1 Lone Star

Well, everybody, I'm back.  I had to skip one day, but I've been super busy.  Gail and I are going to work on getting a decent new primary income stream, through real estate investments and equity finance consulting.  Gail's finishing working on the product line for the second Chinese company we're going to represent on our Trinity Trading Imports website, and when we get that finished, hopefully in the next couple of weeks, we will have several times as many products available for sale.  What I expect is to have a really great beginning to what will be a trading line for products to be available by companies from all over the world, producing some of the nicest things that could be bought to adorn a home.  While we will start with marketing in North America with our original product line, we will by no means limit ourselves to any one land mass.  In the meantime, we hope and expect to expand to some business lines from elsewhere in both India, Brazil, and some other countries.  No, we don't think eBay has anything to worry about from us, but we believe that we'll do pretty well. 

Anyway, in the meantime, there are some pretty interesting news stories out there.  First, there is the interesting new decision by a U.S. Immigration appeals court, deciding that an American male who becomes a female transsexual, could indeed sponsor another man as a spouse to get permanent residence in the USA.  This reverses an earlier decision by a local immigration judge, saying that, in effect, once a man, always a man, and no gay marriage is recognized yet, in the USA.  The appeals court ruled that, the North Carolina state law, where the matter arose, allowed recognition of sex-changed gender, complete with a new birth certificate, so no actual same-sex marriage when the sponsoring American spouse married a gay man from El Salvador (nice publicity for the macho men from that country).  Therefore, the marriage could be recognized, getting a green card for the gay Salvadoran.  So, that should make for interesting connections for international relationships in the "fruited plain" in the future.

In the meantime Claudia Rosett of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies has come up with another little criticism of that lovely little organization the United Nations, and its illustrious Secretary-General, Kofi Annan.  He, of course has presided over the $40 billion USD Oil for Food scandal in Iraq, where they (including his own son) colluded with Saddam Hussein to get filthy rich while helping Saddam elude U.S.-led U.N. sanctions.  Now he wants to tax all rich nations 0.7 percent for "official development assistance."  Well, of course, we can all count on the United States to contribute about half of the $82 billion USD that the program would be expected to pull the first year alone.  And we can all expect Kofi and the gang to manage the money perfectly properly, and every last penny will go into the hands of the poor.  Yeah, and I have ocean front property in the Kalahari, the Gobi, and in Arizona to sell Mr. Kofi the Ethical.  The matter will be voted on in September by the U.N. Security Counsel.  Of course the USA will veto--thank goodness.  Ms. Rosett has been dead on right about the scandals in the U.N. in recent years, check out the article.

In the meantime, Andrew McCarthy, a former U.S. federal prosecutor, and now blog columnist and senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, has a serious story about the commonly-made argument that Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda never had any connection and relationship, much less any connection between Saddam and the conspirators of September 11, 2001.  This is done especially after speeches and events like President Bush's highly effective address to the world Tuesday night.  Mr. McCarthy points out multiple reasons for the myth in those arguments, and the depth to which Iraq is a very import part of the war against Islamist terrorism.  This article is found in the highly respected U.S. magazine, National Review, in its online edition.

The Washington Post has an interesting article on the latest of the ups and downs of the government of Latin America's largest nation, Brazil, and its President, Luis Inacio Lula da Silva.  Apparently a huge scandal about Mr. Lula's ruling party, paying bribes to its Congress's legislators to get votes on important laws that he wanted passed.  Mr. Lula does not have the paper trail of guilt yet at his door, but close.  It remains to be seen on whether he will survive re-election next year.

A really good blog, Red State, which is edited by lawyers, has published a pretty insightful article on the likelihood of who will be likely appointed new Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court.  It appears that President Bush is wanting to appoint the first Hispanic justice to the Court, and the third woman, and make sure that highly gifted people pleasing to the devout Christian core of the Republican Party are appointed.  True, it's unfortunate that we have degenerated to the point that this issue is all about politics and ideology, but the stakes are high on matters like abortion, gay marriage, and the Court's recent rejection of the U.S. Constitution's own protections of private property from eminent domain.  I wrote on the case of Kelo v. City of New London last week, and it is serious indeed, especially for the health of the world's leading economy.  There are, fortunately, highly capable men and women who fit those requirements, who are also experienced judges worthy of a place on the most important court of the world's leading superpower.  Another place to review most of the most likely candidates is in the online edition of the Wall Street Journal.

