Marijuana warnings, detective novels, and song

The New Neo Posted on by

Today I happened across this article featuring an interview with Harvard psychiatry professor Staci Gruber, who issues some warnings about the legalization of marijuana:

There is an awful lot that we don’t know. What we do know primarily comes from studies of chronic, recreational marijuana users. There is still a lot left to learn about the effects of less frequent, casual use. Also, there are a number of differences between recreational and medical marijuana use. Recreational and medical users very often differ quite strikingly with regard to what they use, how they use, etc. Some of the products may overlap but the indications for use and what they expect to get out of using marijuana are usually very, very different…

When we think about legalization we always like to have science inform policy. In this particular case, it seems to me that policy has outpaced science. These products are widely available but to date, we have no studies on the direct impact of concentrates versus flower products on our recreational or medical users ”” which is important, especially given concerns for our youngest users.

That seems both reasonable and of concern. Gruber has also been instrumental in doing some of the previous research that indicates regular marijuana use by teens can be damaging in the cognitive sense:

“Our data suggest that the earlier you begin smoking, the more marijuana you smoke and the more frequently you smoke,” she said. “That’s an important finding.”

Gruber said the findings are particularly critical today when legalization of marijuana is being considered in a number of states.

“We have to be clear about getting the message out that marijuana isn’t really a benign substance,” she said. “It has a direct effect on executive function. The earlier you begin using it, and the more you use of it, the more significant that effect.”

The study included 33 chronic marijuana smokers and 26 control subjects who did not smoke marijuana. They were given a battery of neurocognitive tests assessing executive function, including the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test, which involves sorting different cards based on a set of rules given. During the test, the rules are changed without warning and subjects must adjust their responses to the new rules.

The findings showed habitual marijuana users made repeated errors even when told that they were wrong. Users also had more trouble maintaining a set of rules, suggesting an inability to maintain focus. Early-onset users and those who used the most marijuana had the most trouble with the test, making more than twice as many errors and fewer correct responses than later-onset smokers.

Of course, there might have been something different about that early-user population even before they began their drug use. But still, very worrisome.

I also noticed the name “Gruber,” which of course made me think of Jonathan Gruber, ye olde architect of Obamacare, and I wondered whether he might be a husband or a brother of Staci’s. I have no idea about the “brother” part (can’t find a thing about it). But he’s certainly not her husband. And therein lies another tale, one totally unrelated but quite fascinating in its own right.

Staci Gruber is actually the spouse of crime/thriller novelist Patricia Cornwell, who is mega successful in her field and a byzantine story herself:

Patricia Cornwell has sold over 100 million books, owns an upscale apartment in Boston, a private helicopter, and has a personal fortune somewhere north of $75 million. So, naturally, she is telling me about her money worries.

”˜There will always be a financial incentive to write because, honestly, the way I grew up, a part of me is always afraid I’m going to wake up poor,’ says the author, who won $50 million in damages last year after suing her former finance company for mismanagement.

I won’t even bother to summarize her life story, but let’s just say it features many ups and downs, including political change (in her case, right to somewhat left, with pockets of right remaining).

You never know where the internet and Google will lead you. One other thing I discovered is that Staci Gruber got a BS in psychology in 1991 from Tufts, which is not the least bit surprising considering her later career trajectory. But she was awfully busy at the time, because in 1991 she also received a BMus in Jazz Studies/Vocal Performance from New England Conservatory of Music.

Trump’s presidency: two different worlds

The New Neo Posted on by

“Two Different Worlds” was a love song from the 50s about lovers from different backgrounds who were going to beat the odds and make it work. Looking at the news lately, the phrase pops into my head—but not in the optimistic way of the song.

Remember Obama’s 2004 DNC speech? Well, I don’t—remember it, that is, because I didn’t watch it back then (not particularly into watching speeches at all). But I’ve certainly read about its effect on people, and the lines that apparently resonated most were—well, I was going to quote him, but I thought it might be more instructive to see and hear him once again:

It’s painful to look back and reflect that one of those “who, even as we speak…are preparing to divide us” seems to have been the speaker himself, Barack Obama. He did a mighty fine job of it too, although he certainly wasn’t alone; he had plenty of help in that endeavor.

