Somali immigrants remake Minneapolis

UPDATE: "Death of Somali Teen A Mystery to Minnesota Family"



By David Paulin

In case you missed it, the New York Times has been running an in-depth series examining the impact on the country of massive levels of immigration, which is unprecedented both in numbers and fact that many of the newcomers are from the Third World, not from Europe as in the past.

"Remade in America," as the series is called, implies that America is remaking the immigrants. But if you read between the lines in the Times series, just the opposite seems to be the case.

The immigrants are remaking America!

Consider what has happened in Minnesota, a place the Times snidely calls a "once lily-white city on the prairie." Today, foreign-born people from places like Mexico, Somalia, and other Third World countries now constitute 5 percent of the population.

As in many other American cities, "Hispanics" -- mostly poor Mexicans here legally and illegally -- make up most of the new immigrants. But in Minneapolis, there are as many as 80,000 refugees from war-torn Somalia, as well. They were resettled in politically liberal Minneapolis because the State Department felt the city's splendid social services system could accommodate them, the Times noted. State Department officials also were impressed with the city's many civic groups that help newcomers.

So how are the Somalis doing in their quest for the American dream? Defying the "Remade in America" theme of the Times series, it seems that they're been remaking Minneapolis.

For the rest of the article, go to The American Thinker.

The OAS sham vote on Cuba

David Paulin

"OAS lifts ban on Cuba after 47 years," trumpetd the Associated Press. "Imposing Conditions, O.A.S. Lifts Its Suspension of Cuba," declared the New York Times.

And so it went...

Two examples of the news media's breathless and upbeat reporting on the OAS's disgraceful vote on Cuba last Wednesday. If you believe the headlines, the Obama administration has demonstrated how much can be achieved through "compromise" and "dialogue." Now, Stalinist Cuba will surely take its rightful place in the Organization of American States, the 34-member regional body supposedly committed to democratic values and human rights.

And all will be right between the U.S. and Latin America.

That's the fairy-tale ending being presented by the U.S. news media regarding the OAS meeting in Honduras. In fact, the OAS's decision was a hollow vote. A sham. An embarrassment.

After all, as a result of terms insisted upon by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's team, Cuba must meet certain "conditions" to return to the OAS -- namely, it must embrace basic democratic values and stop the thuggery that promoted Human Rights Watch, a rights group, to protest the return of Cuba to the OAS. What's more, Cuba will itself have to initiate the process of "dialogue" that will allow it to return to the regional body. And Cuba, for its part, has said it's not interested in anything of the sort, calling the OAS a tool of the U.S.

In other words, the OAS vote maintains the status quo.

Yet the Obama administration, together with the boot-licking U.S. news media, are portraying the vote as a great turning point in relations between the U.S. and Latin America. A great victory for hemispherical peace and understanding.

So just how did the Obama team succeed in putting "conditions" on the OAS vote despite the best efforts of left-wing Venezuela, Nicaragua, and like-minded OAS members to admit Cuba, no strings attached?

Chalk it up to President Obama and his magical powers of persuasion, which he brought to bear when phoning his counterparts to urge a “compromise” after tense negotiations. What could he have said? It appears there may have been some George Bush-style arm twisting going on. Or as the Times notes:

A Latin American diplomat said that the risk of losing United States support for the organization, which gets 60 percent of its funds from Washington, weighed heavily on the group’s thinking.

According to the Times, the "stunning" OAS compromise vote ended "an intractable stalemate that threatened to polarize the hemisphere."

My goodness! Just imagine all those American flags burning outside U.S. Embassies across Latin American if the U.S. had dared to stick to its principles. According to the AP, the compromise vote will usher in a "more collegial relationship between the U.S. and Latin American countries.”

In reality, the OAS vote was much ado about nothing. And it certainly was no victory for the Cuban people, especially its political prisoners. These are non-issues for left-leaning elites in the OAS and U.S. news media.

"Now we know where the priorities of the OAS lie," fumed U.S. Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Florida Republican, in a statement regarding the OAS vote, Reuters reported.

"Rather than upholding democratic principles and fundamental freedoms, OAS member states, led by the OAS Secretary General, could not move quickly enough to appease their tyrannical idols in Cuba,” said the Cuba-born representative, who chairs the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere.

She added, "Today's decision by the OAS is an affront to the Cuban people and to all who struggle for freedom, democracy, and fundamental human rights."

And it certainly seemed to embolden the thugorcracy in Cuba if the opinion of an anchorman for a Cuban state TV channel means anything. He told Reuters that the vote "recognizes the political courage, the symbolism and defiance" of the OAS members. In this context, of course, he means the OAS's defiance against America!

Fidel Castro, for his part, was unimpressed by the OAS vote, calling the organization an "accomplice" to crimes against Cuba.

All in all, Fidel and little brother Raul must be laughing it up today.


From Human Rights Watch:

Cuba is the only country in the hemisphere that represses nearly all forms of political dissent. For nearly five decades, the Cuban government has enforced political conformity with criminal prosecutions, long- and short-term detentions, mob harassment, physical abuse, and surveillance. These abuses have persisted since the handover of power from Fidel Castro to Raul Castro in July 2006.


This article was originally published by The American Thinker.

Illegal Immigration, Liberal Elites, and Obama


By David Paulin

Millions of Hispanics, mostly poor and uneducated, have immigrated to America illegally since the early 1990s. Most are Mexicans and most of them are high school dropouts. Compared to what they might have had in a slum or impoverished rural area of Mexico or Central America, these immigrants have done well here.

It has been different story for their neighbors -- middle-class Americans. For them, illegal immigration has often meant a deterioration of their neighborhoods, public schools, and their quality of life -- especially across America's Southwest.

Some have watched their culture erode: It's not uncommon to see Mexican flags flying in Spanish-speaking enclaves in towns and cities from Texas to California. This includes "sanctuary cities" like Austin, the Texas state capital, where until recently I'd lived for the past few years.

Most middle-class Americans are fed up with illegal immigration. They get no sympathy from liberal elites, however, including the open-borders elites at that lofty bastion of American journalism, the agenda-setting New York Times.

There is some amusing liberal hypocrisy going on here when you consider where top editorial staffers and executives at the Times and many of their affluent readers live. It's in trendy parts of New York City: places like gentrified Brooklyn and SoHo and Manhattan's posh Upper East Side. You definitely won't find any Mexicans crowding into low-rent apartments in those areas, creating Spanish-speaking enclaves resembling shabby parts of Mexico.

For the rest of the article, go to The American Thinker.

New York's Art World Meets Cuba's Communism


By David Paulin

At the heart and soul of being an artist is freedom of expression. So how to explain all those chic American artists now having a jolly good time at an art festival underway in Cuba? How, in short, can these sophisticated folks reconcile the fact that artistic freedom does not exist in Cuba so long as Cubans do not enjoy the kinds of freedoms that Americans take for granted?