Well, more to come tomorrow.  Adios. 

10:35 p.m., Monday (PDT):

Well, I'm here a little earlier than I have been customarily on this blog.  I won't bore anyone with the details of what kind of struggles I have had, especially today, but trust me, I have been very disappointed, both personally, for my country and my profession.  Not that I am surprised, mind you.  The last 20+ years of my life, ever since Gail and I have been together, have seen this kind of thing.  Not a problem of Gail, but when I married her I inherited something that just seems to follow her, something she never asked for nor caused by her actions.  I guess that it just reminds me of the biblical character of Job.  He was the ultimate person who had an endless string of trouble, none of which was caused by any problem or moral flaw in his character.  Yet everybody else just assumed that it was his fault, and proceeded to tell him so, in the cruelest way.  I am reminded of the line in the book of Proverbs, "Each heart knows its own bitterness, and no one can share its joy."  Gail, my love is always with you, you are not going to be alone---never, as surely as the Lord lives.

I hated what I saw today from the U.S. Supreme Court.  It isn't just because of the decisions they made today, but why.  More and more I see the cynical nature of what people will do to retain their power.  Today they made four major decisions, three of them bad, and the one good decision came from bad reasoning, which made that decision as flaky as they come.  The first decision was holding that large cable companies can basically corner the broadband market, and cut out any Internet providers (like Earthlink) who may provide less expensive broadband coverage from using their physical networks, upon which all other providers would depend.  That decision will allow the telephone networks to persuade the U.S. Federal Communications Commission to change their rules to do the same with phone lines, which may very well kill a lot of the companies seeking to make wireless communications more available to more people and create more choices. (Two cases together titled: National Cable & Telecommunications Association v. Brand X Internet Services, 04-277 and FCC v. Brand X Internet Services, 04-281).  Another reason to conclude that the legal profession is in love with the large corporations that support the politicians that appoint these judges. 

The second decision is that of MGM v. Grokster, which, reversing the decision of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, declares that the file sharing networks Morpheus and Grokster can be held responsible for the free downloading practices of their users, regardless of whether they are directly aware of the individual actions of these users, whether legal or illegal.  The effect of it enables the motion picture and music industries to control how people get access to information over the Internet, especially in the area of peer-to-peer file sharing.  It is one thing to steal simply you want to get something for nothing.  It is another to get it because a few extremely rich and very greedy individuals want to price their products grossly out of proportion of what their cost of production and what healthy profitmaking would allow, and control who gets to be a creative artist.  The Supreme Court today basically sided with those who want to use their ownership interests through copyright to swindle people out of their money or block them from artistic works they should be able to afford.  But the movie makers and music producers haven't counted on one thing:  when people, especially young people, are convinced that they are being ripped off, they will find a way to get around it, one way or the other.  They will insist that the entertainment industry find a new means to make music and movies available for a price that truly reflects demand.  Dolphins can kill a great white shark, if they sufficiently outnumber it.  They better be careful, theft is wrong, and so is greed. 

The third and fourth cases had to do with posted monuments and displays of the Ten Commandments on public property or courthouses.  One case out of Texas, another out of Kentucky.  The Court had 4 justices who believed that the separation of church and state means that government should act as if faith doesn't even exist, and that faith and morality have nothing to do with law, or the rules by which human beings relate to each other---in complete ignorance of 400 years of American history (see Justice Stevens' dissent in the Texas case and Justice Souter in the Kentucky case).  Four other justices, who obviously understood history and common sense, held that the separation of church and state meant only that government could not establish an official religious organization, and that only---and that law and liberty is not possible without some sense of shared values--impossible without faith in a Supreme Being as a people in general.  (And that includes the allowance of people to choose no religion at all) (See Justice Scalia's opinion in the Kentucky case) .  Meaning that posted monuments and displays of the Ten Commandments, alongside other plaques or tableau of other lawgivers and historical memorials, are appropriate to remind young and old that there is no freedom without the law, and that law is not subject to the whims of the moment, but related to the collective wisdom and traditions of man's progress through the years...under God.  That God is not merely irrelevant, but as an earlier Supreme Court justice once said, "America is a religious nation whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being." (see Scalia's opinion, page 5, quoting the 1952 case of Zorach v. Clausen).

