One of the greatest courtroom dramas of all time was Anatomy of a Murder., and over the last 48 years, I must have watched it at least a dozen times. Jimmy Stewart plays a small town lawyer who gets Ben Gazarra off of a murder charge by getting the jury to believe in an "irresistible impulse."

An Irresistible Impulse, one that far to many senators succumbed to in authoring and/or supporting a bad bill. Last week, America watched enthralled as the United States Senate debated, and ultimately killed the latest iteration of immigration reform. Earlier "comprehensive" reforms occurred in 1952 and again another in 1986. In the 1986 signing, President Ronald Reagan noted:

Distance has not discouraged illegal immigration to the United States from all around the globe. The problem of illegal immigration should not, therefore, be seen as a problem between the United States and its neighbors. Our objective is only to establish a reasonable, fair, orderly, and secure system of immigration into this country and not to discriminate in any way against particular nations or people."

"The act I am signing today is the product of one of the longest and most difficult legislative undertakings of recent memory. It has truly been a bipartisan effort, with this administration and the allies of immigration reform in the Congress, of both parties, working together to accomplish these critically important reforms. Future generations of Americans will be thankful for our efforts to humanely regain control of our borders and thereby preserve the value of one of the most sacred possessions of our people: American citizenship." [emphasis added]

The fact of the matter was that when you handed out citizenship to earlier illegal immigrants, you did exactly what Pavlov proved would happen. Reward a behavior and you will get more of the same, in this case somewhere in the neighborhood of 12 to 20 million additional illegal immigrants since 1986. That should be tattooed on the inside of the eyelids of every man and woman that wants to be a United States Senator, let alone on the inside of the eyelids of each and every current U.S. Senator.

The latest "comprehensive" immigration bill was fraught with difficulty, hence, the multiple votes on amendments to the bill. Each amendment as proposed was to "remove a significant fault" or to add a "significant enhancement" either to the bill, or conversely from the bill, and the American people were up in arms.

The media kept telling us that a "majority" of Americans wanted a comprehensive immigration bill, and that is probably true, but like always, the devil is in the details. Just prior to the final ignominious defeat of the bill, a Rasmussen poll showed some 70 + percent of those polled did not like this particular bill or its multitude of provisions for an alphabetized system of visas. Indeed, they were probably perplexed by the bill.

George W. Bush, Harry Reid, John McCain (who probably tossed his presidential candidacy into the toilet) and Ted Kennedy all fought for the bill and ultimately, the people said "no." And it is a good thing they did. As I commented on another site (see, I don't spend ALL of my time here):

I’m surprised (as perhaps were other) that Marc, who touts polls left and right doesn’t mention that the most recent Rasmussen Poll indicates that a majority of Americans (presumably legal ones) do not indeed support “the Bush backed plan to grant legal status” to the illegals rather, a whopping 74% oppose this bill, many on just those grounds (and this includes Democrats, Republicans, independents and not a few legal immigrants from Mexico and other Hispanic countries.).

You can call them undocumented workers, illegal aliens, illegal immigrants, or as the sublimely stupid Harry Reid said “undocumented Americans,” but the fact of the matter is that the majority of them are hear [sic] because of the last “flawed bill.” A flawed bill is not “better than nothing,” a flawed bill is bad law. [emphasis added, link to the exact quote added]

This week, we will vote on cloture and final passage of a comprehensive bill that will strengthen border security, bring the 12 million undocumented Americans out of the shadows, and keep our economy strong. [emphasis added]

A vote to continue debate would have added amendments, removed amendments or otherwise bastardized an already bastardized bill. But the underlying principle of rewarding behavior remains unchanged. Once again, gentle reader, if you reward (visas, citizenship, voting rights, pathways, what ever you want to call amnesty without calling it amnesty) a behavior (illegal immigration), you get more of the same behavior. The are only a few real ways to stop the inflow of illegal immigrants (and don't call them undocumented Americans please).

Adopt a draconian set of laws modeled almost exactly after Mexico's laws (and wouldn't that be a fine kettle of fish?)

Fines and prison sentences for anyone caught crossing the border a second time after already being deported once for illegal crossing.

Fines and prison sentences for those hiring more than a few illegal immigrants (big business has always supported illegal immigration, it allows them to pay substandard wages).

Changing our constitution to eliminate the "anchor baby" phenomenon, thus, if you're illegal, any offspring born in the United States would not gain citizenship by dent of being born here.

Posted at 02:25 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 1199 words, total size 8 kb.

Mom, being a good mother strapped her 2 year old into the seat on the shopping cart and carefully attached the little seat belt around her child's lap so that he couldn't stand up and fall out of the seat on the hard grocery store floor.