Well, don't look for an answer in a lengthy and upbeat article about the festival in the “Art and Design" section of the New York Times. The 10^th biannual festival, as the Times cheerfully notes, is now in full swing after recently opening in Havana, and among the 300 artists on hand from 54 countries is “the biggest exhibition by American art galleries in Cuba since the 1959 revolution.” Also in attendance are American painters, critics and buyers.

All in all, 30 American artists are having their wares presented in an exhibition called “Chelsea Visits Havana,” put on by Megan Projects Gallery, located in Manhattan's trendy Chelsea section -- a hotbed for the city's trendy art scene. “The hope is that this will be a first step toward normalizing U.S.-Cuban relations,” gallery owner Alberto Magnan, a Cuba-American, tells the Times. “Chelsea Visits Havana” includes works from more than two dozen trendy American art galleries.

As to the festival's theme, it's appropriate for one held in the hemisphere's last bastion of communism: “Integration and Resistance in the Global Age.” Of course, there's apparently nothing in the exhibit about resistance to Cuba's communist government, which owns nearly all of the island's property and businesses and tolerates no serious non-violent dissent. In a brief paragraph, Times author Ian Urbina only hints at Cuba's repression, noting that a Cuban skate boarder whom he interviewed didn't want to be named. He was afraid he'd be “pegged as a dissident,” Urbina explained.

While Urbina steers clear of criticizing Cuba's government, he does take some jabs at former President George Bush's administration, noting it had denied many Cuban artists travel visas so that they could sell their work in the U.S. He writes:

Before the Bush administration stopped giving visas, many of Cuba’s top artists spent months at a time in the United States or Europe. They stayed linked to the island partly because collectors are typically more interested in works produced by Cuban-based — not immigrant — artists.

Now, with a new administration in Washington, many in the art world say they believe that there will be a loosening on restrictions, and that the Cuban art market will benefit.

Of course, there's another side to this. Those who do well in Cuba, those who make a good U.S.-style living (including artists), are those who play along with the communist charade to one extent or another.

All in all, the Times article (“Havana Biennial, in Which Chelsea Takes a Field Trip to Cuba”) is an interesting commentary on America's sophisticated art world: collectors and galleries are more interested in the work of artists based in Cuba -- as opposed to those of Cuban expatriates who are free to express their creative impulses!

What explains the cognitive dissonance of all these sophisticated American artists, buyers, and collectors who are frolicking under the watchful eye of Cuba's secret police? Sarah Thornton, an art historian and sociologist, provides something of an answer in her book, “Seven Days in the Art World.” As Publishers Weekly notes:

The hot, hip contemporary art world, argues sociologist Thornton, is a cluster of intermingling subcultures unified by the belief, whether genuine or feigned, that nothing is more important than the art itself. It is a conviction, she asserts, that has transformed contemporary art into a kind of alternative religion for atheists.

No wonder, then, that America's trendiest artist find it so easy to overlook and apologize for the regime that's providing them such a rollicking good time in Havana.

This was originally published at The American Thinker.

Two US Airways Accidents -- Then and Now

By David Paulin

It will be months before the NTSB releases its accident report on US Airways Flight 1549, the "Hudson Miracle," captained by America's newest hero, Chesley B. Sullenberger III. Until then, one thing can be safely inferred about the January 15 accident: its pilots were far better prepared to deal with the unexpected than were two US Airways pilots departing LaGuardia Airport 20 years ago. Flight 5050, a Boeing 737-400, ran off the runway and into Flushing Bay after an aborted takeoff. Two of 57 passengers died. Coincidentally, Flight 5050 used Runway 31 and was heading to Charlotte, North Carolina, just like the "Hudson Miracle" flight.

Sometimes, fate seems to conspire against pilots -- or smile on them. "Hudson Miracle" copilot Jeffrey Skiles, for instance, observed that "we were lucky" in several respects. One is that it was a clear afternoon -- as opposed to a pitch-black night. The Hudson River was calm, allowing for a smooth splash down. And Flight 1549, he noted, had just the right crew to handle the emergency that presented itself. "Really, after hitting the geese, everything worked in our favor," he said, speaking on PBS's "Charlie Rose Show."

On Flight 5050, on the other hand, just about everything that could go wrong for the pilots did go wrong. Moreover, in the weeks after the accident they encountered as much grief from the news media as from their ill-fated flight. The "Hudson Miracle" flight has handed US Airways an unintended public relations bonanza, allowing it to show off the professionalism of one of its air crews. On the other hand, Flight 5050 was a public relations nightmare.

A look at the two flights reveals much about changes over the past 20 years in the nation's airline industry and US Airways -- changes concerning flight operations, flight training, and cockpit design. One thing, however, remains the same -- the news media and what sometimes happens to those whom it praises as heroes.

For the rest of this article, go to The American Thinker

AP's terror photographer honored in NYC


By David Paulin

It was during Iraq's most savage violence that a former shopkeeper named Bilal Hussein proved an invaluable asset to the Associated Press as one of its hastily trained photographers. His chummy ties to terrorists --“insurgents” as the AP's stories called them – enabled him to produce remarkable close-up photos of them and their grisly handiwork. In 2005, one of Hussein's photos of the Battle of Fallujah helped the AP snag a Pulitzer Prize for a package of Iraq photos in breaking-news photography. Like other Iraqi AP photographers, Hussein had the uncanny ability to show up just as an attack occurred.

As Iraq was gripped by unspeakable atrocities and violence that many likened to a civil war, U.S. military authorities detained Hussein, citing what they described as his troubling links to terrorists and terror-related activities. They called him a “terrorist media operative,” much to the outrage of AP executives and lawyers.

What ever became of Hussein?

After two years in prison, he escaped the possibility of a criminal trial when he was freed under a general amnesty that took effect seven months ago. He did not, however, return in disgrace to his old life as a shopkeeper in Fallujah, selling phone cards and computers.

Instead, Hussein returned to the AP in good standing, and last week he was honored by a glittery audience of media elites and celebrities at Manhattan's posh Waldorf-Astoria Hotel.

Hussein spoke to the captivated audience on a subject dear to his heart – journalism ethics.

For the rest of the article, go to The American Thinker.

McDonald's Shows the way in France


By David Paulin

France has a problem: Its venerable cafes are going by the wayside.
How come? According to a recent article in the New York Times, it's all due to "changing attitudes, habits and now a poor economic climate."

The Times in particular singles out France's poor economic climate for the quickening demise of its venerable cafes. One red-eyed cafe owner relates: “People fear the future, and now with the banking crisis, they are even more afraid. They buy a bottle at the supermarket and they drink it at home.”