One justice--Stephen Breyer, decided that he would play God.  And he decided that a monument in Texas, at the state capitol grounds in Austin, could stay.  And the plaques outside courtrooms in two Kentucky county courthouses had to go.  His reason?  Under the facts, one was around a long time, erected 44 years ago, and was old, and only one guy objected, and there were other monuments around.  The others in Kentucky were set up only six years ago, and was alone when they were first displayed, even though other historical plaques showing the Ten Commandments' secular benefit as the foundation of Western law were put up afterward to comply with existing legal interpretation in their area.  One was old and the other new, that was the difference.  And because he was the deciding vote, his interpretation is what the state of law on religious monuments currently is in the United States of America. 

What makes the ruling more cynical is that Breyer and the more liberal members of the Court deliberately said that they were not making a pronouncement of a single legal principle that could settle the issue, and make it easier for legislatures and federal, state, and local governments to decide what to do.  Oh, no, couldn't do that.  They announced that they would decide all such religious speech cases on a case-by-case basis, with no consistent principle at all (Especially see both the footnote on page 11 of Souter's Kentucky opinion and Breyer's Texas concurring opinion, page 4.  In other words, they wanted to keep the power in their own hands, a complete violation of the democratic principle that laws are to be made by democratically-elected legislatures, ratified by executives, not by courts and judges (as pointed out by both Scalia and Thomas).  The two cases are titled:  McCreary County v. ACLU (545 U.S. ___ (2005), No. 03-1693) (Kentucky), and Van Orden v. Perry (545 U.S ___ (2005), No. 03-1500 (Texas).

That's what really pisses me off about the whole legal profession, of whom I am a member.  It is all about power.  So of course they don't want to honor God, it would make them get off the throne of their own lives, and that of an entire nation.  Once the law meant something special to me, and to most people.  Something majestic, the upholding of what is good, defending the weak, ensuring that men can do business with each other and know what defines integrity, fairness, makes the building of one's life and dreams possible.  That is gone now, except in the hearts of those who refuse to cave into despair and cynicism.

So, in the spirit of this day, I'll repeat the words that make people free, if they would only open the eyes of their souls and see:

I am the LORD your GOD.  You shall have no other gods before me.
You shall make for yourself no idol to worship.
You shall not degrade the Name of the Lord your God.
Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Honor your father and your mother.
You shall not murder.
You shall not commit adultery.
You shall not steal.
You shall not give false witness against your neighbor.
You shall not covet your neighbor's house, or your neighbor's wife, or anything else that belongs to your neighbor.

Yes, I know.  A big rant.  I respect you if you disagree with this, in whole or part.  But it is me, and I would sooner cut off my arms and legs than turn away from this truth.  I can never keep them, but I love His law, because I love Him--God.  He--Jesus, died for my sins, came to life again to ensure life for every man, lives in my heart, forgives all my sins, helps me to face and deal with them as a responsible man should, and one day I will be with Him in His home--forever.

Well, on to less controversial subjects tomorrow.  Adios, and God bless. 

Well, hello, everybody.  What is going on?  I am really tired of not communicating with everybody, so, I'm going to stop this--now. 

First, for all of my friends from China.  As of this past Monday, the 20th June, the U.S. State Department announced that the F-1, J-1, and M-1 visas for Chinese students and scholars studying in the United States will be extended from 9 to 12 months, and will allow multiple extensions, which will allow students to continue in their places of study in the USA without having to return to U.S. embassies or consulates to renew their visas so quickly.  That will make it easier for students to get visas renewed, and, more importantly, will make it possible for U.S. embassy personnel to process new visa applications much more quickly.  The effect of it will probably mean a pretty big jump in Chinese students coming to the USA.  It dropped off a bit between 2003 and 2004, and picked up last year again.  That number should now really grow, which helps both the students and especially the American universities, as well as the economies of both China and the USA.

