"Clarifying" The 14th Amendment:  One of the commenters to this post argued, as others have, that we should "clarify" the 14th Amendment.  Here's the full text of the amendment, along with its ratification history.  (Which shows what a battle there was to get it ratified.)  What the commenter wanted to "clarify" is in the very first section:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.  No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Specifically, in the first sentence, which gives citizenship to anyone born in the United States — regardless of whether their parents are citizens.

You may be wondering, as I did, what that qualifying clause, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof", means.  Here's the explanation from Wikipedia:

The provisions in Section 1 ensure that children born on United States soil, with a very small number of exceptions, are U.S. citizens.  This type of guarantee—legally termed "jus soli", or "right of the territory"—does not exist in most of Western Europe, although it is common in the Americas.

The phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" indicates that there are some exceptions to the universal rule that birth on U.S. soil automatically grants citizenship.  The Supreme Court precedent set by the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark interprets the exception narrowly to cover only the following:

• Children born to foreign diplomats
• Children born to enemy forces in hostile occupation of the United States
• Native Americans born on tribal lands

Under this interpretation, the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants and tourists are automatically U.S. citizens.

The only way to "clarify" that so that children of illegal immigrants born here are not automatically citizens is to pass a constitutional amendment.  That's not just my opinion; that's the plain meaning of the amendment, and the controlling decision of the US Supreme Court.  To pretend that can be "clarified" away is foolish.

As it happens, for years I have favored amending the 14th Amendment to eliminate what I see as an unintended loophole.   Allowing, for example, pregnant South Korean women to fly here to have their babies, in order to establish a base in this country, makes no sense to me.  Thousands do just that every year, according to one news story I read, and Koreans are not the only nationality that uses this loophole.  But I am not going to pretend that the 14th Amendment means other than what the Supreme Court has plainly said it means.  (And what seems to this non-lawyer to be a fair reading of the text of the Amendment.)

(Section 1 also guarantees the "equal protection of the laws" to "any person".  "Any person" would include illegal immigrants, so some proposals to treat them unequally would fail an obvious constitutional test.)

Every Year Is Worse Than The Previous Year In Baghdad:  Who said that?   A member of Al Qaeda, who is discouraged over their prospects in that city — and has plenty of reasons to be discouraged.  In particular, he sees Sunni forces loyal to the Iraqi government as a threat to which he has no answer.  Any conflict with them will further reduce Al Qaeda's support, but he sees no way to avoid those conflicts.

Captain Ed has a longer analysis here.  Like me, David Cohen was struck by the frank admission in the document that Al Qaeda was waging a media war in Baghdad — exclusively.

Now we should not make too much of this.  There are two main factions attacking us and our allies in Iraq, Al Qaeda and the Baathist remnants.  The Baathist remnants are a larger, if much less fanatical, force.  It would be fascinating to see a similar assessment from a Baathist.

(Fans of metaphors will note that "quagmire" would not be the right word to describe the strategic assessment in this document.  A "quagmire" implies that you are stuck, with no chance of improvement.  But the writer thinks that matters are getting worse.)

Today Should Be A Good Day to see the "fin" growing in Mt. St. Helens.   Here's what you could see yesterday:


Here's the web cam.  And you may want to take another look at the video I mentioned in this post  Among other things, it shows a small glacier just west of the fin, something you can't see from the web cam.

Four Strange Stories From The Telegraph:  

• German courts gave their cannibal a life sentence.  But it took two tries.  And he's appealing.


• Another German is becoming a father on a grand scale.

  A German man is exploiting a loophole in the law to become the legal father of 1,000 foreign children so they can claim German passports.

  And lots of benefits from the German welfare state.  (The "father" thinks he was treated unfairly when he was convicted and imprisoned for fraud.  This is his revenge.)


• American troops think that new armor for turret gunners in Humvees makes them look "goofy"   But the new armor seems to be quite effective.


• Britain has a shortage of sperm donors  Regulation is to blame, surprise, surprise.

None of these stories makes a large political point, but they amused me, and may amuse you, too.