Yet who do you suppose is doing well all over France? Well, none other than America's most famous restaurant -- McDonald's! Indeed, a recent corporate statement from the all-American food retailer notes:

In Europe, strong performance in the U.K., France and Russia and positive results in nearly all other markets drove a comparable sales increase of 9.8%. Unique menu items and promotions as well as everyday value options continue to resonate with customers and drive results.

In fact, McDonald's says, its strong international sales are fueling much of its growth -- and thus making it possible to increase its dividend a whopping 33 percent!

None of this ought to be very surprising to anybody who has visited France in recent years. On the few times I've been there, I never found the traditional cafes to be all that customer-oriented and cheerful -- things that customers demand these days, whether in America or Europe. Yet just the opposite was the case at places like McDonald's! There, the service was great. The counter workers were efficient and friendly.

Could lousy service and the inability to adopt to their customers' tastes be the real reason for the demise of France's traditional cafes -- and all the bankruptcies being declared by their cheerless and sullen owners? It's an issue the Times does not address; and nor, interestingly, does the Times quote any anti-American types who blame the demise of France's traditional cafes on places like McDonald's. Perhaps nobody in an increasingly conservative France -- nobody with any credibility -- can put forth that argument anymore and be taken seriously.

Here's a suggestion: Have some of McDonald's managers take over publishing responsibilities at the financially troubled New York Times. Maybe they'll be able to put the paper on the road to once again paying its shareholders a decent dividend.

For a discussion, go to The American Thinker and FreeRepublic.

Hit-and-Run: Death in a 'Sanctuary City'

By David Paulin

It was one of the strangest hit-and-runs police had ever seen in Austin, Texas. Early last September, officers answering a call at 4:19 a.m. found a young man dead along a highway. They surmised he was a motorcyclist. He was, after all, wearing motorcycle garb – a helmet, black-leather jacket, boots. A few hundred feet from the body, officers spotted a single skid mark running down the highway, and disappearing from sight. Oddly, no motorcycle could be found. A check of the victim's driver's license revealed his name: Eric M. Laufer.

Laufer, 25, was a highly-regarded musician and songwriter in Austin – and unlike many musicians here, the graduate of Boston's prestigious Berklee College of Music was politically conservative. Laufer's political leanings and interest in politics were a new passion, say his friends. He'd enthusiastically supported the presidential candidacy of Rep. Ron Paul, the Republican congressman from Texas who, among other positions, advocated a get-tough policy on illegal immigration and border security.

Laufer made no secret of his political views, even though open-borders Austin is a bastion of ultra-liberal politics -- and often extremely intolerant of Republicans. On his Harley-Davidson, he prominently displayed a campaign sticker: “Ron Paul for President 2008.” And even after Paul dropped out of the race months ago, Laufer continued sporting the sticker. It was on his motorcycle when he died – the victim, ironically, of an “undocumented worker” most likely from Mexico. Laufer's motorcycle was rear-ended by a SUV traveling at a tremendous rate of speed. He was killed instantly.

Laufer died amid an epidemic of deadly hit-and-runs in Austin, the state capital. It's being fueled in part by illegal immigrants and unassimilated young Hispanics -young men who, according to police arrest records, engage in drunk driving in this city of 740,000 much more frequently than other ethnic and racial groups.

For the rest of the article,
go to The American Thinker.

_____________________________________________________________

WARRANT OF ARREST

THE STATE OF TEXAS TO ANY PEACE OFFICER OF THE STATE OF TEXAS, GREETINGS:

YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED TO ARREST:

JOSE LUIS DORANTES

If to be found in your county and bring him before me, a Judge, at the Austin Municipal Court, Travis County, Texas, at my office in Austin, in the said county, Travis, then and there to answer the State of Texas for an offense against the laws of said state, to-wit

Manslaughter

2nd Degree Felony

of which offense he is accused by the written complaint, filed before me under oath of Detective C. Francois #3371.

________________________________________________________

AFFIDAVIT FOR WARRANT OF ARREST AND DETENTION

Undersigned Affiant, Who After Being Duly Sworn By Me, On Oath, Makes The Following Statement: I have good reason to believe and do believe that Jose Luis Dorantes, WM, 10-13-87, on or about the 4th day of Sept 2008, in the incorporated limits of the City of Austin, County Travis and the State of Texas, did then and there commit the offense of:

Manslaughter - 2nd Degree Felony

My belief of the foregoing statement is based upon information provided to me by Austin Police Report 2008-2480294 and follow up investigation. On Sept. 4, 2008 at approximately 04:19, APD officers responded to a crash in the 8400 block of Research north bound proper. The caller stated that there was a male down; he was possibly hit by a vehicle and he had possibly been riding a motorcycle. Officers arrived to find Eric M. Laufer, WM, 11-07-82, deceased on the side of the road.

In the lane next to the body was a single tire mark. This mark identified the area o f impact and direction of travel. There were no pre-impact skid marks. This skid mark continued for 6,168.5 feet, or 1.1 6 miles. At the end of this tire mark, on a traffic island near Burnet Rd., was a wrecked 2003 Harley Davidson motorcycle registered to Eric M. Laufer. It had significant rear end damage. The rear tire had been ground to the point that it lost structural integrity. Crumpled between the rear t ire and the frame of the motorcycle was a Texas license plate - Z23JXB. This plate returned to a 1995 GMC Yukon at 1904 Hearthstone #---, Austin.

Affiant immediately went to this location and found said GMC with matching rear license plate and front end damage consistent with a motorcycle collision. The registered owner states that Jose Luis Dorantes, WM,10-13-87 had control, care, and custody of the GMC during the time in question.

In the early morning hours of Sept. 4, 2008. witness A. Coy stated that he saw a blue SUV exit Research at Burnet at 80-85 MPH. The SUV had a motorcycle attached to the front of it.

The Travis County Medical Examiner report states that Laufer's "mid brain is nearly transected near its attachment to the pons" and "the heart is avulsed from all of its vascular attachments and is lying free within the left pleural cavity. "

It was reckless of Dorantes to strike Laufer from behind. It was reckless of Dorantes to not engage in effective emergency braking before hitting Lafuer. It was reckless of Dorantes to be traveling at a speed excessive enough to rip Laufer's heart loose and nearly internally decapitate him. It was reckless of Dorantes to ignore the body of Laufer on the motorcycle and hood of his vehicle for approximately 317 feet. It was further reckless of Dorantes to drive for 6,168.5 feet with the motorcycle pinned upright to the front of his SUV after impact; ignoring the sound and smell of burning rubber and the riderless motorcycle just a few feet in front of his face.

Affiant believes Jose Luis Dorantes, WM, 10-13-87, violated Texas Penal Code 19.04, Manslaughter, by recklessly operating a 1995 GMC SUV and striking and killing Eric M. Laufer in the 8400 blk of Research, a public street, in Austin, Travis County.

