I urge you to read the following hilarious article in yesterday’s Dog Trainer titled South Bay Couple Plead Not Guilty to Running Call-Girl Ring From Home. My suggested headline would have been: “Clearly Guilty Couple Asserts Lame Defense.” My headline would confuse you if you read only the information contained on the front pages, which makes the couple sound like very nice people being persecuted by misguided law enforcement officials. The details supporting my suggested headline all come — after the jump.
The story, placed on the front page of the California section, begins:
Christopher Davis and Jill McGrath were looking to start a business in which she could stay at home with their two daughters and they could have a more traditional family life.
How wonderful! But the story goes on to explain that the evil authorities seem to think the couple has made a very big mistake: running an escort service out of their home. As the story sympathetically explains:
McGrath and Davis can barely assimilate this image with the humdrum reality of their lives. “We’re just normal people, trying to make a living,” Davis said.
Note the story does not say the couple “can barely assimilate this image with what they say is the humdrum reality of their lives.” Rather, the story asserts that the couple’s lives really are “humdrum.”
The “humdrum reality of their lives.” Keep that phrase in mind as you continue to read this post.
The story goes on to explain that facing these charges “isn’t what they had envisioned when they came to Los Angeles as young adults — McGrath from Massachusetts, Davis from Oklahoma — and flirted with careers in acting.” The mother simply wanted to stay home with the kids and be a full-time mother.
A picture accompanying the story shows Davis holding McGrath’s hand, as the couple look at the camera with forlorn expressions. They seem to be trying to figure out how they ended up in this mess. It’s obviously all a mistake! The caption to the photo reads:
DISMAYED: Jill McGrath and Christopher Davis say they run a legitimate dating referral service and have nothing to be ashamed of. “We’re just normal people, trying to make a living,” Davis says.
You can’t peruse the contents of the story that are printed on the front page of this section without thinking: What in the hell is going on here? Why is this good couple being charged with crimes they clearly did not commit?
I was curious to see why charges were filed against such a clearly innocent couple, so I read past the jump — and found out all sorts of interesting things. If you have the print edition of the paper, turn to page B14. This is where it gets fun.
Via Power Line comes Mark Steyn’s column on the shortfalls in our immigration enforcement. Steyn quotes Carol Moseley Braun as saying: ”My late mother used to say it doesn’t matter if you came to this country on the Mayflower or a slave ship, through Ellis Island or across the Rio Grande, we’re all in the same boat now.” Steyn responds to Ambassador Braun’s quote in this way:
It goes down so well that Gov. Howard Dean’s started using it, too. And why not? It’s beautifully coded imagery: Whether you came here as slave owner or slave, standing in line and filling in the paperwork or through the express check-in, everyone’s an immigrant, and all the rest is fine print. Who are we to distinguish between some uptight white-bread Pilgrim disembarking at Plymouth Rock and an Algerian terrorist with a forged Quebec driver’s license making a break for it at the British Columbia/Washington state border en route to blow up LAX? Irish Americans, Italian Americans, Illegal Americans, Islamist Americans, Incendiary Americans, we’re all in the same boat, whether we’re rowing or planting the plastic explosives.
Interesting New York Times article on Imagining Life Without Illegal Immigrants. One professor suggests life without illegal immigrants could be a good thing:
If there were no undocumented workers to tend to the gardening, Californians who wanted a nice lawn would pay more for it, eventually drawing low-skilled workers from other parts of the country, Professor [George J.] Borjas said, adding that American workers would be the better for it.
“The workers would be slightly wealthier and the employers would be slightly poorer, but everything would get done,” said Professor Borjas, who used to live in California. “I moved to Boston and the lawn is still green.”
You mean that the “jobs Americans won’t do” might mean “jobs Americans won’t do at the wages offered, given the presence of illegals willing to do it for less”? Say it ain’t so!
There is also information about the hidden costs of illegal immigration:
Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington group that favors greater restrictions on immigration, argues that if Americans “eased our addiction to this illegal labor,” there would be less stress on the country’s social welfare system, ranging from fewer children in crowded urban schools to fewer welfare checks for the American-born families of illegal immigrants.
“Immigrants over all use at least one major welfare program at a rate 50 percent higher than natives,” Mr. Krikorian said, referring to an analysis of 2001 data by his center that found Medicaid use particularly high among immigrants. “That is not because they are morally defective. It is because they are poor and don’t have any education and they end up inevitably stumbling and having needs for the system.”
Patterico’s analysis from a few days ago is sounding better and better.