Which brings us to now. Every day I open my phone or my computer and check out the news and I see that division quite starkly. Memeorandum.com, which I’ve long used as one of my sources for the most talked-about topics and articles of the day, features links to pieces that are uniformly, predictably, and almost unrelievedly not just anti-Trump but profoundly so. And Memerorandum is quite typical rather than unusual in that respect. Meanwhile,, for the most part periodicals and pundits on the right soldier on in a different world, one in which Trump is making many excellent appointments, giving some good speeches, and generally going about the business of setting up his presidency while the stock market climbs (for now, anyway).

Two different worlds, we live in two different worlds. And never the twain shall meet—at least, hardly ever.

I did have one interesting experience the other day, though, talking to a liberal friend of mine who is not especially political or especially extreme in her politics. She most definitely doesn’t like Trump, but not in any rabid or irrational way. She mentioned that she had watched part of Trump’s recent press conference, the one where he’d been giving the press what-for, and she’d noticed in particular three things. The first was that some of what he said made sense. The second was that he predicted the press reaction when he said, “Tomorrow, [the press] will say, ‘Donald Trump rants and raves at the press.’ I’m not ranting and raving. I’m just telling you.” She agreed that she hadn’t seen him “ranting and raving” during that press conference, and she also noted with some surprise that Trump had predicted correctly, because that was exactly and precisely the spin the press gave his performance.

How common is that sort of reaction in a liberal watcher? I doubt very; but I report at least one, anyway. What difference will it make? I don’t know; perhaps little or none. But the farther the press goes with the extremity of its negative spin, the more some people who are paying attention are bound to notice that something is amiss.

Politico trolls the right on Obamacare

The New Neo Posted on by

This report in Politico plays on the right’s fears that the GOP Congress will never do much about Obamacare:

Former House Speaker John Boehner predicted on Thursday that a full repeal and replace of Obamacare is “not going to happen.”

Boehner, who resigned in 2015 amid unrest among conservatives, said at an Orlando health care conference that the idea that a repeal-and-replace plan would blitz through Congress is just “happy talk.”

Instead, he said changes to former President Barack Obama’s signature legislative achievement would likely be relatively modest.

“[Congressional Republicans are] going to fix Obamacare ”“ I shouldn’t call it repeal-and-replace, because it’s not going to happen,” he said.

Boehner’s comments come as Republican lawmakers across the country are facing angry constituents at town halls worried that Obamacare will be yanked away without a suitable replacement.

I have a few things to point out. The first is that we don’t have a transcript of Boehner’s remarks, and I distrust articles like that which use a few quotes to characterize what a person said.

The second is that, when last I checked, Boehner was not in charge of this, so although he’s entitled to his opinion it’s just his opinion.

The third is that Politico is not the right’s friend, and the author is probably well aware of the cynicism and anger on the right towards the GOP, and is attempting (successfully, I think) to exploit that distrust to further split and dishearten the right.

The fourth is that we are mostly talking about semantics here, at least so far. I have never had much doubt that some of the elements of Obamacare would remain in place even if it’s repealed and replaced, although others will (hopefully) be changed. The exact mechanism by which that is accomplished—a full repeal of the act and passage of a full replacement that retains some elements (coverage of pre-existing conditions, for example) and changes others, or a series of moves changing it piece by piece—is still undetermined. I prefer repeal/replace. But the important thing is something better, designed with more liberty to choose and less cost, and based more on market principles.

Now, I’m not saying the GOP is going to be successful. I don’t even know how hard they will try. There’s certainly reason to be skeptical. We’ll see. But I don’t credit reports like Politico’s, and I don’t like to see people on the right fall for this game when it is in the realm of propaganda (concern-trolling, to be exact) at the moment rather than facts.

The “death” of the NY Times

The New Neo Posted on by

This article by Lee Smith seems to be about two things that are loosely related. The first is the likelihood that, with the “Trump is Russia’s puppet” story, there’s no there there. But it’s the second I want to write about, the larger story of what Smith (or whoever wrote the article’s headline, “Wayne Barrett, Donald Trump, and the Death of the American Press”) refers to as the death of the American press.

It’s a long article, and I waded through it rather quickly. I must say that although that topic is one of intense interest to me, Smith’s article puzzles me. I have little doubt that Smith knows more about the inner workings of the press than I do, but what are we to make of paragraphs like this one?:

Trump adviser Steve Bannon calls the media the opposition party, but that’s misleading. Everyone knows that the press typically tilts left, and no one is surprised, for instance, that The New York Times has not endorsed a Republican candidate since 1956. But that’s not what we’re seeing now””rather, the media has become an instrument in a campaign of political warfare. What was once an American political institution and a central part of the public sphere became something more like state-owned media used to advance the ruling party’s agenda and bully the opposition into silence.