--Austin Police Det. C. Francois, vehicular homicide unit

Author's Note: I removed the apartment number for Jose Luis Dorantes' friends at 1904 Hearthstone, although the number is contained in the original affidavit.
________________________________________________________

Where's a cop when you need one?

On a recent Friday afternoon, I was driving in stop-and-go traffic when I got rear-ended by a young man: He was driving an old Lexus with bad brakes, and he was for Mexico. For some reason, he preferred not to deal with the cops.

He needn't have worried: The cops never responded to a call for assistance.

I'd just stopped my prized second-generation Acura Integra in front of another car. I glanced into my rear-view mirror – at the same second the Lexus was barreling straight at me. The driver's mouth was a agape.

A loud thump. My car jolted violently, then careened into the car in front of me. It was about 3:30 in the afternoon on a busy traffic artery, Lamar Blvd. Nobody was hurt.

“Dame it!” I blurted out.

I unbuckled my seatbelt, and I got out. The driver hit me, a slight guy in his late 30s with curly dark hair, walked nervously up to me. Apologizing profusely, he offered me a handshake. But I pretended not to notice the gesture. I despise irresponsible drivers, and I was angry.

“What happened?” I said curtly.

He was talkative and seemed eager to establish a rapport with me – too eager, I thought. After a few minutes, he mentioned that his car – an aging weather-beaten red Lexus -- was borrowed. He also admitted that its brakes were bad; that's what had supposedly caused the accident. He mentioned he was from Mexico, noting this fact with a trace of pride. He spoke remarkably good English and could have been a Texan.

To my surprise, my Acura seemed not to have suffered any obvious damage. But that wasn't the case with the car I'd hit, which was in like-new condition. It had suffered some scratches, according to the driver and passenger. And who could argue with them: Both were lawyers.

The driver, a middle-aged woman with short brown hair, had been driving her boss to the same place where I was heading – Austin's Criminal Justice Center. They needed to get there in a hurry: Deadline-type legal matters, she explained. Coincidentally, I was driving there to get a copy of an arrest warrant for Jose Luis Dorantes – the alleged hit-and-run driver whom police say killed a well-known local musician, Eric Laufer.

The woman lawyer noted her colleague used a wheel chair, and so she pulled it out of the car's trunk and wheeled it to his door. He eased himself into the chair -- a middle-aged man with Asian features. He called the police on his cell phone.

The driver who'd hit me was growing increasingly nervous. He said he preferred not to deal with the police for various reasons. He didn't elaborate, but if there was any damage he said he'd be grateful if we could work something out.

I shook my head. I preferred to file a report with the police, I said. Surely, a cop would be by in a few minutes, I thought. After all, our three cars were blocking one of two traffic-choked lanes of Lamar Blvd. at about 3:30 in the afternoon. A line of bumper-to-bumper traffic inched past us.

As I stood by my Acura speaking with the Lexus driver, the woman lawyer walked up and handed me her colleague's cell phone. The police dispatcher was on the line, she said, so I could give her my information. Meanwhile, the lawyer took the Lexus driver over to her car, and together they inspected the scratches on her rear bumper.

As I gave the police dispatcher a blow-by-blow, I noticed the Lexus driver opening his wallet: He handed the woman lawyer some money.

Some 30 minutes after the accident, the lawyers left a business card with me, and they drove off. They had their deadline to meet. For my part, I was determined to report the accident: The driver who'd hit me should not be on the road, I felt.

I copied down his name and driver's license number from his Mexican driver's license. However, he kept asking me for a favor: Could we work out something, anything to keep the police form getting involved?

He'd given the lawyers $20, he said. He opened his wallet to show me a few more bills – a few tens and twenties. But I wasn't interested in money. I shook my head. I wondered how long I could keep him there, however. Obviously, he was anxious to leave. I'd been unable to point to any damage on my Acura.

Up and down Lamar, no patrol car was in sight. I didn't have my cell phone with me -- so I couldn't phone the police to see when they'd be coming. Finally, after 45 to 50 minutes, I lost my patience.

“OK, let's forget it,” I said. “Just be sure you don't drive behind me!” I added. He assured me he wouldn't.

I felt bad that an officer might be showing up at any minute, wasting his time after we'd gone. But what else could I do? Certainly, I couldn't hang around forever on Lamar Blvd., blocking traffic and keeping a guy there who was anxious to leave.

Nearly two hours later, after visiting the Criminal Justice Center, I drove over to the Austin Police Department, just a few blocks away. I wanted to report the accident.

At the front desk, a taciturn police officer spent a few minutes looking up the report I'd made. And then he shocked me with this admission: A patrol car had not yet been dispatched to the accident scene!

Incredibly, the officer not only said this with a straight face -- he said I needed to be understanding. The police department, he explained, had been undergoing a shift change when the accident was called in – and so delays were to be expected.

This was obviously one stupid cop, a guy who did not understand the first thing about “to protect and to serve.” But I just nodded and held my tongue. He seemed like the kind of cop with whom you shouldn't argue.

Look, I explained, I had all the information they might need for the accident: license plate numbers; the Lexus driver's name (Alejandro Patino Sanchez); his Mexican driver's license number, etc. However, the officer pointed out that all the parties had left the accident scene – and in such cases it was presumed the motorists had amicably resolved things.

Sensing my displeasure, the officer handed me a form to fill out: I took it, smiled, and walked out. Outside, I tossed it into a trash can. I was not going to waste any more of my time.

And so it goes in Austin, Texas.

Today, a young man with issues that he'd prefer to keep from the police may be driving around a Lexus (Texas tags: DJX095) with bad brakes. With guys like that in Austin, you can understand why Austin's vehicular homicide unit is so busy.

_______________________________________________________________

Austin Police Crack Down on Dangerous Motorists

Motorists and pedestrians in Austin face two big hazards, according to the police – drunk drivers and motorists who run red lights. Now, the police are targeting both offenses.

Recently, Police Chief Art Acevedo announced that motorists who declined to take a breathalyzer test – 50 percent refuse -- would have their blood drawn. And what if they refuse the blood test? The police chief said they'd face even more charges than they otherwise would have faced.

Predictably, rights activists are calling the new policy a violation of civil liberties. So are some local attorneys who specialize in defending drunk drivers and getting them off on legal technicalities.

Why do lots of motorists drive drunk in Austin? According to the police chief: "Life is about choices, and sadly too many Austinites, too many Texans and too many Americans are making bad choices when it comes to drinking and driving."

He added, "Our hope is to save lives, to prevent destruction and to change behavior." He made no comment on police statistics regarding which group of Austin residents has the biggest problem with drunk driving.