As she went up and down the aisles picking out those apples, these oranges, that tomato or perhaps a couple of cans of soup she kept up a pleasant little conversation with the tyke. Then came the dreaded part of the trip to the grocery, down the cereal aisle past the Coca Puffs and the Honey Coated Cheerios and the ... with a "I want this, I want that" and little fingers pointing at every super-sugared cereal on the shelves. "No," said mom, "that is way too much sugar for you."

"Waaaahhhhhh," goes the little dickens, face all pouty and blotched with red spots. Tears running down his face, maybe even a little bubble of mucus blowing out of his nose.

"How could you be so mean to your little one?" Asks one older woman (no doubt a follower of Dr. Spock). Another lady looks on disapprovingly and so Mom, being Mom gives in and picks up a box of Coca Puffs or some such, drops it into the basket, dries the little tykes face and goes on with her shopping. The whole scenario to be repeated next week. And lo and behold gentle readers, learning has taken place: "If I want something, a temper tantrum will do the job." Reward a behavior with a positive consequence and you WILL see the frequency of that behavior increase.

In my private practice, when dealing with parent's who lack parenting skills I will often give that example and it is almost always understood on a visceral level. If not, I trot out another example. "If I gave you $100.00 every time you came to counseling, would you continue to come?" The answer is inevitably "Yes!" On the other hand, "If I throw a glass of cold water in your face every time you come, do you think you would keep coming?" The answer, as you have probably guessed is "No." So let's expand this a wee bit. If you have a positive consequence for a behavior it will increase the frequency of the behavior. If you have a negative consequence, the behavior will likely decrease."

Pavlov, in his famous experiments with dogs also showed that a behavior that has been reinforced, can also be extinguished. Learning theory tells us that any behavior learned, can be unlearned and new behavior learned in its place. That is what happens when we "kick a habit" of some sort. Yet, on the political front, our "betters" < /sarcasm > seem to either overlook or not understand this very real bit of behavior modification change.

We see that in our Republican members of congress who lost their majority status in large part because their nominal supporters got sick and tired of spending like they were drunken sailors (no offense meant to our Navy type friends) and they still back spending. I guess the negative consequence wasn't enough. Our Democrat members of congress don't realize the negative consequences of "buying votes with pork, weak on national defense and saying one thing and doing another" that cost them in '94 and they are at it again. Again, 12 years out of power in congress wasn't enough of a consequence. And there-in lies one of the secrets of reinforcement or consequences if you will. If the reward is a pound of calves liver and the person doesn't like liver, no go. If the reward is 37 pounds of M&Ms and the person only likes an ounce or two, you get satiation. So, the reward must be proportional to the behavior and must be seen as a reward by the person doing the behaving. So too it is with negative consequences; if the punishment for robbing a bank is a sentence of 48 hours in jail, more people will rob banks because the reward (the money) significantly outweighs the negative consequence (48 hours in jail.)

Now the question arises, why don't people understand this fact when applied to politics or policy? They can certainly understand it when applied to wheeling your toddler down the cereal aisle!

Which of course brings us to the main thrust of this post: Whither policy for Iraq? As congress debates a number of possibilities, including the arrogation of presidential war powers to congress, a few seemingly wise folk have stated:

As far as setting a time line, as we learned in the Balkans, that's not a wise decision, because it only empowers those who don't want us there, and it doesn't work well to do that."

"A deadline for pulling out ... will only encourage our enemies to wait us out. [,,,] a Lebanon in 1985 [sic]. And God knows where it goes from there"

"I don't believe it's smart to state a date for withdrawal. I don't think you should ever telegraph your intentions to the enemy so tha can await you."

Success in Baghdad will be success for the United States. Failure in Iraq is the failure of the United States. Their defeat in Iraq will mean defeat in all their wars."

Is now the place for the greatest battle of Islam in this era"

The Jihad in Iraq requires several incremental goals. The first stage: Expel the Americans from Iraq"

Oh, and the authors of the quotes on pulling out in that first list of statements? Harry Reid, Joseph Biden and Hillary Clinton respectively. Sad isn't it, policy now dictated by those who have little clue as how human behavior operates, speaking then because it was good politics, now because of a thirst for power. Whatever happened to politics stopping at the water's edge? Or, to put it more succinctly, as Peter Wehner did:

If Democrats want to end U.S. military involvement in the war in Iraq, they have the ability to do so. They can cut off funding for U.S. operations and troops. But the way they are going about it now has "no place in our constitutional culture" (to cite former Department of Justice lawyers David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee Casey). Messrs Rivkin and Casey point out that there are constitutional limits on Congress's ability to direct presidential action during times of war -- in particular, "Congress cannot use its power of the purse to micromanage the president's execution of his office."

