Fake Schools, Real Babies and the American Dream

The Feds busted a few “schools” that enrolled students, mostly from Asia, giving them I-20 student visas, but didn’t require the students to attend classes. In essence, the students were paying tuition for a visa to visit and then live in the US:

Feds: 3 collected millions in fraudulent school scheme

The silliest part of the article is when the Feds accuse the schools of being a national security threat because terrorists could be using these student visas as cover. Puhleazee. First, the students were mostly from China and Korea, which are hardly terrorist hotbeds. Second, any student issued an I-20 student visa has already gone through a vetting process by the US government and its law enforcement apparatus. If there were any suspected terrorists among the “student” applicants, then they would have been flagged and denied well before entry. This accusation is just another federal government smokescreen to make this fraud into something it’s not really about, and play security theater (which they love).

So what is it really about? It’s about money and people from overcrowded countries wanting to come chase this thing called the American Dream. These people feel it’s a human right to live where they want to live. For most of human history, people picked up and went wherever they wanted to start new lives. It’s only in the past century that nation-states have established strict rules and regulations at the borders to keep people out. And it doesn’t work very well still. Why? Because people don’t want to live on top of each other in super crowded conditions. South Korea is an advanced country with modern amenities, but it’s also really packed with people. And that includes even the countryside (I’ve been there). Koreans come to the US not because they’re fleeing any terrible conditions in Korea, except the lack of breathing room (physically and socially). This is even doubly so for Chinese, who live in a packed country where most people live on the eastern seaboard. Even though China has made great economic strides, many Chinese want to come to the US for the space, and the opportunity to one day own a house that is not physically attached to anyone else. That’s the real American Dream in 2015: some breathing room, as economically China and South Korea are on parity with the US these days.

Some Chinese are so driven to realize this dream that pregnant mothers arrange to come to the US to give birth so the child gets US citizenship. Recently some entrepreneurs offered services that arranged for a fee to bring Chinese women to the US to give birth but they were busted by the Feds who claimed this was fraud. How is it fraud? As far as I can see, the women and the entrepreneurs played by the rules. They came to the US and gave birth, and by US law, the baby gets citizenship. That’s the rules of the game, and they played it fair and square. If the Feds don’t like it, then change the law so not all babies born in the US are citizens, instead tie citizenship to the birth of the mother as many countries do. The companies offering these services should not be shut down and arrested, the fault is not in their business plan, the fault is in the structure of citizenship law itself. Change the law and don’t punish the entrepreneurs.

Daylight Saving Times Should End (and the problem of political inertia)

Daylight saving time arrived this past weekend and 70 countries around the world sprang one hour forward for spring. John Oliver on Last Week Tonight did a nice, short piece on the history of daylight savings time and why it should “no longer be a thing”:

Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Daylight Saving Time – How Is This Still A Thing? (HBO)

Besides debunking the myth of it starting to benefit farmers, the piece also illustrates why a social policy put into place 100 years ago is oftentimes not relevant today due to tectonic technological and societal change. Yet, it’s still with us due to political inertia. Once a law or policy is put on the books, it is very difficult for politicians to muster any will to remove these laws when they are no longer necessary or wanted. The Republicans talk the talk about freedom, but they use their power only to deregulate for corporations and businesses. Some of that is necessary (particularly for small businesses), but why don’t they deregulate the policies that restrict individuals? Instead they go along with more laws regulating individuals, taking away the freedom to make choices, face consequences, and solve one’s own problems/issues (for example, Republicans have been major proponents for so-called “revenge porn” laws).

As for daylight savings time, why not just spring forward forever? Does anyone really enjoy sudden early darkness when we fall backward? Reset the time zones so sunrise is 6:30 or 7:00 AM, and let darkness fall later in the day. It’s self-evident that this change should be made, but political inertia won’t allow it. Every time a law gets passed, it’s hard to get rid of, so lawmakers should think hard before doing anything, and perhaps  spend their time undoing the damage to individual freedom that previous lawmakers have done. That would be progress, but instead we stand still in time’s past.