More On Bill Clinton's Arsenic Trap:  Since the Seattle Times continues to omit much of the arsenic story, I'll try to fill in what they miss.  In my first post, I noted that there was little danger from the previous standard of 50 parts per billion, and that the affair had been a political trap set by Bill Clinton for George W. Bush.  The Seattle Times has now partly caught up with me on the first point.

Dr. Catherine Karr, director of the University of Washington's Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Unit, said the long-term risk to children would be very low.

Her rough calculation: If 1 million children, each day for five years, each drank one liter of water with arsenic slightly above the federal standard of 10 parts per billion (ppb), about 10 to 30 more cancers of the bladder or lungs would result.

But they continue to ignore Clinton's role in this fiasco, as you can see in that article and in this editorial.  And they probably always will ignore Clinton's role, since the Seattle Times, like many American newspapers, does not like to hold Democrats responsible for their misdeeds.  (I sent the reporter, Emily Heffter, an email after my first post, so she does know that Clinton was responsible; she just doesn't care to share that knowledge with her readers.)

But the Times, and their expert, Dr. Karr, are only partly right, because a complete account would include the fact that many experts do not believe there is any danger at all in this level of arsenic.  Here, for example, is what the Agency for Toxic Sustance and Disease Registry says about the research on the effects of arsenic in drinking water:

Can arsenic in drinking water affect my health?

Studies conducted in other countries found harmful health effects in persons who regularly for many years drank water containing arsenic at 100 ppb to 300 ppb.  Compared with other groups, more of these people developed several kinds of cancer (lung, liver, kidney, and prostate) and had darkening skin, thickening of the skin on palms of their hands and soles of their feet, skin cancer, and many small warts or corns.

A few studies found no harmful effects in persons in the United States who throughout their lifetimes drank water containing arsenic at levels of 50 ppb to 100 ppb.

They go on to say that reducing exposure below 50 ppb "can reduce the risk of harmful health effects", but you and I can look at the evidence they presented and add to that sentence this phrase: but it almost certainly won't.

The simplest explanation for those different results is that there is a threshold effect; arsenic can cause ill effects if your water contains more than 50 (or perhaps 100) parts per billion, but not below that.  There is nothing surprising about that explanation; many substances do show threshold effects.  For some reason, Karr chose not mention these US studies on the effects of lower levels of arsenic — or the Seattle Times chose not to report what she said.

Cross posted at Sound Politics.

(There is another possible explanation for these differing results: Because of "hormesis", tiny amounts of arsenic may actually be good for your health — and there is some experimental evidence to support that theory.

Some on the left, notably Ralph Nader, were honest enough to say that Clinton was setting a trap when he made this decision.  And, as a commenter pointed out after my first post, liberal journalist Michael Kinsley was honest enough to say that leaving the standard at 50 parts per billion was correct.)

Worth Re-Reading:  Charles Krauthammer's classic column on "Bush Derangement Syndrome".

Bush Derangement Syndrome: the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency -- nay -- the very existence of George W. Bush.

I had forgotten how he suggested we help people suffering from BDS.

The sad news is that there is no cure.  But there is hope.  There are many fine researchers seeking that cure.  Your donation to the BDS Foundation, no matter how small, can help.   Mailing address: Republican National Committee, Washington DC, Attention: psychiatric department.   Just make sure your amount does not exceed $2,000 ($4,000 for a married couple).

The column would be even funnier, if it weren't so close to the truth — and if the syndrome hadn't spread since 2003.

Thanks To All Who Visit:  Visits to this site have grown steadily, though not spectacularly, since I first made it public in July, 2002.  This March there was a sharp jump up in page views, and they have consistently averaged more than 2,000 a day since then.  Thanks to all who visit, and thanks especially to those who tell me about my mistakes.

For some time I have jokingly said that I hope this web site will eventually have "circulation" equal to 5 or 10 percent of that of the two Seattle newspapers.  Considering the trends, that's a little bit less of a joke than it once was.