That leaves me scratching my head. Smith says that what Bannon says is “misleading.” But the rest of the paragraph seems to completely back up the stated Bannon thesis that the media is indeed the opposition party, and a rather vicious and unaplogetic one at that. So, how is Bannon misleading us?

What’s more, I have other problems with that paragraph of Smith’s. His statement “everyone knows that the press typically tilts left” is not just not literally true (of course, “everyone” doesn’t know any such thing), but I bet if I polled twenty acquaintances of mine on that subject, at least half and maybe even more of them would say that the Times is an objective purveyor of truth that doesn’t lean any particular way at all, and that it’s just that the dogged pursuit of truth and fairness happens to lead to backing the Democrat every time. After all, don’t they themselves do the same thing?

As I said, I have little doubt that Smith knows more about what the press thinks and how it works than I do. But I doubt he knows more about what the garden variety everyday liberal out there in the big wide world thinks than I do; we’re probably at least even on that. And not only does “everybody” not know what he says they know, but I would wager there’s a substantial number of people who would actively disagree with him.

Which brings us to something else about that paragraph. In that last sentence I quoted, Smith harks back to an earlier time when the media was “an American political institution and a central part of the public sphere.” Let’s take the example of the NY Times. I was raised thinking exactly what Smith says; I respected the Times greatly. But my later political transformation was fueled in part by the realization that, even back when I saw it that way, the Times had often been unworthy of that sort of respect. Perhaps they were more subtle in their cheerleading and bias, but that bias may have been all the more insidious for that. And they were already getting their facts wrong; we just had fewer ways to discover that.

I’ve written some of the details in my “a mind is a difficult thing to change” story, but right now I’ll just refer to some of them (in particular, MSM coverage of the Tet offensive). Smith rightly says that, with the advent of the internet and the plummeting of the ad revenue that used to be a major part of the financial underpinnings of the newspaper business, the MSM had to cut back drastically:

As the old Chinese saying has it, the first generation builds the business, the second generation expands it, and the third spends it all on Italian shoes, houses in the Hamptons, and divorces. For the most part, the people inheriting these media properties didn’t know what they were doing. It took The New York Times more than a decade to settle on billing consumers for its product””after giving it away, charging for it, giving it away again, then billing for “premium content,” etc. By then, it was too late. Entire papers went under, and even at places that survived, the costliest enterprises, like foreign bureaus and investigative teams, were cut. An entire generation’s worth of expertise, experience, and journalistic ethics evaporated into thin air.

Let’s take that last sentence first. I have two problems with it. The first is that, even in the golden olden days when those foreign bureaus and investigative teams were in place (say, during the Vietnam War), the papers were often getting the first draft of history wrong. An excellent example was the Tet Offensive (take a look at this book or this article summarizing the book), which the press got completely wrong, and that fake story greatly influenced subsequent events. Another turning point that occurred during the Vietnam years was the mixing of opinion journalism with straight reporting, a move I discussed in this two-part series on the role of Walter Cronkite.

I have some other quarrels with that paragraph of Smith’s. He seems to be saying that newspapers reacted to the challenge of the free content of the internet by giving their own content away too, but had they realized from the start that the way to survive was to charge for content, then perhaps they would have been financially okay. But earlier, he had emphasized the importance of classified ads in the earnings of newspapers. The internet did challenge newspapers by providing free content, but the importance of the classifieds was something the internet also helped to destroy, and how was charging for content supposed to get around that?

What’s more (to the best of my recollection, anyway), those “foreign bureaus and investigative teams” were actually greatly reduced by the time I got on the scene as a blogger twelve years ago. It seems to me that the Times’ back-and-forth experiments with charging for content and then not charging for it were conducted after they’d already cut way back and hired a bunch of youngsters.

I think that the MSM has indeed died—at least in my eyes, and the eyes of most people on the right. But I know a lot of people (liberals rather than leftists) who still read the Times every day and trust that they are getting the truth. I also think the Times’ demise, or illness, or whatever you want to call it, was very long in coming, and that its state was unnoticed by many people prior to the internet. The internet not only challenged the Times and its fellows by offering an alternative way to advertise and to obtain content on the right, but in addition it provided easy access to things such as full transcripts of speeches to which the Times might have been referring and quoting in a misleading and/or truncated way.

