Anne Marsh told FOX News that with the cloud lingering over the Obama transition because of Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s alleged attempts to sell Obama’s vacated Senate seat, the Richardson nomination would have been another unwanted distraction.

Richardson “was going to have a very difficult time getting through this nomination,” Marsh said. “People really haven’t looked at the Richardson situation and the more they looked at it, the more they realized” confirmation was going to be a problem.[Bill Richardson Withdraws as Commerce Secretary-Designate, Fox News, January 4, 2009]

There’s an unwritten political law, whereby an elected official is supposed to wait at least until he has been sworn in and enjoyed some honest graft, before having his first scandal. It is typical of the hubris of “Barack Obama” to ignore such hard-won common sense.

And it is typical of the hubris of the socialist MSM that they really haven’t looked at the ramifications of an “Obama” presidency, because the more they would have looked at it, the more they would have realized that it was going to be going to be a problem.

A shooting, a rape and beating, and dark insinuations by the police and media. It’s just another week in the immigration wars in Everett, Washington.

On Saturday evening, a reader sent me material on two violent attacks a week apart by intruders in the home of immigration reform (of the patriotic variety) activist Shawna Forde and her husband.

Shawna Forde is the director of Minutemen American Defense. She and her husband are separated, but still share their house in Everett.

On the evening of December 22, a lone intruder broke into the Fordes’ home, where Mr. Forde was home alone, and shot him three times in the chest. The shooter “was described as white,” but the police composite sketch suggests that he is Hispanic, categories which are not racially exclusive, but which politically have taken on separate lives.

Exactly one week later, three males broke into the Forde home, where Mrs. Forde was home alone. One beat her with a blunt object, one or more sliced her up, and at least one raped her. She reports that one male was white, another spoke Spanish, and that they “used a felt pen to scrawl the number 13 on her kitchen floor. She said her freelance crime investigations could have brought trouble her way, and suggested the ‘13’ may be a reference to Hispanic street gangs, including the ultra violent Mara Salvatrucha [MS-13],” which is active in Everett.

As reported by Everett’s Herald newspaper, the Everett Police Department has insinuated that all is not right with the Fordes’ stories (or that the crimes have a non-political motivation), maintaining that there was no sign of forced entry in the December 22 shooting case, and following the December 29 attack on Shawna Forde, “acknowledg[ing] they aren’t quite sure what to make of the violent events recently reported at the home in the 2200 block of Rocke­feller Avenue.”

The Herald noted that during Shawna Forde’s unsuccessful 2007 run for an Everett City Council seat, she “pleaded guilty to stealing chocolate milk from an Everett grocery store.

“Forde at the time said the whole thing was a misunderstanding, but pleaded guilty to put the matter behind her.”

In her campaign, Forde “promise[d] to make certain that police aren’t blocked from checking on the immigration status of suspects.”

At the same time, one has to consider the sources. The police are hostile towards Forde, due to her campaign promise to end their sanctuary practices, and the Herald is a pro-illegal immigrant newspaper, which sought to provoke reader hostility towards Forde, by playing the SPLC’s “Nazi card” against her, in the story on the attack on her.

Forde’s border activities have drawn attention from the Montgomery, Ala.-based Southern Poverty Law Center, which has tracked hate groups for decades. The organization profiled Forde in Spring 2008 as one of 20 people it characterized as exploiting any medium to deliver a “message of raging intolerance” on immigration issues.

I’ll try to get statements from the police and from Shawna Forde, but I am starting to get a Rashomony feeling about this story. All that is clear at this point, is that things have gotten very interesting in Everett, Washington, and they are bound to get even more interesting.

Apparently, as Pat Buchanan has put it,

crass Israeli politics

require the use of American military technology to create what looks ominously like a first class humanitarian disaster in the Gaza Strip – and, no doubt, US acquiescence in it. Consequently, a discussion which has developed on Daniel Larison’s Eunomia blog at The American Conservative raises a question which will become increasingly important: Do these Israeli-boosting Violence Junkies personified by Victor Davis Hanson have any sense?