To combat motorist running red lights, the city also has been installing cameras at various intersections, with the idea that they'll snap photos of motorists – and their license plates – as they race through a red light. Some civil libertarians are upset with that initiative, too.

According to some Austin residents, if the police did a better job of traffic enforcement, the cameras wouldn't be necessary.

Caracas: Murder Capital of the World


By David Paulin

Caracas now ranks as the world's No. 1 murder capital, according to Foreign Policy magazine. It's an assessment that will surprise few credible Venezuela watchers. During President Hugo Chávez's tumultuous ten-year rule, Venezuela's quality-of-life indices have been in an ongoing tailspin – thanks to epic levels of corruption and mismanagement; not to mention El Presidente's increasing concentration of power in his own hands.

When I was a Caracas-based journalist in the 1990s, Colombia's Bogotá was the world's No. 1 murder capital. But in the years before Chávez's election, high-crime Venezuela was catching up, boasting South America's “fastest-growing” murder rate. Now, it has replaced Bogotá as the No. 1 murder capital -- thanks to Chávez's vision of “21st Century socialism.” The city of 3.2 million is plagued as well by food shortages (unprecedented during an oil boom) and increasing numbers of human rights abuses.

Violent crime has been a No. 1 concern of Venezuelans for years. Under Chávez, however, “Venezuela’s official homicide rate has climbed 67 percent — mostly due to increased drug and gang violence,” noted Foreign Policy. Venezuela's “official” murder rate is 130 per 100,000 residents, but “some speculate” it's actually closer to 160 per 100,000, according to Foreign Policy, for as the magazine explained,

...(O)fficial homicide statistics likely fall short of the mark because they omit prison-related murders as well as deaths that the state never gets around to properly “categorizing.” The numbers also don’t count those who died while “resisting arrest,” suggesting that Caracas’s cops—already known for their brutality against student protesters—might be cooking the books.

All in all, Caracas has resembled a war zone in recent years, and that raises an interesting question: How might Venezuela's murder rate compare to the rate of violent deaths in Iraq? Indeed, as Iraq's violence soared in 2006, Venezuela was itself a combat zone with 12,557 reported murders. That amounted to 34 murders per day – or the rough equivalent of the lives snuffed out by a typical suicide bombing in Iraq; it population is about the same size as Venezuela's 27 million.

During 2006, plenty of naysaying journalists and pundits were on the Iraq death watch, pronouncing it a hopelessly “failed state.” Yet none were rushing to make similarly pessimistic pronouncements about Chávez's worker's paradise.

According to Foreign Policy's reckoning, Venezuela's murder rate is well ahead of four other top murder capitals that (in order of those boasting the worst rates) are: Cape Town, South Africa; New Orleans; Moscow; and Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea.

In mid-September, Venezuela got another black eye when New-York based Human Rights Watch issued a a 230-page report: “A Decade Under Chávez: Political Intolerance and Lost Opportunities for Advancing Human Rights in Venezuela.” Rights abuses under Chávez's reign had “undercut journalists’ freedom of expression, workers’ freedom of association, and civil society’s ability to promote human rights in Venezuela,” the report explained. The rights group's director for the Americas, José Miguel Vivanco, observed:

Ten years ago, Chávez promoted a new constitution that could have significantly improved human rights in Venezuela. But rather than advancing rights protections, his government has since moved in the opposite direction, sacrificing basic guarantees in pursuit of its own political agenda.

Vivanco and fellow deputy director Daniel Wilkinson got more than they bargained for when perhaps somewhat foolishly (or as a testament to their intestinal fortitude), they released the report at a Caracas news conference. According to a statement from the rights group,

Vivanco and Wilkinson were intercepted on the night of September 18 at their hotel in Caracas and handed a letter accusing them of anti-state activities. Their cell phones were confiscated and their requests to be allowed to contact their embassies were denied. They were put into cars, taken to the airport and put on a plane to Sao Paulo, Brazil...

Yet despite such thuggish behavior, Chávez remains an admirable figure among fashionable liberal elites, with celebrities such as Danny Glover, Cindy Sheehan, and Naomi Campbell beating a path to Caracas, heaping praise upon El Presidente and his socialist paradise. So, who might they be rooting for in the upcoming presidential election?

As to those other top murder capitals:

In the so-called “Rainbow Nation” of South Africa (as political elites like to call it) Cape Town suffered a 12.7 percent spike in its murder rate from 2006 to 2007. And that has got “local politicians worried, especially as South Africa prepares to host the 2010 World Cup,” Foreign Policy noted. Fortunately, athletes and spectators are unlikely to encounter the violence (62 murders per 100,000) in the city of 3.5 million, for as the magazine noted:

The city’s homicides usually take place in suburban townships rather than in the more upscale urban areas where tourists visit. According to the South African Police Service, most of the Cape Town area’s violent crimes happen between people who know one another, including a horrific case last year in which four males doused a female friend in gasoline and lit her on fire.

And then there's New Orleans, which Mayor Ray Nagin famously declared would be rebuilt as a “chocolate” city after Hurricane Katrina. “You can't have New Orleans no other way.”

Despite the mayor's racially tinged bluster, it's been downhill for New Orleans ever since. Just how bad is debatable, however. For just as in disorganized Third World countries, getting good statistics about New Orleans is problematic. Foreign Policy observed of the city's murder rate: “Estimates range from 67 (New Orleans Police Department) to 95 (Federal Bureau of Investigation) per 100,000.”

Why is New Orleans so violent? Referring to the city's post-Katrina crime surge, Foreign Policy explained that “drug dealers have been fighting over a smaller group of users, leading to many killings.” But the magazine offeed other theories for the violence, too. Revealing a shockingly naïve liberal worldview, its editors soft-peddled the reasons for New Orleans' dysfunction, claiming: “With its grinding poverty, an inadequate school system, a prevalence of public housing, and a high incarceration rate, the Big Easy has long been plagued with a high rate of violent crime.”

Yet as Foreign Policy's editors ought to know, the relationship between poverty and crime is tenuous. Poor countries are not necessarily violent ones. For example, after a devastating typhoon swamped parts of Indonesia, there were no reports of runway crime -- no widespread looting, not tourists and residents being raped and shot – even though police and security forces were utterly disorganized. Yet that's what happened in Ray Nagin “chocolate” city following Hurricane Katrina, though not to the extent, to be sure, that the news media originally claimed.

Foreign Policy's suggestion that a “high incarceration” rate has anything to do with New Orleans' high murder rate is especially puzzling. Obviously, putting violent criminals in jail ought to decrease the murder rate!

Then there's Moscow's murder rate, an “estimated” 9.6 per 100,000. It's “nothing compared to Caracas or Cape town, but the city still ranks way above other major European capitals,” Foreign Policy noted. “London, Paris, Rome, and Madrid, for instance, all had rates below 2 murders per 100,000 in 2006.”

