Mark Steyn has a review of the musical Wicked up on his site. The musical is “dark prequel” to The Wizard Of Oz, in which good is evil and evil is good, and “everything you thought you knew” about Oz was wrong. But what struck me was the way the Wicked Witch acquired victim status–“The Wicked Witch, an outsider “misunderstood” because of the colour of her skin, is the real good witch.” Aha! It was the greenness, not the wickedness that caused the problem, was it? Well, I suppose there was a lot of color prejudice in those days. It wasn’t until Star Trek started airing in the sixties that green-skinned women could get good roles.

A liberal Quaker from Providence attended Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University for a semester, and has written a book about it:

Ivy Leaguer ‘infiltrates’ Falwell’s conservative Liberty University

By Eric Tucker, Associated Press

PROVIDENCE, Rhode Island — Kevin Roose managed to blend in during his single semester at Liberty University, the conservative Christian college. He attended lectures on the myth of evolution and the sin of homosexuality, and joined fellow students on a mission trip to evangelize partyers on spring break.

Roose had transferred to the Virginia campus from Brown University in Providence, a famously liberal member of the Ivy League. His Liberty classmates knew about the switch, but he kept something more important hidden: He planned to write a book about his experience at the school founded by fundamentalist preacher Jerry Falwell.

Each conversation about salvation or hand-wringing debate about premarital sex was unwitting fodder for Roose’s recently published book: The Unlikely Disciple: A Sinner’s Semester at America’s Holiest University.

“As a responsible American citizen, I couldn’t just ignore the fact that there are a lot of Christian college students out there,” said Roose, 21, now a Brown senior. “If I wanted my education to be well-rounded, I had to branch out and include these people that I just really had no exposure to.”

Of course, what he doesn’t seem to realize is that they’re the normal ones, and he isn’t. Why don’t you meet conservative Christian students at Brown, let alone teachers? Because they’re persecuted and discriminated against. The Chancellor of Liberty University, Jerry Falwell Jr, said that “We appreciate Kevin’s generally positive tone toward LU but he admittedly comes from a culture that has very little tolerance for conservative Christianity and even less understanding of it,”, which is about right.

What would be interesting, obviously, would be a similar book about a student infiltrating the Islamic Saudi Academy in Virginia. But not only would such a student be risking his life, since they’re not just fundamentalists there, but very much pro-terrorist, but he’d have no chance of a big book contract from a major publisher like Hachette.

UPDATE: You don’t often see the phrase “monster of hypocrisy” used these days, but these articles by Kevin Roose on the website of the Liberty Champion make me wonder if it should be revived.

May 8, 2007 Meet the family man, the prankster, the real Dr. Falwell by Kevin Roose, Life! Reporter [Backup link]

Special Edition May 18, 2007 The real Jerry Falwell: The family man, the pastor, the leader of Champions for Christ by Kevin Roose [Backup link]

Iconoculture, the marketing website which keeps highlighting weird Hispanic cultural problems, has actually highlighted a normal American success story in Irving, Texas. Of course, from the point of view of illegal aliens, this success, in arresting and deporting illegals,  is a cultural  problem. The Iconoculture item is called A Texas city gets strict, becomes divided on undocumented immigration.

Let’s make it clear that “divided” means divided between loyal and disloyal Americans, and it also means divided between those who profit from illegal immigration, and those who pay the bill.

Here’s what the Economic Persons at Iconoculture have to say:

• Like many communities, Irving, TX, has seen an increase in undocumented immigrants. A local law passed in 2007, allowing police to conduct immigration checks on everyone they arrest, is dividing the community, pitting Latinos and retail businesses on one side, advocates of strict immigration enforcement on the other, and the mayor in the middle.
• The Dallas suburb enacted the policy to get rid of dangerous criminals who are in the country illegally.
• But many of the 4,000 Irving residents who have been referred to the federal authorities are facing potential deportation due to minor offenses like driving without a license (NYTimes.com 4.4.09).

The bad thing about Iconoculture (aside from their attitude, is that they don’t provide either a link or a citation for their NYTimes.com reference–I’ll have to do it: Texas Mayor Caught in Deportation Furor ,By Randy Kennedy, New York Times, April 4, 2009.

And driving without a license isn’t a minor offence when an  American does it. They put people in jail for that. You are statistically more likely to be killed by a Mexican with no driver’s license than you are by a terrorist.

As Steve Sailer predicted, Alan Greenspan, economic guru, (how’s the economy going, again?) is testifying that illegal immigration helps “the economy” and would be even more helpful if we just legalized it.

Greenspan Says Illegal Immigration Aids U.S. Economy (Update1)

By Nicholas Johnston

April 30 (Bloomberg) — Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said that illegal immigration makes a “significant” contribution to U.S. economic growth by providing a flexible workforce.

Greenspan, appearing before a Senate subcommittee today, said illegal immigrants provide a “safety valve” as demand for workers rises and falls.

“There is little doubt that unauthorized, that is, illegal, immigration has made a significant contribution to the growth of our economy,” Greenspan said. An overhaul of U.S. immigration laws is “badly needed” to create legal avenues for skilled and unskilled workers to enter the country legally, he said.