Do Not Dilute Standards for “Diversity” at New York City High Schools

The best public high schools in New York City (Stuyvesant, Bronx Science and Brooklyn Tech) have one of the most most egalitarian and meritocratic admissions systems in the United States. There is a test for admission, and only the students with the highest scores are admitted. Nothing else matters. This is how it is done in many of the world’s schools, particularly in Asia, but, unfortunately, not in the US, where diversity seen by some as a great value even though one is born into a “diversity class” and cannot achieve or change this status. Every year when the statistics come out for next year’s freshman classes at these high schools, it shows little, if any, increase in the number of students who self-identify as Hispanic and African-American:

Lack of Diversity Persists in Admissions to New York City’s Elite High Schools

In the article, at least, no one is saying the test is biased against certain socially constructed backgrounds. The test itself is the same stringency for all its takers. The only advantage examinees can acquire is to take (and take to heart through hard study) prep classes geared to doing well on the exam. If you don’t study hard, then you don’t do well on the exam. Nothing else is taken into consideration, including legacy admissions that unfairly favor the children of alumni. It is very rare in the US for an institution to maintain such high standards without eventually submitting to political pressure to lower standards to achieve a socially desirable end. It is hoped that the New York State legislature does not water down the exam or entry standards for these meritocratic and superb high schools. This is one time when the dysfunctional nature of Albany legislative politics bodes well for nothing being done, which is the best possible outcome.

Same Old Story: Lack of Agency and Narrative Drives Young Men to the Extreme

A young immigrant man in New York was arrested at JFK Airport on his way to Syria to join ISIS:

In Brooklyn, Eager to Join ISIS, if Only His Mother Would Return His Passport

Aside from the comical implication of a mother taking away her son’s passport so he couldn’t join the world’s most notorious terrorist organization, the larger issue is what drives young men around the world to seek out and join ISIS (women also join but I believe their motivations are different from the men). The New York Times story sets up the subject as a kind of a “loser” relegated to a job chopping onions and tomatoes in a basement, while quietly seething about the permissive moral culture around him. The article posits that this combination led him to want to join ISIS, but I believe there is something else driving these men because not all of them were “losers and misfits.” The story broke yesterday that the so-called “Jihadi John” who ostensibly beheads captives for ISIS is a Kuwaiti who used to live in London with a middle class lifestyle. The NYT ran a video story a month ago of a Malaysian imam who enjoyed a good, stable life with the respect of his community, who left it all behind to join ISIS (and eventually died in the fighting):

The Jihadist In Our Family

They all came from different backgrounds but ended up in the same place fighting for an organization that most of us consider heinous and troglodyte. This is actually nothing new, but has happened throughout human history where men of fighting age (and some too young or old) go off and join an outfit fighting for a cause. And that’s the key here, it’s for a cause that has established a grand narrative at odds with the prevailing one (democratic capitalism in today’s world). All these men felt their life had little or no cause, and that their agency was limited to effect change. From a young age, we are taught that we can be anything we want but then when reaching adulthood, we realize that many of us will not be able to reach that rarefied air  where agency, wealth and power reside. Instead we can only reach a middling level for not everyone can reach the highest rung, even if we try our mightiest and best (not everyone can be above average). ISIS gives a sense of purpose to these men that they cannot or can no longer find in their home cultures/countries. There is no grand narrative for them to live out, no sense of higher purpose to achieve or strive for. Instead ISIS preys on this insecurity and provides a disturbingly twisted but attractive and romantic narrative. Young men in other countries rushed to join the Communist revolutions in Russia and China in the 20th century, even though it proved disastrous. ISIS does the same, and when ISIS fails (which it will), there will be some other grand narrative to take its place for young men to “escape” lives that they perceive to be without or with little meaning, agency or value.

What does it mean to “love” America (or any country)?

A few days ago former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani said that President Obama does not love America in the same way that he does. It was a fascinating comment that, of course, the media jumped on creating its usual noise with no substance so let’s be better than them and look at this comment a bit closer. Giuliani says he loves America, but what does that really mean? What does he really love? Is it the culture? The culture of America is so variable and wide that it’s too hard to pin down. Perhaps he’s just being selective to the parts he likes (baseball, opera, etc.) as Giuliani doesn’t seem like the kind of guy who would like gangsta rap or rodeo. Nothing wrong with that as everyone has their cultural preferences but the point is that American culture is writ so broad (which is a strength), that I don’t think he could be referring to the culture since there is no one American culture. Is it the Constitution? As a former prosecutor, he’s certainly a law and order type, but Obama was a constitutional law professor (adjunct), so I don’t think Giuliani was making that distinction either.

My guess is that Giuliani wasn’t really referring to “love” of country and just chose the word incorrectly to express what he really meant. Giuliani believes, whether we agree or not, that the US should be much more aggressive and in front fighting ISIS and terrorists around the world, and he believes that Obama is not taking the fight to them directly enough. By Obama not taking the fight in such a direct and visceral manner, Giuliani believes that Obama does not love America like he does. And I use the word “visceral” because Giuliani pointed out Obama’s cool manner when discussing ISIS, and his emotional response to Ferguson. Giuliani believes that Obama’s handling of ISIS and terrorists is not only not strong and tough enough to show that he “loves” the country, that is, going on offense directly to protect the defense of the continental United States, but also that Obama simply isn’t angry and outraged enough. Giuliani believes Obama should be more emotional in his speechifying on ISIS and terrorism to demonstrate a true love of the United States.