Circulation fell at both of the daily newspapers in Seattle for the six months ending March 31, by a greater percentage at the Seattle P-I than at The Seattle Times and far more deeply at each than the national average.

The weekday P-I had a total average paid circulation of 131,769 for the period, down 9 percent from the same period the year before, according to figures released Monday by the Audit Bureau of Circulations.

The Times reported Monday-through-Friday circulation of 220,734, down 5.4 percent.

Most journalists will tell you that ideology has nothing to do with these contrasting trends — but I don't agree.

Speaker Pelosi?  (This is an open letter to my own congressman, Jay Inslee.)

Dear Congressman Inslee:

Sometimes it is best to be blunt and I hope you will excuse me for thinking that this is one of those times.

If the Democrats were to gain a majority in the House of Representatives this November, Nancy Pelosi, who represents most of San Francisco, would, almost certainly, become speaker of the House of Representatives, and next in line after the vice president, to become president.

What, in your opinion, makes Congresswoman Pelosi fit to be speaker, and possibly president?

I follow politics closely.  I have read her official biography, and the biography in the authoritative Almanac of American Politics.   She has a mediocre education.  She has never held an executive position.  She has been in Congress since 1987 and has few legislative accomplishments.  She routinely gets 100 percent scores from far left groups such as the ADA.  And her district is one the strangest in the United States.

Her plans, should she become speaker, do not fill me with confidence.  She has already said, though not in these words, that she intends to tie up the government with endless investigations — during a time of war.  And she has not committed herself to keeping the reforms that the Republicans brought to the House after the 1994 elections.

I did not have these same objections to her predecessor, Richard Gephardt.  There are still many serious Democratic congressmen who I could see as speaker or even president, though many fewer than there once were.  Nancy Pelosi is not one of them. If you have some reason for believing otherwise, I would like to hear it.

I have posted this letter at my own web site, Jim Miller on Politics, and at Sound Politics.   I would be happy to post your reply, if any, at both sites.

Sincerely,
James R. Miller

Cross posted at Sound Politics.

You Can't Get There From Here:  That's the punch line to a classic joke; that's also a good description of our dilemma in trying to find a sensible policy on immigration.  In my initial post on the May 1st demonstration in Seattle, I said that I was showing two atypical pictures.  Below is a typical picture of the demonstrators in Seattle and, from everything I have read, the demonstrators in most other cities.

Notice the strollers in the picture?  They were almost ubiquitous.  And, if you wandered through the crowd, you could make eye contact with the kids in the strollers.  Most were shy, as kids in strange places often are, but still smiled back, if you smiled at them.  And their mothers, like mothers everywhere, were delighted if you admired their children.

Now picture those cute kids with their proud mothers, and then think about the problem of deporting illegal aliens — which is what many of those kids and their mothers are.  We could deport them if there hundreds of them, perhaps even if there were thousands of them.  But there are millions of them.

And now imagine how our "mainstream" media would cover that story, if the mass deportations were ordered by a Republican president.  (Maybe even a Democratic president.)  It isn't hard, is it?  We'd be shown hard working families (but never criminals) being forced across the border by police, with kids crying and mothers weeping.  Neighbors would be found to testify that those deported were fine, hard working people.  And the political effects of such coverage are equally easy to imagine.

So a Republican president can't order mass deportations, and even a Democratic president would find it difficult.  If we can't deport illegals in large numbers, then, broadly speaking, we have just two possible ways to deal with them.  We can continue to tolerate the presence of millions who came here illegally, or we can find some way to regularize their presence.  I think the latter is the better strategy, if it is combined with a much larger effort to control the borders and greater enforcement of laws against employing illegals.

In thinking about the right kind of strategy, we should think about the problem from the point of view of the person who is considering sneaking into the United States.  We want to convince that person that his chances of staying in the United States are far better if he gets in line for some legal program than if he hires a "coyote" to get him across the border.  That's difficult, but not impossible, especially if we make it far harder to cross the border illegally.