And there's an interesting aspect of Moscow's crime, too -- a surge in the kind of crime that many liberal America haters have been noticeably silent about – hate crimes. Foreign Policy writes:

The Russian capital’s homicide rate is down 15 percent this year from last, but the recent surge in hate crimes—including the deadly beating of a Tajik carpenter by a gang of youths on Valentine’s Day — suggests that the lull might be temporary. Sixty ethnically motivated killings have already happened this year, part of a sixfold increase in hate crimes committed in the city during 2007. Several of the murders have been attributed to ultranationalist skinhead groups like the “Spas,” who killed 11 people in a 2006 bombing of a multiethnic market in northern Moscow. The Russian government has finally stepped up to combat the problem, assisting migrant groups and cracking down on street gangs. Still, the continued rise in extremist attacks is worrisome. And along with migrants, journalists and other high-profile people in Moscow might also want to be a little wary in Russia—62 contract murders took place in the country in 2005, according to official statistics.

In Papua New Guinea, the murder rate was 54 per 100,000, according to official 2004 statistics. The violence is driven by gang activity and “high levels” of police corruption, according to Foreign Policy, which observed:

...(L)ast November, five officers were charged with offenses ranging from murder to rape. And in August, the city’s police barracks were put on a three-month curfew due to a recent slew of bank heists reportedly planned inside the stations by officers and their co-conspirators. Rising tensions between Chinese migrants and native Papua New Guineans are also cause for alarm, as are reports of increased activity of organized Chinese crime syndicates.

Set for publication next month, “The Jewel of Medina” may enrage conservatives and liberals alike


By DAVID PAULIN

A new novel may enrage conservatives and liberals alike.

Random House's cancellation of “The Jewel of Medina” ignited a furor last month – all when a Op-Ed article in the Wall Street Journal revealed why the historical novel was pulled by cowed publishing executives. They feared it might push Muslim fanatics into a murderous frenzy, similar to what occurred during Europe's infamous “Cartoon Riots,” and after publication ten years ago of Salman Rushdie's "The Satanic Verses." The episode provided a “window into how quickly fear stunts intelligent discourse about the Muslim world,” Asra Q. Nomani, a college journalism professor and Muslim, wrote in her tell-all WSJ Op-Ed.

What was author Sherry Jones' novel all about?

Amid the right-to-publish scandal ignited by Random House's decision, nobody knew much about “The Jewel of Medina.” Only that it was, as Jones put it, a meticulously researched “love story” about the Prophet Muhammad and his favorite wife, the child-bride A'shia.

Earlier this month, publishers in the U.S. and Britain announced that they'll release the 46-year-old journalist's debut novel next month. Random House aside, Western publishers ultimately stood up to potential Muslim bullying. So Jones career as a novelist is back on track, and bedrock Western values ultimately prevailed, more or less.

Now, however, a new controversy is likely to emerge -- at least if comments that Jones made to this author during an e-mail interview are anything to go by. They concern her views on Islam, religion, and even the Bush administration. Interestingly, political conservatives and oddball liberals alike may cringe over “The Jewel of Medina,” though for totally different reasons. Jones, for her part, said she hopes the novel and it sequel well set about “building bridges” between the West and Islam, with what she called “this other, demonized culture.” (Excerpts of the Q&A interview with Jones are provided below.)

Publishing executives on both sides of the Atlantic are upbeat about the book that Random House thought was too hot to handle. In America, “The Jewel of Medina” is being brought out by Beaufort Books of New York, an independent publishing house (the one handling O.J. Simpson's demented “If I did it”).

And in Britain, the novel will be published by prestigious publishing house Gibson Square. Publishing director Martin Rynja said he was “completely bowled over by the novel and the moving love story it portrays. I immediately felt that it was imperative to publish it. In an open society there has to be open access to literary works, regardless of fear.”

Gibson plans to bring out the sequel next year. The publisher has a formidable list of authors and titles, many appealing to conservatives, including presidential candidate John McCain's book “Faith of My Fathers.”

The publishing deals, of course, were terrific news for Jones after her disappointment over Random House's cancellation. The publisher had paid her a $100,000 advance, money she got to keep. But considering her six years of hard work, it was not a lot: She'd anticipated handsome royalties, she said. Jones had expected as well to have embarked last month on a national tour of her novel, a pick of Book of the Month Club. It was supposed to have coincided with “The Jewel of Medina's” publication.

None of this ever happened, of course.

Random House executives, egged on by a politically correct University of Texas professor of Middle Eastern studies in Austin, decided “The Jewel of Medina” was too risky to publish. And after the WSJ's attention-getting Op-Ed, Jones quickly found herself in the center of a controversy over a book that, much to her irritation, nobody had even read! Suddenly, her career as a novelist seemed to be in a giant stall. A veteran journalist, she'd been reporting from Spokane, Washington, for the Bureau of National Affairs, a news agency.

Gibson Square's announcement came a few weeks after a Serbian publisher pulled 1,000 Serbian-language editions of “The Jewel of Medina,” and apologized for releasing it, after a Muslim group expressed anger over the novel. In Spain, Italy and Hungary, publishing rights have been lined up, too, Jones said.

A new controversy?

Jones and her novel may be reviled by two of the most antagonistic groups imaginable: political conservatives on the right, and their strangest counterparts on the left – all those oddball post-modern liberals. They're the ones, of course, who loath America and even Western Civilization itself -- and yet they positively adore non-Western cultures; and the more brutish those cultures, then so much the better!

Last month, one of these post-modern liberals, Denise Spellberg (the politically correct professor of Middle Eastern studies), was widely cast as one of the villains in the “right-to-publish” scandal. All after nervous Random House executives got Spellberg's edict about “The Jewel of Medina,” which the professor was asked to review. The novel, Spellberg declared, was inflammatory, unfair to Islam, and unfit to publish! Apparently, Random House's “security experts” also agreed with Spellberg's assessment that the novel could spark violence, even become a “national security” issue.

What promoted Jones to write “The Jewel of Medina” and a sequel? Her inspiration, she explained, came from the 9/11 attacks, which prompted her to delve more deeply into Islam.

It was an understandable reaction, of course. After 9/11, many Americans wanted to know more about Islam. And many pondered the dark side of political Islam (“Islamofacism” as some call it) not to mention backwardness of the Middle East. Jones -- a self-described feminist brought up as a Baptist – related that Islam's oppression of women particularly fascinated her, prompting her to take a scholarly journey into the religion's earliest period.

And to her surprise, she liked what she saw!

Jones found an Islam she could relate to, an Islam she could understand. In its beginnings, Islam did not oppress woman, she concluded. Women were liberated! Early Islam's women, she explained, prayed side-by-side their men; fought with them in battle; and even advised them on important issues.