The reason for this rests with the wisdom of the founders and the doctrine of separation of powers. The Constitution declares that the President, not the 535 Members of Congress, "shall be Commander in Chief." It is a core constitutional responsibility of the chief executive and not of a House Member who represents, say, the eighth district of California. Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist Paper #70, wrote, "Energy in the Executive is a leading character in the definition of good government. It is essential to the protection of the community against foreign attacks."

Justice Robert Jackson, when he was attorney general for President Franklin Roosevelt, said this: "The President's responsibility as Commander-in-Chief embraces the authority to command and direct the armed forces in their immediate movements and operations, designed to protect the security and effectuate the defense of the United States."

UPDATE: Confusing the picture of "getting out" we have Barack Obama holding forth with his own brand of pablum (from an interview on Larry King Live):

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: And if George Bush doesn't listen, then we're going to make him listen because it's time for us to bring our young people home.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: It can be tempting to look at the challenges in Iraq and conclude our best option is to pack up and go home. That may be satisfying in the short run, but I believe the consequences for American security would be devastating.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Senator Obama, you disagree with that. He says it would be devastating to leave now. You say no.

Why not?

OBAMA: Well, first of all, I don't know anybody who's been talking about packing up and going home. [emphasis added]

Tip O' the GM Derby to Instapundit.

Posted at 02:43 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 1492 words, total size 9 kb.

To add to G.M.'s recent post titled The Psychology Of The Apology, Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean is outraged and demands that Republican candidates denounce journalist and entertainer Ann Coulter for alluding to Democratic candidate John Edwards as a "faggot" at the current Conservative Action Political Conference. I'm so tired of self-righteous indignation, especially from those who would have a lot of apologizing to do themselves using similar standards. Dean and the Democrats need to grow up, grow some thicker skin, or quit pretending.

The world doesn't give everyone a free pass to go through life not being offended, but it's up to individuals to go through life not pretending to be offended just for personal gain.

And, apologies should be offered, not demanded. An apology given under pressure is usually not sincere. And demands for apologies are usually just attempts to win a point through embarrassment, which is wrong, too.

Now, will the Democrats apologize to our troops in Iraq and Viet Nam veterans for the Democrats' roles in encouraging our enemies and prolonging the wars and apologize to the American people for trying to ruin our country by driving it down the road to big government socialism? No, I really don't mean that, because the Democrats would never admit that they are wrong on something that they really believe, and I know better than to even ask.

Posted at 03:30 AM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 234 words, total size 2 kb.

One of the most famous apologies ever uttered was not an apology. The full transcript of that utterance is here. This post is brought about by the recent "apology" by the Virginia Legislature for, are you ready for this, slavery.

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) - Meeting on the grounds of the former Confederate Capitol, the Virginia General Assembly voted unanimously Saturday to express "profound regret" for the state's role in slavery.

Sponsors of the resolution say they know of no other state that has apologized for slavery, although Missouri lawmakers are considering such a measure. The resolution does not carry the weight of law but sends an important symbolic message, supporters said.

"This session will be remembered for a lot of things, but 20 years hence I suspect one of those things will be the fact that we came together and passed this resolution," said Delegate A. Donald McEachin, a Democrat who sponsored it in the House of Delegates.

The resolution passed the House 96-0 and cleared the 40-member Senate on a unanimous voice vote. It does not require Gov. Timothy M. Kaine's approval.

We have become a nation, indeed western culture has become a culture of apologists because some idjit somewhere decided that to apologize for something you had no control of was the right thing to do. Well, guess what, the whole idea of an apology is to gain forgiveness. Now, tell me, if you can, how someone can forgive someone for something not done to the first someone.

I'm sure I'll have a few folk commenting on this, so let me spell it out for them. If my great grandfather beat your great grandfather up in a bar room fight, how does my apology to you and your forgiveness of me solve anything or make any substantive changes in either my life or yours?

Now, does it make either one of us feel good? Sure, and that must be the whole idea behind it because it really changes nothing. If, on the other hand, I do you some harm, later come to regret it and apologize to you sincerely, attempt to make amends to you, the person I've harmed and you accept my apology and waive amends then something has occurred worth having. To apologize for something you didn't do to someone who you didn't harm is meaningless.

So is the non-apology apology. You know, the one that goes "If anyone was offended by my remarks...." What a crock of manure. If I say something in a public forum and I was wrong to say it, I need to apologize thusly:

Yesterday, I used a word for which I am deeply ashamed. I offended a number of people and for that I am deeply sorry."