Many of us would prefer not to have a significant number of illegal aliens in this country.   But if you look at those strollers and think about the politics of massive deportations, you will realize that we can't get there from here.  Serious people will accept that and then look for the best, or perhaps I should say the least bad, policy from a set of unpleasant choices.

Cross posted at Sound Politics.

Michael Kinsley asks a good question:

Why does the press hold Bush to one constitutional standard and itself to another?

But finds no answer.

Many in the media believe that the Constitution contains a "reporter's privilege" to protect the identity of sources in circumstances, like a criminal trial, in which citizens ordinarily can be compelled to produce information or go to jail.  The Supreme Court and lower courts have ruled and ruled again that there is no such privilege.  And it certainly is not obvious that the First Amendment, which seems to be about the right to speak, actually protects a right not to speak.  Yet many in the media not only believe that it does.  They believe passionately that it is not merely OK but profoundly noble to follow their own interpretation and ignore the Supreme Court's.

Though most journalists would be outraged if President Bush did the same thing.

There He Goes Again:  In February, former president Jimmy Carter was arguing that, just because the Palestinians had elected a government with a genocidal platform, that was no reason to stop sending them money.  Now Carter is making the same argument again.

Innocent Palestinian people are being treated like animals, with the presumption that they are guilty of some crime.  Because they voted for candidates who are members of Hamas, the United States government has become the driving force behind an apparently effective scheme of depriving the general public of income, access to the outside world and the necessities of life.

Overwhelmingly, these are school teachers, nurses, social workers, police officers, farm families, shopkeepers, and their employees and families who are just hoping for a better life.

Today is VE Day.  Does Carter know what we did to the school teachers, nurses, social workers, police officers, farm families, and shopkeepers of Nazi Germany to force that nation to surrender?  It was more than just cutting off their cash flow.

Those who care about the Palestinians will want to see them make peace with Israel.  That peace can only come from a surrender.  Cutting off their cash is a good first step toward forcing them to surrender.  That Carter opposes it shows either that he does not care about the Palestinians, or that he is deluded about the Hamas platform.

No Methyl Tert-Butyl Ether = Higher Gas Prices:  Hidden inside Saturday's New York Times was a partially informative article explaining how changing federal rules have raised gas prices.  In the 1970s, to meet clean air requirements, refiners began adding methyl tert-butyl ether, best known by its initials, MTBE, to gasoline.  The refiners were not required to add MTBE, specifically, but to add an oxygenate, and MTBE was the most practical oxygenate to use, since it is inexpensive and blends easily with gasoline.  Some gasoline mixes contained as much as 11 percent MTBE by volume, so calling it an additive is a bit misleading.

MTBE did help clean up the air, though, if I understand matters correctly, it does not help much with cars made in the last two decades.  (MTBE replaced lead in gasoline, so it eliminated a dangerous pollutant when it was first introduced.)

As MTBE use grew, we learned about its problems.  It leaks easily from tanks and often gets into the ground water.  Even in very small amounts, it can ruin the taste and smell of drinking water.  And it may be a carcinogen in larger amounts.  So the refiners were eager to eliminate MTBE from their gasoline mixes, if only to avoid endless lawsuits.  The 2005 Energy Policy Act gave them an opportunity.

Nine months after Congress passed major energy legislation, one provision affecting gasoline formulas is helping to drive the price of gas up much faster than the rising price of crude oil.

And because the new gasoline recipe contains less energy, mileage per gallon is declining.

On Friday, the 270th day after President Bush signed the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the law ended the requirement that gasoline sold in areas prone to air pollution include an "oxygenate," or a molecule including hydrogen, carbon and oxygen.  A result is that refiners over most of the country's big gasoline markets, anticipating the rule, have already dropped the chemical MTBE.

(By the way, were the copy editors at the New York Times on vacation?  That last sentence is terrible, and most of the other sentences could be improved.)

But there isn't enough domestic ethanol to replace the MTBE, at least in the short run, and so our gas prices have risen even faster than our crude oil prices.

Will dropping MTBE reduce pollution?  That's not clear.  As I read the Wikipedia article, ethanol causes fewer problems with our ground water, but may cause more air pollution than MTBE.  So we have higher gas prices, but not necessarily a cleaner environment.