And the most remarkable women of all was A'isha. Jones said she was “particularly captivated with A'sha's wit, intelligence, generosity, courage, and leadership.”

A'isha, the Prophet Muhammad's favourite and youngest wife, elicits much controversy today, most of it revolving around her precise age when she married Muhammad; not to mention her age when their marriage was consummated. Some apologists for men who enjoy sex with pubescent girls say A'isha's age is irrelevant. Muhammad could not possibly have been a paedophile: He was merely following God's command.

Jones, for her part, praises A'isha as a brave warrior, scholar, and a valued adviser to Muhammad. She even finds A'isha inspiring, considers her a kindred soul-mate. Accordingly, she related, “I felt driven to tell (A'isha's) story because it empowered me, and I hoped -- and still hope -- it will have the same effect on others, male and female, Muslim and non-Muslim.”

Of course, some Muslims and oddball liberals – some taking their cue from Columbia University's late Edward Said and his self-pitying book “Orientialism” -- will complain that no white Western woman like Jones has any business writing about about Islam and A'isha. People like her, after all, could never be objective: By nature, they're racist and presumptuous, brimming with cultural superiority and imperialism!

To make such claims against Jones, however, could be problematic; for despite her Baptist upbringing, she no longer embrace any particular religious viewpoint, she says. And there can be little doubt about that: She demonstrates none of the self-confidence that many, if not most, Muslims express about their religion and culture.

She explains: “I embrace all religions now as containing Truth. I believe God is Love. My years as a devout Christian helped me in the writing of my books because I still remember what it is to pray constantly and ask myself what God would want of me in any particular situation. I still rely on my spiritual self -- my inner A'isha -- for comfort, wisdom, and moral guidance.”

A'isha, interestingly, also is an endearing figure to Spellberg, the university professor of Middle Eastern studies, who has devoted much scholarship her. A'isha does, indeed, appear to have been remarkable woman for her time, even if she was on the wrong side of history, based on what the Muslim world looks like today.

That said, something seems rather odd about A'isha's groupies in the West, people like Jones and Spellberg. Specifically, it's their enthusiastic embrace and identification with strange foreign cultures and dead civilizations, and the most illustrious figures inhabiting them.

Certainly, it's not as if there are a dearth of admirable figures (potential soul-mates for today's feminists) in Western Culture and its earliest beginnings. The Bible, after all, is full of strong, remarkable, and intriguing women who played major roles in shaping Christianity and Western culture. And if it's female military leaders Jones fancies, then what about the Old Testament's Deborah? Commanding an Army of 10,000 Israelites, she faced “900 chariots of Iron” when defeating the Canaanite general Sisera.

Well, maybe Jones was home sick when that story was taught in Sunday School. For her, it seems, there's only A'isha, her kindred soul-mate. Then again, perhaps Jones does not say such things because she deeply believes them -- but because it's what she believes will sell. Make what you will of this muddle; of what might be called part of the cultural and spiritual malaise afflicting so many self-doubting Westerners, especially in Europe. There, low birth rates represent a kind of cultural suicide, the subject of Mark Steyn's depressing bestseller, “America Alone: The End of the World as We Know it.”

Bush Derangement Syndrome

The story of Jones and her novel gets stranger, though. Yes, it gets downright weird!

Understandably, Jones was upset over Random House's self-censorship. But whom did she blame for her bad luck, for Random House's cowedly cancellation? Incredibly, it was not Random House -- first and foremost. No, Jones blamed a far more sinister force...the Bush administration!

As Jones explained:

We in the U.S., particularly in New York where the Sept. 11, 2001 World Trade Center attack occurred, are living in a culture of fear brought on by the World Trade Center attack and fear mongering from the U.S. government. Other countries are more accustomed, I think, to strife and war, since they are not geographically isolated as we are.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not naive. I know there are violent factions within the Muslim community. However, if I let fear stop me from speaking and writing and trying to make a difference in the world, what kind of life would I be living? There are things worse than death. And I have never believed my books -- written with respect and regard for Islam and its Prophet -- would incite violence.

Jones right-to-publish rallying cry is, of course, what you'd expect from any responsible writer. But it's obviously wacky beyond belief to blame the Bush administration for Random House's self-censorship. Responding to her display of Bush Derangement Syndrome, I dashed off an e-mail to her in a pique: “It's interesting that you blame the Bush administration's "fear mongering" for Random House's decision. I'm surprised this angle did not come out in the long WSJ piece, which had set the tone for this whole controversy.”

Jones replied:

No, I blame the culture of fear we live in, which is due in part to the Bush administration's "fear mongering." Please don't confuse the two, and I'm sorry if I was unclear in that regard. Random House made its decision because of very real fear inspired by the 9/11 attacks (they do, after all, live in New York); I'm just saying that our entire culture now walks in fear that's fueled in part by "orange alerts," loss of privacy, rhetoric about an "axis of evil," etc. that we have dealt with since that horrible day. Random House's decision is the latest in a series of decisions made out of fear of offending Muslims (such as the Dunkin' Donuts/Rachael Ray fiasco) which, if I were a Muslim, I would find offensive in itself.

Jones' reference to Rachael Ray concerned the controversy touched off by the television personality when she adorned herself with an Arab headscarf (like the one favoured by the late and wily Palestinian strongman and terrorist Yasser Arafat) in her Dunkin' Donuts television commercial.

And what about charges that the “Jewel of Medina's” love scenes are trashy? Jones' 14-year daughter Maria resolutely defended her mom's novel. Writing to a blogger who had some issues with it, she declared: “My mother's book (which I have actually read), is anything but 'Trashy'. How could anyone, who has not had the opportunity to read this book, judge it without concern. Denise Spellberg ruined my mother's dreams and hard work. She may not have realized to consequences of doing so, but being a member of the Jones family, I do.”

She added: “My mother is a respectable person.”

How might yet another controversy affect sales of “The Jewel of Medina”? Call me a cynic, but I'm betting all those liberals who share Jones' worldview will make “The Jewel of Medina” a best seller.


Excerpts from a Q&A interview in mid-August with Sherry Jones:

DP: “I don't believe I've ever seen a comment from you as to what inspired you to write the novel? Would you elaborate a little on that?

SJ: “I was inspired by post-9/11 news accounts of women's oppression in the Middle East. A feminist, I began reading for more information and discovered that women's roles and situations in Islam's early years, under Muhammad, were much different. Women fought alongside men in battles, prayed with the men in mosques, and advised Muhammad as part of his inner circle of Companions. A'isha, his youngest wife, particularly captivated me with her wit, intelligence, generosity, courage, and leadership.