Not everyone availed themselves of these sources. But for those who did, their respect for what we now call the MSM plummeted.

Success and single-minded obsession

The New Neo Posted on by

Obsession may be a necessary but not sufficient requirement for success in the arts (and perhaps even elsewhere).

I know quite a few people who later became famous—some a little famous, some more famous. Having known these people in childhood and/or adolescence, I’ve noticed that they all had something in common: obsessive focus on one exclusive interest, and usually that focus began in childhood.

Why am I writing about this now? After seeing the film “La La Land” the other day, I was reading about its writer/director, who was only 30-31 when he made the movie. His extremely youthful age got me to wondering how on earth he could have gotten so far so fast in the movie-making biz. I took in a bunch of articles about him (none of which will be linked here, because I was reading them for fun and didn’t take any notes), all of which indicated that Damien Chazelle (that’s his name) has known since earliest childhood that he wanted to make films.

That’s true despite the fact that Chazelle is smart enough to get into Harvard (his alma mater), and so he must have had a lot of choices. But as he describes it, he knew—practically as a toddler, when he was watching old Disney stuff like “Cinderalla,” the sort of thing just about every kid views—that what he wanted to do with his life was to make films.

That is a highly unusual choice at that age. A lot of teenagers and college students decide they want to make films, but I don’t know of many 5-year-olds see Bambi and think “I want to create something like that.” However, Chazelle was a student of film and film technique from the start, so in a way you could say that by the age of 30 he’d been apprenticing for about 25 years.

In addition, Chazelle met another similarly focused (from early early childhood, that is) young man while at Harvard, composer Justin Hurwitz. And away they went, thinking about the films they’d be creating together, which is exactly what came to pass. I remember reading in some interview or other that Hurwitz was so focused—as a six-year-old—on composing that he’d be up every night for hours doing it, and that his parents had to impose limits on his composing in order for him to get enough sleep even as a young child.

So it’s no accident that the films of Chazelle and Hurwitz (the other film they are known for is “Whiplash”) are about this very thing: focus on a goal in the arts, and the perils and costs of that focus. Although the two have been wildly successful, of course the vast majority of such dreamers are not successful. The musical “A Chorus Line” got that just about right.

Here are two brave teenagers

The New Neo Posted on by

Two promising chess-playing siblings [from Iran] have been banned from [national chess] tournaments…after the sister failed to wear a hijab and her brother played an Israeli.

Dorsa and Borna Derakhshani, two of the country’s leading youth chess players, were told they can no longer be part of the national team.

Dorsa, an 18-year-old student in Spain, was banned after she did not wear a head covering during the Tradewise Gibraltar Chess Festival earlier this month.

Her 15-year-old brother, Borna, who still lives in Iran, was told he couldn’t compete after playing a match against Israeli chess player Alexander Husman during the same tournament.

As I said, brave. Here is Dorsa:

The following is apropos of nothing, but she somehow reminds me of pre-Raphaelite paintings by Dante Gabriel Rossetti such as this one:

Milo Yiannopoulos and the age of consent

The New Neo Posted on by

Milo Yiannopoulos has been uniformly excoriated for some remarks he made about sex between older men and teenage boys, in which he indicated that in some cases consent is possible. He’s lost a book deal, a speaking gig at GPAC, and has resigned from Breitbart as a result.

You can find a transcript of his remarks here. Judge for yourself what he said and what he meant, keeping in mind that Yiannopoulos is gay, and that he also claims (and I have no reason to doubt him on this) to have been sexually molested by an older man or men when he was a young teen.

Some have interpreted his remarks as actually advocating cross-generational sex. Such a thing is hardly unheard of (see NAMBLA). But I would instead characterize Yiannapoulos’ remarks as excusing or condoning cross-generational sex under certain circumstances rather than actively advocating it.

Yiannopoulos has claimed that he deplores pedophilia, but that term is defined as the abuse of (and sexual attraction to) children who are not sexually mature, and Yiannopoulos seems to exclude teens (or at least some teens) from that category. In this he shows a failure to appreciate the reason that the law against child abuse includes teens as victims in the crime of sexual abuse, and why physical sexual maturity has little to do with the law of child abuse.