(Just to be clear: I am not critical of the refiners for making this switch, since the potential costs of the lawsuits over MTBE leaks is enormous.)

Correction:  I was imprecise in discussing lead (actually tetra-ethyl lead) and MTBE.  Here's what the Wikipedia article says:

MTBE has been used in U.S. gasoline at low levels since 1979 to replace tetra-ethyl lead to increase its octane rating and help prevent engine knocking.  Since 1992, MTBE has been used at higher concentrations in some gasoline to fulfill the oxygenate requirements set by Congress in Clean Air Act amendments; however, since 1999, in California and other locations MBTE has begun to be phased out because of groundwater contamination (California Air Resources Board, 2004), citing unproven health effects.

So, MTBE was first used as an additive to increase the octane rating of the mix.  Later it was used, in much larger quantities, as an oxygenate to reduce air pollution.  Thanks to an emailer for drawing my attention to this point.  (I also changed "ethanol" to MTBE in the first sentence of the next to the last paragraph of the original post — since that's what I intended to say.)

Amazing Video from the BBC.  You should see this if you have any doubts about their bias.

French Scandal:  And it's a big one.

A major political scandal unfolding in France has been mostly ignored by the world press.  It involves, among others, a president, a prime minister, a minister of defense, a minister of the interior, a top spy, and a business executive.  Every day brings some new twist.

In brief, the French Prime Minister, Dominique de Villepin, has been accused of using forged materials to smear his party rival, Minister of the Interior, Nicolas Sarkozy.  For some of the many twists in this story, you will need to read the whole article.

(For shorter descriptions of the scandal, see this Washington Post article, or this New York Times article.   Oddly enough, the Times tells the story from the point of view of de Villepin, who is now despised by most of his countrymen.  Perhaps his opposition to President Bush's foreign policies redeems de Villepin in the eyes of the Times.

Sarkozy and de Villepin belong to the Union for a Popular Movement, which is a relatively conservative party by French standards.  Here's the UMP's web site.)

Kudos To Washington Post Ombudsman Deborah Howell for this admission.

Watching the corrections process during a career in journalism has led me to one conclusion: Journalists are often thin-skinned and resist corrections.  I've been guilty of that myself.

Though I think she is wrong to propose adding a layer of bureaucracy to help with corrections.   Instead, journalists need to listen to their readers more.  And they should understand that they will gain credibility by prompt and frank corrections.  I think that most readers understand that journalists work under time pressure, and that they often must write on subjects about which they know little.  In those circumstances, mistakes are inevitable.

But an arrogant refusal to make corrections — which is what I nearly always encounter when I suggest them, however politely — is not inevitable, and will alienate readers, nine times out of ten.

(There are a few journalists — Dana Milbank of the Washington Post comes to mind — who make so many errors that they should be told to find a different profession.)

Reckless Journalist:  I am still amazed, from time to time, to see how reckless some journalists can be.  Yesterday, while browsing through the sports pages of the New York Times, I found this $column by William C. Rhoden.  The column is mostly an unfocused discussion of how good basketball star LeBron James is, and how he had been coached in the first years of his professional career. But the next to the last paragraph made this astonishing accusation:

[Kobe] Bryant and James will probably be Olympic teammates in 2008.  If the N.B.A. is as much like professional wrestling as I think it is, the league will find a way to manipulate a Kobe-LeBron finals matchup within the next two seasons.

So Rhoden believes the NBA finals are rigged — unless he is joking.  As it happens, I think that the NBA is plagued by biased refereeing, in favor of home teams and superstars.  But I don't think it is rigged as Rhoden suggests.  If Rhoden really believes this charge, he should provide some evidence for it.  If he is joking, he should make that clearer.  No one, not even a journalist, should charge fraud this lightly.

Is Ecoterrorism Terrorism?  Put that way the question sounds silly, but journalists in this area have begun to raise the question, even so.  Perhaps to avoid looking openly silly, Hal Bernton of the Seattle Times argues that ecoterrorism isn't terrorism — while never using the word, "ecoterrorism", except in a quotation.  (I assume the "ecosabotage" in the title came from an editor, not Bernton.)