“She was the first female Islamic scholar, with an extensive knowledge of the Qur'an; she could recite from memory more than 1,000 poems; she advised Muhammad and his successors; and she led troops into battle in the first Islamic civil war, which began the Sunni-Shi'ite rift. I felt driven to tell her story because it empowered me, and I hoped -- and still hope -- it will have the same effect on others, male and female, Muslim and non-Muslim.”

DP: “Were you raised in any particular religion? Would you comment on that?”

SJ: “Yes, I was raised a Baptist. I embrace all religions now as containing Truth; I believe God is Love. My years as a devout Christian helped me in the writing of my books because I still remember what it is to pray constantly and ask myself what God would want of me in any particular situation. I still rely on my spiritual self -- my inner A'isha -- for comfort, wisdom, and moral guidance.”

DP: “As I recall, you got a seizable advance from Random House for the book, $100,000. What happens now? Do you have to return that advance under the contract?”

SJ: “My contract allowed me to keep the advance money I had received and to collect the rest. It may seem seizable until you take into account the fact that I worked six years on both books, and am still working now!”

DP: “Have you gotten what could be described as "hate mail" or any threats? Anything that is of concern to you?

SJ: “I have received some very insulting mail, but not a lot. My only concern is the criticism of me and my books by people who have not yet read them.”

DP: “Presuming you find another publisher for the U.S. market, do you think all the publicity triggered by the cancellation may be a blessing in disguise because of all the free publicity you've gotten?”

SJ: “It will be a blessing if it helps draw attention to my books' messages of women's empowerment and peace, and if it enables my books to reach a wider audience so the work of building bridges with this other, demonized culture can begin. It will not be a blessing if it continues to provoke divisive, hate-filled, racist rhetoric, and if it continues to spread misperceptions about my book.”

DP: “It's interesting that you hit a temporary roadblock in the U.S. -- and yet you've got publication rights in three European countries. How do you explain that?”

SJ: “We in the U.S., particularly in New York where the Sept, 11, 2001 World Trade Center attack occurred, are living in a culture of fear brought on by the World Trade Center attack and fear-mongering from the U.S. government. Other countries are more accustomed, I think, to strife and war, since they are not geographically isolated as we are.

"Don't get me wrong; I'm not naive. I know there are violent factions within the Muslim community. However, if I let fear stop me from speaking and writing and trying to make a difference in the world, what kind of life would I be living? There are things worse than death. And I have never believed my books -- written with respect and regard for Islam and its Prophet -- would incite violence.”

DP: “It seems that your blog is down. Did you take it down or do you have a technical problem? What's going on in respect to your blog?”

SJ: “I took it down because I did not want to offer a forum for discussion of my book by people who have not read it. I realized that it was taking up a lot of my energy and time for a discussion that was not progressing because there is no published book to debate, and I decided that people should use another forum for this discussion. When the book is available to the public to read, I may resume my blog.”

DP: “I was amused to see the response your daughter wrote, and posted on a blogger's site who had criticized your novel. If you don't mind sharing some personal information: Are you married or a single mom? How have your other family members reacted to all of this?”

SJ: “I want to leave my family out of this, please.”

A slightly different version of this article was originally published at The American Thinker. Click here for readers comments on that article.

Obama-style program PAYS failing students to get free tutoring!


By David Paulin

In ultra-liberal Austin, Texas, an Obama-style high school program has been unveiled: It pays poorly performing students $6-a-hour to get free after-school tutoring!

Interestingly, Austin's school district already provides free tutoring to under-performing students, thanks to requirements mandated by the Bush administration's No Child Left Behind law. But sadly, those initiatives have failed to perform as expected. Indeed, the Austin-American Statesman's article had an interesting tidbit about the existing program, one that called up the old saw about leading a horse to water. “Austin pays more than $1,000 per student for the service...(but) few eligible students — less than 2 percent in years past — take advantage of it,” the paper noted.

Now former Austin Mayor Bruce Todd, a Democrat, has put forth his pay-you-to-learn program: It will turn underachievers into achievers, unlike the free tutoring program spurred by No Child Left Behind, he contends. His $375,000 initiative -- apparently the first of its kind anywhere -- will be funded by the private sector. That's certainly good news for taxpayers. They'd surely riot if they were hit up for the money, judging by the public's initial and overwhelmingly negative reactions to the initiative.

Todd's program is aimed in particular at a local high school that is notorious for its under-performing students. Among its problems have been high truancy and drop out rates. In one article, the Statesman noted that “more than 600 of (the school's) 760 students had more than 10 unexcused absences in the 2006-07 school year — nearly 80 percent of students missed two weeks of class or more.” Overwhelmingly Hispanic and black, the school was closed last June after failing for five straight years to meet state standards pertaining to maximum allowable dropout rates and testing standards. This month, it was reopened under a new name.

Why are some students failing so badly in politcally liberal Austin despite generous programs such as No Child Left Behind? Todd and other excuse-making liberals blame the problem, in large part, on the fact that many students come from low-income households and, as a consequence, must work part-time jobs to support their families. "These kids,” Todd observed,” sometimes have to make a choice between not eating, not having the things that many of us enjoy, or studying." Yet curiously, neither Todd nor other left-leaning elites offer any hard evidence to support these claims. And not surprisingly, they carefully avoid mentioning a factor that many hard-working and middle-class Austinites see as a significant reason for failing students: It's due to “cultural issues” of various kinds in the liberal “open borders” city.

Consider, for example, the groups of Hispanic students who wait every morning for their school bus, not far from where I live. None of the boys in baggy trousers and loosely fitting T-shirts ever carries school books -- yet more than a few have I-Pods and even cell phones. Usually, it's only girls who carry back packs that, presumably, are stuffed with books. Alternatively, visit a low-income Hispanic neighborhood. In the driveways of apartment complexes, there's no shortage of late-model vehicles, especially brawny pick-ups with fancy hub caps that are popular among illegal Mexican immigrants and their offspring. Could the owners of any of these pick-ups be the heads of any of the economically disadvantaged families being targeted under the pay-to-study program?

Granted, these observations are hardly scientific. But neither are those being offered by Todd and other liberal educational reformers in Austin. All of them, of course, are part of a long liberal tradition dating to President Lyndon Johnson's Great Society programs – throwing money at social problems without having much understanding of some of the pathologies contributing to those problems. In the Statesman's story about the pay-you-to-learn program this week, the readers comment section was filled with disgust and outrage. “Well, it was pretty inevitable, wasn't it?” complained one reader. “We pay farmers not to grow crops, we pay people to have illegitimate babies...” Another declared: “Responsibility starts at home with the parents. Why not pay the parents too? Is this what our educational system has come to? Pay the kids to go to school?”

One thing is certain: Austin represents the future under an Obama presidency.

This was originally published by The American Thinker.