Clinton apologized to Africa for the slave trade. If forgiveness was given, which was of course his whole purpose in uttering the apology then why does Virginia need to apologize? After all, wasn't President Clinton the president of ALL of the states including Virginia? Now, I know a whole bunch of you are thinking "Clinton wasn't apologizing, he was grandstanding," and of course, you'd be correct. Clinton didn't have the power to apologize for the actions of someone else. Those he apologized to didn't have the power to forgive something that wasn't done to them. When he should have apologized (for the Monica affair) he didn't. There are those who think Bush should apologize for the Iraq war. But Bush doesn't think he was wrong and therefore hasn't apologized. He did apologize for mistakes made in the aftermath, but he took responsibility for that and in his mind an apology was appropriate.

When you take away all the dross, all the PC BS there can be acknowledged only one set of circumstances in which an apology is appropriate. That you take responsibility for your actions, that you are sincerely contrite and wish to make amends, that you will strive not to do that again and that you hope that the person you harmed will forgive you.

In my counseling practice, I also tell clients that once you forgive someone, you cannot contiue to bring up their transgressions. You have fogiven them, even if you cannot forget. Also, once you apologize, the inherent promise in the apology is that you will truly strive not to re-offend again. So, the drunk that apologizes for being drunk but goes out and gets drunk again and again didn't really mean the apology. The serial philanderer that apologizes to their spouse but repeats the behavior wasn't sincere and didn't mean it. That's the way it works folks.

And, for anyone who is offended by this post, tough! Get over it, I've written nothing I'm sorry for.

Posted at 04:10 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 866 words, total size 5 kb.

G.M., I need the help of you and your psychology buddies to help me understand if it's the other guys or me who is psychologically off base on this so-called global warming thing. An Ellen Goodman of The Boston Globe wrote an op-ed piece that basically states that I'm nuts because I am skeptical about global warming claims.

I thought that skeptism was a good trait and kept us from making rash, bad decisions. She thinks that I'm in deliberate denial. Take a look at selections from her article: more...

Posted at 06:10 PM | Comments (26) | Add Comment
Post contains 734 words, total size 5 kb.

If you had to name a living former President who is a liar and sociopath, who might he be? Well, if you want to see a psycho-president in action, then catch former President Clinton in his interview for FOX News Sunday with Chris Wallace, which discusses the President's failures in fighting terrorism and to dispose of Osama Bin Laden. You'll want to see the entire interview this Sunday, but here's part of it, and I understand that there are other similar exchanges within that interview:

A bit dog barks, and Bill Clinton come across a pit bull when he's questioned. G.M. covered strong reactions of President Clinton and his supporters on recent and related revelations in his posts The Path to 9-11, Inaccurate? and The Path To 9-11: The Left Is A Comedy For Our Times. Wouldn't it have been better to write a good history when one is in office than re-write the actual one after he leaves?

But, I'm not interested in assessing blame. There are far more complications on dealing with terrorists than those to which I'm privy. However, when responsiblility or failure is clear in some areas, why can't Clinton be a man and own up to it and quit trying to cover himself by dragging down others? I don't lose respect for someone, but gain it, when he's honest and admits his failings. I suspect that this will be the pattern for as long as Clinton lives. Students of history and future policy decision makers deserve accuracy to guide them in directing our policies going forward.

(P.S. - To help out you Lefties shouting that President Bush is a liar, there is a difference between out-right lying and passing along information believed to be true from normally reliable sources but later having it questioned.)

[Update]

Bill Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, believes that it was partly an act when Bill Clinton "lost his temper" with Chris Wallace.

LET'S DO A THOUGHT experiment: Perhaps Bill Clinton, an experienced and sophisticated politician, knew what he was doing when he made big news by "losing his temper" in his interview with Chris Wallace. Perhaps Clinton's aides knew what they were doing when they publicized the interview by providing their own transcript to a left-wing website as soon as possible Friday evening, and then pre-spun reporters late Friday and Saturday. Maybe it was just damage control. Or maybe Clinton did what he wanted to do when he indignantly defended himself, blasted the Bush administration, and attacked Fox News. What could Clinton have been seeking to accomplish? Three things.

Continued in article:
Why Clinton "Lost His Temper"
The former president knew what he was doing.

Maybe Wm. Kristol is right, but I'm not sure that this was all an act. It's probably true that Bill Clinton did intend to produce spin for the Democrats and for his legacy, but I still have to believe from experiences that psychopaths cannot help their rage, and I have to think that even Bill Clinton couldn't turn purple simply on cue, although his bullying was surely intended. He's cunning, but he's still nuts.

Posted at 04:20 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 527 words, total size 4 kb.