In considering this question, let's start with a definition of terrorism, this one from the 3rd edition of the American Heritage dictionary:

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or organized group against people or property with the intent of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

The arson attacks on laboratories, homes, and businesses by environmental extremists (Bernton calls them "militants") mentioned in Bernton's piece obviously fit that definition perfectly.  Some environmental extremists have used force in attempts to intimidate or coerce, and they have done so for ideological reasons.

Not everyone agrees with that definition, as you can see from this longer discussion.  But I think it is a reasonable definition.  And the definition is politically neutral.  It includes — as it should — arson attacks on abortion providers, as well as arson attacks on laboratories, homes, and businesses that offend environmental extremists.  (For that matter, it would include arson attacks for ideogical reasons, on the Seattle Times.)

So why does Bernton want to avoid using that definition, or a similar definition?  The most likely answer is that he sympathizes, as many journalists do, with environmental extremists, and does not want to see them called terrorists, just as those who sympathize with Osama bin Laden do not want to see him called a terrorist.  (Journalists would be less likely to sympathize with these extremists if they were not, often, spectacularly misinformed on environmental issues.)  But this sympathy for ecoterrorists by Bernton, and other journalists, lead them on to dubious ground.

Terrorism is usually illegitimate, even in autocracies, and nearly always illegitimate in democracies.  In the United States and other democracies, environmental extremists can (and sometimes do) make their arguments in elections.  The extremists that choose instead to burn laboratories, homes, and businesses, or to commit other violent acts, are thereby rejecting democratic means.  And the journalists that excuse or minimize these violent acts are thus excusing or minimizing attacks on democracy.

Does Bernton understand that?  I'm not sure.  But if he does believe that his environmental causes are incompatible with democracy, he should say so openly.

(Strangely, Bernton and his research helper, Gene Balk, never mention one of the most famous ecoterrorists, Ted Kaczynski, the "Unabomber".   Perhaps he didn't fit their thesis.)

Mt. St. Helens has added a "fin" to the growing pile inside the crater

If the skies are clear as forecast, volcano watchers who turn out for the reopening of the Johnston Ridge Observatory on Friday will get a spectacular view of a hulking slab of rock that's rapidly growing in Mount St. Helens' crater.

It's jutting up from one of seven lobes of fresh volcanic rock that have been pushing their way through the surface of the crater since October 2004.

The fin-shaped mass is about 300 feet tall and growing 4 feet to 5 feet a day, though it occasionally loses height from rockfalls off its tip, said Dan Dzurisin, a geologist at the U.S. Geological Survey

A Seattle TV station, King 5 has some unedited video of the fin, which shows more of the crater.

Here's the Johnston Ridge web cam, if you want to try to see it live.

(And now I am off to visit another volcano, to take a few pictures, and to do a little spring skiing.)

If you are wondering about the original time stamp on this post, the explanation is simple.  I wrote it yesterday morning, but forgot to upload it before I left.  The skiing was excellent, by the way, as it often is on Mt. Rainier in May.  I'll have a picture or two for you later this weekend.

Not last weekend, obviously, but maybe this coming Friday.

Republicans Aren't Necessarily Doomed This November, even in Ohio, says Michael Barone.

If there's any state the Republicans are in trouble in this year, it's Ohio.  Incumbent Republican Gov. Bob Taft's job rating has been hovering in the teens.

Taft and other Republicans have had scandal problems.  Control of Ohio state government tends to oscillate between the parties: From the 1840s to the 1990s, no party held the governorship for more than eight years.  Today the Republicans are in their 16th year of controlling the governorship and the legislature. Ohio is overdue to go Democratic.

But, as Barone shows, the Republicans drew solid support in the Ohio primary elections this last Tuesday, enough support to show that, though Ken Blackwell may be behind in the race for governor, he has a good chance to win, and that the Republicans may not suffer big losses farther down the ticket.