In Those Crazy “Middle Eastern” Doctrines on January 1st, Larison mused:

Not that it should surprise anyone, but Victor Davis Hanson does not understand the doctrine of proportionality…As the Catechism of the Catholic Church puts it, “the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated.” (2309)

This produced a reasonable response from Chris Sastre

As regards Victor Davis Hanson - everything I have read of his, principally at NRO…seems to revolve around a central tenet of finding ways to justify and rationalize military intervention, both committed and proposed, as a prime mover in American foreign policy

going on to ask, essentially, is Hanson worth taking seriously?

It happens VDARE.com has dealt with this issue: What use is Victor Davis Hanson? in 2005 theorised that Hanson’s main utility was blocking access to the media by more able and less subservient writers, partly because he could be trusted to eventually give way on anything crucial. It linked to an incisive study of his scholarly work: The Case of Victor Davis Hanson: Farmer, Scholar, WarMonger, by F. Roger Devlin, The Occidental Quarterly Winter 2003. (Bleg: It also linked to a brilliant essay on Hanson by the War Nerd, Gary Brecher, in the now defunct publication The Exile. Can anyone find this in Cyberspace?) [UPDATE: Victor Hanson: Portrait of an American Traitor, Gary Brecher, The Exile, July 28, 2005 ]

How Hanson fits into the American opinion market was defined on VDARE in Hanson’s Mexifornia: Brimelow Speaks!

…Mexifornia’s reception by establishment conservativism has been surprisingly favorable. Even the Wall Street Journal editorial page, notoriously Stalinist in its suppression of immigration critics, permitted an uneasily respectful review. It is painfully apparent that this is because of the accident of military historian Hanson’s cheerleading for the Iraq War in National Review and elsewhere. (In contrast, establishment liberalism has ignored the book…No review has appeared in the New York Times or Washington Post.)

The review also noted Hanson’s desperation not offend establishment MSM prejudices on matters of I.Q or Operation Wetback.

So that is Victor Davis Hanson. Like a household slave in classical times he is allowed a humble existence in the outbuildings. But he must come rushing out with rationalizations for military action in the Middle East whenever summoned. And asking if any of this is in the best interests of America is definitely not his place.

Looks like he is going to be busy.

Obama hasn’t even been inaugurated, but Mexican politicians are already looking to see how they can meddle . A delegation of Mexican senators is due in Washington on January 13th-15th to sound out meddling opportunities under the new administration.
An article in the Mexican media, Senadores Mexicanos Irán a EU a Sondear Nueva Administración, el Siglo de Torreon, January 2, 2009) reports that :

The Senate of the Republic approved that a delegation travel to Washington, before the inauguration of Barack Obama as president of the United States, to meet with congressmen, opinion leaders (think tanks), unions and pressure groups [sic]. The goal is to find out the priorities of the legislative agenda and of the Obama administration.

The Mexican Senate delegation includes representation from the three major Mexican parties, who though they may disagree on other subjects, are united in their desire to meddle in U.S. immigration policy. The members are Rosario Green of the PRI (former foreign minister), Luis Alberto Villarreal and Ricardo Garcia of the PAN, and Silvano Aureoles of the PRD.
The article states that

The senators have the objective of carrying out parliamentary diplomacy, to learn the priorities of the [American] executive and legislative branches, especially regarding the issue of immigration, and to analyze the issues that could interest Mexico in 2009.

According to delegation member Senator Luis Alberto Villarreal:

We believe that it is indispensable that we begin to do the work of parliamentary diplomacy, that we could be in a very transcendent moment for the United States, and of course of a major impact for the region.

What is the objective ? To meet with some leaders of the Senate, of the House of Representatives, and especially to meet with a series of pressure groups of the Hispanic community and think tanks, that we know favored the Democratic candidate [Obama] with 70% of the Hispanic vote, and insist that the migratory issue be reopened.

Mexican senators are hoping to get the migratory issue on the Washington agenda by March or April.