“Our immigration laws must be reformed and brought up to date,” Greenspan told the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security. [More]

Of course, “the economy” consists of a variety of winners and losers from illegal immigration.

Winners: The illegals themselves, and their employers.
Losers: American workers and taxpayers.

Update: A reader writes

“If, as he says, illegal aliens add ‘flexibility’ to our economy, then shouldn’t they be leaving when we’re in a recession like now?

Seems to me his comments are a better argument for NOT legalizing illegal aliens and requiring employers to use existing guest worker programs.”

In fact, they should go back, because it’s cheaper to be poor Mexico than it is in the United States, but they’re staying because there’s a lot of money around even if you’re unemployed, much of it provided by the American taxpayer

At the age of 10, before I thought about immigration, I still questioned whether newcomers would still maintain their old allegiances. When Redskins hired Norv Turner who had been offensive coordinator of our arch-rival Dallas Cowboys in 1994, he inherited a dismal team with no quarterback and the number three draft pick. He shocked sports fans when he chose Heath Shuler from Tennessee to fill the spot as opposed to Trent Dilfer from Fresno State who was widely considered to be the stronger pick.

My first thought was that Turner was still loyal to Dallas and he intentionally went with the inferior Shuler. Whether I was right about Turner’s motives, Shuler was a huge disappointment. During his three years with the Redskins he started in only 13 games, winning only 9. Trent Dilfer became a Pro-Bowler and Super Bowl Champion. Shuler is considered by many to be the Redskins worst draft pick in history.

When now Democratic Congressman Heath Shuler spoke to the group Progressives for Immigration Reform yesterday, a woman—apparently not aware of his days as a quarterback—said she followed his career. He responded by apologizing to her for his days with the Redskins to much laughter.

Shuler is the hero of many patriotic immigration reformers for being the most vocal Democrat in favor of serious immigration enforcement. With mass immigration unpopular across the spectrum and a Republican Party led by George Bush and John McCain until recently, it’s encouraging to see some take the lead on the issue.

Shuler’s speech focused primarily on the SAVE Act and E-Verify pounding the importance of making sure that American Jobs go to American Workers. I had actually never seen Shuler speak before and he struck me as very intelligent and charismatic.

Nonetheless, I was disappointed by a few points in his speech. When asked about anchor babies, he said that birthright citizenship was in the constitution (which it’s not) so there’s no point discussing it. Also, I left with the impression that he was much more concerned with implementing E-Verify than stopping amnesty.

If Shuler were a Republican, he’d be seen as a pretty solid on the issue, but not as a hero. Often forgotten is that he was elected by defeating Charles Taylor who had an A+ lifetime rating from Numbers USA and was stronger than Shuler on anchor babies.

With a solid Democratic majority and an increasingly unified Republican Party, the fate of immigration reform lies with the ability of Democrats like Shuler.

Unless he successfully leads other Democrats to stand strong for enforcement and against amnesty, his election in 2006 was nothing but someone good on immigration beating someone who is even better.
Let’s wish him the best.

Here’s a 2001 Edge.com essay by Geoffrey Miller, author of the upcoming Spent, answering literary agent John Brockman’s question: “What questions have disappeared, and why?”

“Three Victorian questions about potential sexual partners: ‘Are they from a good family?’; ‘What are their accomplishments?’; ‘Was their money and status acquired ethically?’ ”

To our “Sex and the City” generation, these three questions sound shamefully Victorian and bourgeois. Yet they were not unique to 19th century England: they obsessed the families of eligible young men and women in every agricultural and industrial civilization. Only with our socially-atomized, late-capitalist society have these questions become tasteless, if not taboo. Worried parents ask them only in the privacy of their own consciences, in the sleepless nights before a son or daughter’s ill-considered marriage.

The “good family” question always concerned genetic inheritance as much as financial inheritance. Since humans evolved in bands of closely-related kin, we probably evolved an intuitive appreciation of the genetics relevant to mate choice ‹ taking into account the heritable strengths and weakness that we could observe in each potential mate’s relatives, as well as their own qualities. Recent findings in medical genetics and behavior genetics demonstrate the wisdom of taking a keen interest in such relatives: one can tell a lot about a young person’s likely future personality, achievements, beliefs, parenting style, and mental and physical health by observing their parents, siblings, uncles, and aunts. Yet the current American anti-genetic ideology demands that we ignore such cues of genetic quality ‹ God forbid anyone should accuse us of eugenics. Consider the possible reactions a woman might have to hearing that a potential husband was beaten as a child by parents who were alcoholic, aggressive religious fundamentalists. Twin and adoption studies show that alcoholism, aggressiveness, and religiousity are moderately heritable, so such a man is likely to become a rather unpleasant father. Yet our therapy cures-all culture says the woman should offer only non-judgmental sympathy to the man, ignoring the inner warning bells that may be going off about his family and thus his genes. Arguably, our culture alienates women and men from their own genetic intuitions, and thereby puts their children at risk.