When to be project logic and rationality, and when to project emotion and anger is the issue between them.

Jeb Bush and the Failed Neo-Con Worldview

Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, who is almost certainly running for President next year, made a self-styled major foreign policy speech outlining his vision. As the Washington Post pointed out in an insightful Venn diagram, most of his foreign policy team comes from the same circle that his father and brother ran in:

Jeb Bush’s Foreign Policy Team is Eerily Similar

There were practically no specifics in the speech except he would increase war spending, which is the last thing the US needs. The US war budget is already incredibly bloated and can easily be slashed, but that’s a subject for another column. Bush said he would be tougher and stronger than Obama in projecting US power, but what does that really mean? If one looks at his team of advisors, some names such as Paul Wolfowitz stand out. Wolfowitz is one of the prime architects and proponents of the 2003 Iraq invasion, which 12 years later can clearly be seen by any honest-minded observer as a complete disaster. That war wasted countless lives, from American soldiers to over 100,000 Iraqis. That war wasted well over $1 trillion from US taxpayers, which could have been used in so many other useful ways, or just given back to the people. That war took a relatively stable country with a dictator that posed no threat to anyone except its own people, and completely destabilized the region, helping give birth to ISIS today. How could anyone in his/her right mind want to give a team that blundered so badly another chance at the reins of foreign policy? Why is Wolfowitz given any media slots as a talking head except if it’s as a lesson of abject failure? The Neo-Cons are/were a bunch of idealists who believed in their own pie-in-the-sky fantasy world, but they’ve been proven wrong. It is unconscionable that Bush would want to make the same mistakes that his brother made, especially when he claims to want to be his own man.

Originally posted: http://www.mccarthyism.com/2015/20150219_Jeb-Bush-and-Failed-Neo-Con-Worldview-Foreign-Policy.htm

Record Number of US Citizens Giving Up Citizenship

And the numbers of US citizens renouncing citizenship reached over 3,000 last year, even though the fees to do so went well over $2,000:

Americans Ditch Their Passports

Whenever you read the message boards to this type of story, the common reaction of US-based Americans is “good riddance” and “don’t let the door hit you on the way out.” This is a churlish, childish and counter-productive reaction. These Americans are not traitors, they are simply tired of double-taxation (yes, ironic, considering that is why the original colonists fought for independence). Americans are some of the only citizens in the world (though China is starting to do this as well) that pay taxes in their country of residence, and to the US government as well. Now, they do not have pay US taxes if their income is under about $95,000 but they still have to file and, for many, that is an expensive proposition. Many US expats are not bankers or financiers; instead many are teachers, middle managers for global companies or small business owners. They make well under the threshold but requiring them to hire an accountant (usually back in the US because there are few licensed CPAs overseas) means paying anywhere from $400 to $1000. That’s just unfair, and there should be a simpler way for these Americans such as a simple one-page waiver form to file.

In principle, when living overseas you are not using the services of the government so you should not be subject to taxation to one’s home country. Europeans are astounded to learn that Americans have to pay tax on their overseas salary. Then again, Europeans get national health insurance if they pay home taxes, while Americans get nothing except an order to pay and register for Obamacare.

It used to be $400 to renounce citizenship, and now it’s $2,400. There’s no reason for it to be that high except to fleece an about-to-be former citizen one last time. It should cost $40 to renounce citizenship, or even be free. It’s petty and tacky to charge so much for trying to leave a club. It bespeaks more about the crassness and coarseness of the US government than of the citizens trying to leave US behind for greener pastures elsewhere. Just let them go with minimum fuss, and let go of the currently vindictive system.

Originally posted: http://www.mccarthyism.com/2015/20150213.htm

Senator Tillis Washes His Hands of Restaurant Regulations

Newly elected North Carolina Senator Thom Tillis made an interesting point about government regulations and the invisible hand of the free market.

Senator Says Restaurant Employees Shouldn’t Be Required to Wash Their Hands

Tillis’s point is if the government did not require restaurants to mandate hand washing after employee bathroom use then restaurants that did not require hand washing of their own accord would soon go out of business. This is because the public would reject any restaurant if it didn’t require its employees to wash their hands after doing their lavatory business. He is perhaps correct in this, though it assumes that the public would eventually be able to discover, or figure out on its own, that a restaurant did not require hand washing. Just because a sign was not posted in the bathroom would not necessarily mean that the restaurant owner didn’t require employees to wash. And a posted sign that required employee hand washing would not mean the decree is necessarily enforced by the management (though this could be a problem in the current legal regime anyway).