There are several categories of sexual crimes having to do with consent. Rape is probably the first one that comes to mind. Child sexual abuse is certainly another, but it’s for a different reasons than with the rape of an adult: a child by definition cannot give consent. Even a sexually mature teenager cannot give consent to sex, although he/she can say “yes,” and even want sex physically. For teens—especially teenage boys, as most teenage boys can attest—if you stimulate the body, the body can certainly want something, and quite insistently at that. But children, including teens, are at the mercy of powerful adults—and by “powerful” I also mean psychologically powerful—who can manipulate and use them, cajole them and convince them, and therefore exploit them for their own pleasure. And that exploitation can be present even when the child or teen is actually saying “yes.” It can even be present when the child or teen thinks he/she is giving consent.

That’s why sexual contact between two fourteen-year-olds is not defined as child abuse, but sexual contact between a 25-year-old and a 14-year-old is. The key is the power differential combined with the inability of a 14-year-old to give consent.

Yiannopoulos said:

The law is probably about right, [the age of consent is] probably roughly the right age. I think it’s probably about okay, but there are certainly people who are capable of giving consent at a younger age, I certainly consider myself to be one of them, people who are sexually active younger. I think it particularly happens in the gay world by the way. In many cases actually those relationships with older men”¦This is one reason I hate the left. This stupid one size fits all policing of culture. (People speak over each other). This sort of arbitrary and oppressive idea of consent, which totally destroys you know understanding that many of us have. The complexities and subtleties and complicated nature of many relationships. You know, people are messy and complex. In the homosexual world particularly. Some of those relationships between younger boys and older men, the sort of coming of age relationships, the relationships in which those older men help those young boys to discover who they are, and give them security and safety and provide them with love and a reliable and sort of a rock where they can’t speak to their parents.

As an abuse survivor, Yiannopoulos thinks he can say that consent can be given in such a case, apparently because he thinks he gave it. But that shows one of the problems with sexual abuse, and it’s not just the problem of an adult exploiting a child sexually. It’s the problem of an adult messing with a child’s mind. Because the relationships Yiannopoulos describes are actually betrayals of the child/teen in the guise of “helping” the child, betrayals that may even feel good to the child/teen in certain circumstances but exploit the child/teen’s psychological, emotional, and physical vulnerability.

In other words, if an adult wants to give a child or teenager “security and safety and provide them with love and a reliable and sort of a rock where they can’t speak to their parents,” then that adult should stay away from them sexually. Be a counselor, be a buddy, be a mentor, be any sort of helper you want. But don’t think you’re helping that child by using him or her sexually. That’s one of the oldest tricks—the oldest excuses—in the book.

I have a fair streak of libertarianism in my nature, but not about this topic.

[NOTE: And I’d prefer that the comments section here not turn into some sort of gay-bashing festival. I deplore sexual abuse of children and teenagers, and there’s plenty of blame to go around about such both in the gay world and in the heterosexual world. I’ve done a lot of reading on the question of whether gay adults are more likely to be child molesters than straight adults (which is of course not the topic of this post, but my guess is that the subject will come up in the comments), and in my opinion the jury is still out on that. If you want to read about the question in depth, I suggest this article for the “yes, they are more likely” side, and this article for the “no, they’re not more likely” side.]

Kant’s Golden Rule

The New Neo Posted on by

I saw this a while ago in an article at the LA Times by Melissa Batchelor Warnke:

Philosophy 101 introduces us to Kant’s categorical imperative ”” the first formulation of which is “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.”

If that rule were followed by all politicians and judges, the world would be a different and better place. Won’t happen, though.

[NOTE: The Warnke article is summarized by its title “Stop publishing unverified information, you numbskulls. Donald Trump feeds on your rumors.” It’s a defense of old-fashioned journalism, where hit pieces were more carefully sourced lest they return to bite the news outlet and/or reporter.]

Trump, the MSM, and Swedish crime

The New Neo Posted on by

So, first thing that happened was that Trump made an ambiguous and poorly-worded remark about Sweden’s crime and how it relates to immigration:

…[T]here’s also a problem with Trump that I see in [his statement] “you look at what’s happening last night in Sweden.” I understand the explanation. He meant that if you looked at TV the previous night, you could have seen a segment on Tucker Carlson that was about Sweden. That eliminates the confusion caused by his slightly screwy language that had lots of people wondering about something that supposedly had just happened in Sweden.