(more…)

The Hate Crime/Free Speech Termination legislation threat is actually worse than Peter Brimelow suggested last night. Yesterday the House actually passed the thing.

House approves expanded hate crime law
By THOMAS FERRARO Capitol Hill Blue April 30, 2009 - 5:16am.
President Obama is cheering it on. Representative Lamar Smith understands it:

this bill undermines one of the most basic principles of our criminal justice system — ‘equal justice for all…Justice will now depend on the race, gender, sexual orientation, disability or other protected status of the victim…It will allow different penalties to be imposed for the same crime.”

So does Steven Steinlight. While still furious at his recent repression by HIAS, he gave a fascinating interview to the Luke Ford .Net website, remarking

What’s happened here is that the entire conservative side of the cultural divide has been demonized as potential extremist terrorists…I’m thinking that one day a group of FBI agents will come to CIS and want to go through our files.

CIS: Center for Immigration Studies, which gives Steinlight shelter.

(Hat Tip The Kvetcher)

No one who knows what these laws have shamefully been used to do in Canada and Britain can take this threat lightly. The Rev. Ted Pike’s critique of the 2005 version of this horror is here.

There has been a lot of speculation about whether Sen. Specter’s switch from the Republican Party to the Democratic Party will change the equation on immigration. A press release by immigration attorney Morley J. Nair attempts to answer that question, [Senator Specter's Switching Of Party Affiliation Boosts Chances For Immigration Reform Legislation April 29, 2009]but only proves that immigration lawyers have way too much money to waste on superfluous press releases. Nair claims that the switch puts the Democrats only 1 vote short of enough votes to have a filibuster proof majority, and therefore Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CIR) is almost a done deal. He is right about the voting block in the Senate, but wrong about how Specter’s switch of allegiance will change the dynamics on immigration.

In short, Specter’s action will have NO effect on CIR whatsoever, even if amnesty is a done deal.

The reason? For starters, Sen. Specter votes the Democratic Party line on all immigration issues. He is globalist who is pro amnesty, pro H-1B, pro guest worker visas, and pro open borders. Switching parties will not affect how he votes.

Assuming all Democrats vote for amnesty, Specter’s change won’t change anything, because he almost always votes for higher immigration. Take a look at his miserable report card.

Specter is as bad as it gets on immigration. To give one of the most hideous examples: In 2006 Specter became the primary sponsor of the McCain/Kennedy amnesty bill. The new Specter bill became known as Comprehensive Immigration reform or S. 2611. Specter’s S2611 inherited the SKIL bill — a frightening escalation in the H-1B program and other guest worker visas. Specter struck down all attempts to get rid of the SKIL portion of 2611.

In reality, Obama already has a super majority in Congress because without question at least a few Republicans like McCain will support new amnesties. Specter doesn’t change the equation at all.

For now, the only question about CIR is when the next attempt will be made to pass it, and whether the Democrats in the House will follow the Senate in support of it. There is nothing the Republicans can do to stop CIR if the Democrats continue their monolithic enthusiasm for CIR.

There are rumblings on the amnesty front. The Senate Judiciary Committee, will be conducting a hearing today, Thursday, April 30, 2009 at 2:00 PM EST. The topic for the hearing is: “Comprehensive Immigration Reform in 2009, Can We Do It and How?” Link to the notice about this hearing with this link. They have a webcast of this hearing online.

So, now allow me to speculate on why Specter had to change parties. He knows that the Tea Party in his state represents the grass roots movement to unseat him — and he wants to run away from these angry voters as fast as his arthritic joints can move![What's Next For Tea Party Movement?] What’s Next For Tea Party Movement?/a> By Lowman S. Henry, The Bulletin, April 23, 2009] He acknowledges that he can’t even win his own Republican primary. One thing that he will never admit, and the mass media will never publicize, is that Specter is in trouble because of his support of increasing taxes and amnesty. Immigration, or the “3rd Rail”, is at the heart of Specter’s problems. It’s really that simple!

I know citing him will just get us in more trouble with the $outhern/ Southern Poverty Law Center ($/SPLC), but I’m impressed by Rev. Ted Pike’s incisive analysis of the federal hate crimes bill just introduced by Senator Kennedy - sounds like Kennedy hopes to live long enough to finish off the historic American nation whose murder he began in 1965.

From Business Week, here’s the latest on places with Depression-level unemployment rates: A couple are in Greater Detroit, but most are in California, and are heavily Hispanic. By the way, in El Centro, the place with the worst unemployment in the country, minorities got 84.3% of all conventional home purchase mortgage dollars in 2006 (prime and subprime) according the federal Home Mortgage Disclosure Act database (see page 2 of this government report). In Merced, the only other place in the country where unemployment is over 20%, minorities got 79.7% of the 2006 mortgage dollars.

Of the top 203 metropolitan statistical areas in Q1-2009, “Merced, Calif., had the second highest [foreclosure] rate,” according to RealtyTrac.

So, our bipartisan policy was to lure in illegal immigrants “to do the jobs Americans just won’t do” building the houses Americans just don’t need and that Hispanics, American or illegal, turned out to just not be able to afford. (more…)