But the gap in the Senator’s thinking is this: if the goverment no longer required restaurant employees to wash their hands (the sign itself does not really make a difference), then some restaurants would become lax in employee hand washing (the punishment of fines being persuasive), thus leading to the increased chance of employee fecal matter making its way into customer entrees. This in turn would lead to the increased chance of disease. In the main Tillis is right, less laws would be better but his target is wrong. There should be less laws restricting individual freedom, and I would gladly vote for a politician who promised to remove as many laws as possible from the books that restrict the rights of the individual (and there are way too many). But when it comes to a public health issue, then there probably needs to be government regulation that could significantly decrease the chance of disease spreading in the community. If requiring restaurant employees to wash their hands increases the good of public health significantly, and it seemingly does, then the law is worth its muster (especially for the small price to business owners of posting signs in bathrooms and reminding/supervising employees to follow the rule). But when it doesn’t pass this test then it should be examined and perhaps fall aside. Tillis had a point, but he used a wrong example. Of courese, this won’t stop the media from having a field day making fun of him and missing any larger issue/point.

Originally posted: http://www.mccarthyism.com/2015/20150204.htm

Much Ado About Cumberpatch

British actor Benedict Cumberpatch had to utter a batch of mea culpas after saying Hollywood had a problem not casting enough “colored actors” in its movies:

Cumberpatch Apologizes for ‘Colored Actors’ Remark

If aliens from another planet deciphered our language they would wonder why it would make any difference where the adjectival modifier is placed: “people of color” or “colored people.” It’s a ridiculous semantic difference but the weight of connotation from historical usage hangs heavily over the latter but not the former. But, as someone from Britain, we cannot expect Cumberpatch to know every nuance and underlying connotative meaning behind a phrase that would seem innocuous to him. The incident says more about the people who are self-righteously lambasting Cumberpatch than it says anything about him (and the poor guy felt obliged to apologize profusely afterwards). Ironically the Americans calling him out for supposed insensitivity and racism actually revealed themselves to be culturally and globally ignorant. Do they really expect and believe that the connotative meaning of every English language phrase is the same around the world? They are the ethnocentric ones, not Cumberpatch. Their ignorance of language and its nuances is embarrassing (for them). These ignorants need to get a clue and buy a book like this:

English to English: The A to Z of British-American Translations

Cheers…

Originally posted: http://www.mccarthyism.com/2015/20150130.htm

Wikipedia Should Not Depict Prophet Muhammad (but not for the reason you think)

Interesting article on Gawker about the background, history and tussle over the depiction of Prophet Muhammad in the Wikipedia entry:

Should Wikipedia Depict Muhammad?

Most of the debate has posited free speech versus sensitivity to religious teachings (particularly of the other), but there is a third way (most debates are not the false binary presented by politicians and media). Newspapers, journalistic organizations, universities, encyclopedias, history books, etc. all strive to present facts. A fact is something that is verifiably true. If it cannot be proven true, then it should not be presented as true. Yet, these same fact-reporting entities use illustrations, paintings and other artistic representations as a placeholder for an unknowable truth. One obvious example is the blue-eyed, blond-haired Jesus that has been portrayed as such in countless media representations through the centuries. But let’s move away from depictions of religious figures for the moment to a momentous historical one.

Christopher Columbus is one of the most well-known figures of history, yet we have no idea how he truly appeared. The paintings we see of him in books and news media were made after his death. If you check history textbooks in Spain, he appears in illustration as a Spanish caballero, and in Italy as a Genoan noble. The truth is absolutely nobody knows what he truly looked like, yet his image is ostensibly and tacitly posted as fact such as Wikipedia, history texts, newspapers, etc. (Not only do we not know what Columbus looked like, we do not even know if he was Italian, or really much of his life. Most of the myth of Columbus was fabricated by the American author Washington Irving in the 19th century to sell his books). It would be fine to put these images into entries and discussions of artistic representation of historic figures, but it is wholly inaccurate to put them into any document that purports to be truth. And that is why Wikipedia and other media organizations that purportedly pursue truth should not publish images of Muhammad or any religious/historical figure for which we have no accurate visual depiction. To do otherwise is simply wrong (not necessarily in the ethical or moral sense, but in the sense of simply being flat-out wrong).

Originally posted: http://www.mccarthyism.com/2015/20150127.htm