Trump isn’t just not lawyeresque in his speech (and since most people hate the way lawyers speak, they probably consider that a good thing); he’s often so imprecise and vague that the MSM and opponents can project whatever meaning they want into his statements. Now, this would happen anyway, but why give them so much of a golden opportunity? Why not make them work a little harder, and be less plausible in their misinterpretations?

But that’s not Trump’s way. I see it as a problem, although I’m sure a lot of Trump supporters see it as a plus, and see him as leading his opponents to make stupid statements themselves and having to correct them later. The trouble is that the correction doesn’t always reach all that many people.

So, what happened just a few hours after this particular war of words? Riots in areas of Sweden in which many immigrants live:

The [predominantly immigrant] neighborhood, Rinkeby, was the scene of riots in 2010 and 2013, too. And in most ways, what happened late Monday night was reminiscent of those earlier bouts of anger. Swedish police apparently made an arrest around 8 p.m. near the Rinkeby station. For reasons not yet disclosed by the police, word of the arrest prompted a crowd of youths to gather.

Over four hours, the crowd burned about half a dozen cars, vandalized several shopfronts and threw rocks at police. Police spokesman Lars Bystrom confirmed to Sweden’s Dagens Nyheter newspaper that an officer fired shots with intention to hit a rioter, but did not strike his target.

The issue about which Trump was originally speaking was whether the influx of immigrants in recent years has increased crime in Sweden. The WaPo takes pains to offer a statistic that says no: “The newspaper Dagens Nyheter analyzed crime statistics between October 2015 and January 2016 and came to the conclusion that refugees were responsible for only 1 percent of all incidents.” But as Hot Air points out, that’s somewhat misleading:

Sweden’s overall crime rate is down since 2005 despite having admitted many thousands of migrants and refugees in the years since. Preliminary data for 2015-16 also shows no rise in overall crime, but it did show a rise in assaults and rapes accompanied by a drop in drug crimes and theft. (Sweden hasn’t published crime stats showing an offender’s immigration status for more than a decade.) One Swedish criminologist interviewed by the Times conceded that immigrants are overrepresented among offenders, “particularly in more serious and violent offenses,” but that many victims of crime are immigrants too, which is what you’d expect.

I think that perhaps the most interesting thing in that paragraph is that Sweden stopped compiling statistics on immigrants and crime over ten years ago. This had to have been purposeful. It certainly has had the effect of obscuring the issue and making it even more difficult to say anything intelligent about it. Lumping all crimes together and then seeing if there’s been a general increase or decrease tells you almost nothing about what proportion of crimes are committed by immigrants and what types of crimes are involved.

Administration announces new illegal immigration enforcement rules

The New Neo Posted on by

The headline in USA today announces “Homeland Security unveils sweeping plan to deport undocumented immigrants.” When I first read that, I assumed that this represented some sort of blueprint for going after “undocumented” (people who arrived here illegally) immigrants all over the US, which would be fulfilling one of the more controversial promises of the Trump campaign.

But instead it seems to be a plan to tighten up border security and to suggest that ICE actually deport more of the people authorities find as they first arrive and are detained. In other words, an end to (or at least a diminution of) “catch and release*”:

The memos require undocumented immigrants caught entering the country to be placed in detention until their cases are resolved, increase the ability of local police to help in immigration enforcement, call for the hiring of 10,000 more immigration agents and allow planning to begin on an expansion of the border wall between the United States and Mexico.

What percentage of Americans have trouble with that? Probably a lot fewer than with some sort of mass roundup and deportation policy. This announcement seems like a case of enforcing immigration laws in a way that makes it clear that if you want to enter this country you should come legally, under our rules. It doesn’t do much about changing the status quo for people who already came here illegally, and it doesn’t touch DACA either.

When you add the directive (as Homeland Security did) that “The memos make undocumented immigrants who have been convicted of a crime the highest priority for enforcement operations,” it makes even more sense and is even less controversial. But naturally:

Immigration advocacy groups were crushed…

“These memos lay out a detailed blueprint for the mass deportation of 11 million undocumented immigrants in America,” said Lynn Tramonte, deputy director of America’s Voice Educational Fund, which advocates on behalf of immigrants. “They fulfill the wish lists of the white nationalist and anti-immigrant movements and bring to life the worst of Donald Trump’s campaign rhetoric.”

But Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform says “What (Homeland Security Secretary John) Kelly has done is lay out a broad road map of regaining control of a process that’s spun out of control.”

Seems to me that with immigration we have three main issues. The first is how many legal immigrants we wish to let in and under what rules. Do we want to reform that process? Do we want to expand or to contract that number? How do we vet them, and who vets them?

The second issue is what to do about the illegal immigrants who are already here. And the third is what to do about those newly entering. It seems to me that these new Trump administration directives (and I have only read summaries and skimmed parts of them rather than reading the entire document) deal predominantly with that third issue. In so doing, the policy has a chilling effect on those entering illegally and planning to enter illegally. That chilling effect is almost certainly intentional. In addition, however—and with the assistance of the MSM and immigrant activists—it probably has the effect of striking fear into the hearts of those who are already here illegally.

It seems to me that the aim of the whole thing is indeed to “regain control of a process that’s spun out of control.” It remains to be seen how this will actually play out and be implemented in the real world—and whether further directives will be issued that expand the process and involve a great many of the people who are already here. I am sure, however, that even if all that happens is that deportation numbers increase among those who are newly arrived along the border, the press will treat us to an almost endless series of stories about their pathetic fate at the hands of those heartless ICE employees.

And many of the stories will be sad. But a nation has a right and a duty to make decisions regarding who to let into that country and under what conditions. If the people of the US wanted to let in many millions more immigrants from Latin America a year legally they could, although that would take changing the current laws on legal immigration. It’s about who gets to decide and whether reasonable laws will be enforced reasonably.

[NOTE: * “Catch and release” is the policy under which “many undocumented immigrants are processed by immigration agents, released into the country and ordered to reappear for court hearings.”

Here’s how well it workedin the past:

Historically, due to the lack of resources available to Immigration and Customs Enforcement to detain people, as well as the lengthy time period between apprehension and being ordered deported, catch-and-release was the de facto policy followed by ICE: those believed to be in violation of immigration status were released and given a date when they were to appear before an immigration judge for their deportation hearing. Knowing that coming to a hearing could lead to them being deported, many of these people simply failed to turn up to their hearings. In July 2005, the National Center for Policy Analysis reported that at some federal immigration courts, 98% of the defendants failed to show up.

Which makes perfect sense. Why would they show up?

The policy was ended by the Bush administration in 2005-6, and reinstated in part in the later years of the Obama administration, although there’s disagreement about to what extent.]

It’s General McMaster for National Security Advisor

The New Neo Posted on by

This sounds excellent:

General McMaster is a former commander of the Third Armored Cavalry Regiment, my old unit. I served in Iraq with a host of guys who’d served under McMaster in the Battle of Tal Afar in 2005, and almost to a man they loved him. I never served under him (I came along for the next deployment), but many of the people I respect the most were with him during one of the Iraq War’s most significant urban battles and came away deeply impressed.

…Indeed, I’d call McMaster the Neil Gorsuch of generals…

With the exception of his loyalty hire of Michael Flynn, Trump’s key generals ”” James Mattis, John Kelly, and now H.R. McMaster ”” represent the best of modern military leadership. Their presence in the government is deeply reassuring. It’s now incumbent on President Trump to heed their counsel and give them the level of authority that they have earned.

That’s high praise indeed, particularly considering the source—David French, who’s not exactly been what you’d call a Trump fan.

Well, I misplace my keys sometimes, too

The New Neo Posted on by

Apparently there’s an eighth continent in the southwest Pacific.

A huge landmass, mostly submerged beneath the ocean, bears all the hallmarks of a continent, according to a new study published by the Geological Society of America. You may have heard of part of it: New Zealand…

The “Zealandia” moniker was coined by geophysicist Bruce Luyendyk in 1995…

Luyendyk argued at the time Zealandia checked three of the four boxes to be considered its own continent. But now geologists say it checks all four: distinctive geology; a finite, defined area; crust thicker than the standard ocean floor; and elevation above the surrounding area. Zealandia apparently has it all.

The experts who penned the study, aptly titled “Zealandia: Earth’s Hidden Continent,” say if Zealandia had been mapped the same way scientists map Venus or Mars with current technology, we would have recognized it as its own continent much earlier.

Excuses, excuses.