Iran has had an election, and has a new President, do they?  Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is just the President for the ruling mullahs of the Governing Religious Council, which is the gang of religious thugs (too harsh for even most Iranian Muslims to stomach) that actually run the country.  He is promising to increase oil production, get more benefits to the poor, and cure corruption (translation:  amass more money in the hands of the religious mullahs, cheat the poor, torture more democracy activists, and beat more women who show the locks of their hair or worse, their ankles.).  Publius Pundit has tons of sources inside her native country of Iran (she lives in Tucson, Arizona), and all of them indicate that the claimed figures of 48 percent voting in the run-off election is a sham, and that the large majority have participated in the mass boycott called by democracy activists.  Well, there will eventually be a conflict with Iran, I believe, fueled by the mullah's insistence on building nuclear weapons to give to terrorists to attack the West, and partly from the presence of Al Qaeda's operations there as well as in Pakistan and Iraq.  What is sad, is that the vast majority of Iranians want to be free of this tyranny.  They are not enamoured by us, nor should they.  Iran is a 5,000 year-old civilization, they can certainly handle themselves.  But governing themselves probably would ensure an end to their increasing poverty.

The world is an amazing place, Gail is constantly showing me photos on her computer.  The incredible explosion of color and complex beauty in the smallest butterfly, an almost endless array of animals, birds, plants-flowers, the skylines of human cities (she just showed me one of Perth, Australia, which I have always wanted to visit for myself--sort of like the end of the world to me).  When I see things like that I remind myself that, even though the world seems so chaotic, like in what is happening in Iran,  it's nice to know that this is still a beautiful world where life is worth living, and that God is in control.

Adios/Janae/Wao An/Anyo/Salaam/Ciao/Au revoir/Das devanya/Shalom/Bye and God bless for now.

1:10 a.m., 26 June:

I have been reading some of the articles from The Discovery Institute, which is an elite research institute out of Seattle, and which has put out superb information on a huge array of subjects from politics, law, economics, science and technology.  It is most well-known for its work in the new scientific theory of Intelligent Design.  They have a special section appropriately concentrating on ID research and critique of traditional Darwinian evolution, but in Discovery Institute's news and commentary section they published the column written by British Nobel laureate, writer and historian Paul Johnson, who is a fellow of both DI and Forbes magazine, where the article first originated last Monday the 20th.  He challenges the notion of Christian or Islamic fundamentalism as a greater danger to progress today, and claims that it is atheistic fundamentalism, as the dominant scientific and philosophical system in higher education and academic research today in the world, that is proceeding to impose a dictatorship of conformity in the field of education, and therefore in world-wide culture.

Johnson's exposes inconsistencies in atheistic evolutionary thought in three areas:  natural selection (Darwin's primary principle), the Big Bang theory of the universe's origin, and the origins of human language.  He does not disavow evolution, and agrees with the commonly held belief that the universe is 13.7 billion years old (common to all evolutionary scientific theory).  But he points out that moving from a non-designer's standpoint--essential to atheistic evolution, is literally impossible in the time necessary to develop natural selection, and in the occurrence of the Big Bang, which literally occurred in a vacuum of non-existence.

If you're into thinking thoughts deeper than what to have at the espreso bar at 10 a.m. in between classes, or during morning break at work, check the Johnson article out, and then some of the articles from DI's Center for Science and Culture.  They'll challenge some of the assumptions you have accepted from well-meaning but incompletely-informed professors and teachers.

See you later.  Hasta luego.

Well, well, well.  The United States Supreme Court's majority of five men/women has totally distinguished itself again.  The group that brought you acceptance of slavery in the 19th century, acceptance of white supremacy at the turn of the 20th, the sanctioning of legalized murder--i.e. abortion, 32 years ago, the refusal to allow God to have a place of non-coercive, non-sectarian recognition in our schools 42 years ago, and the group that thinks that we should look to international law to decide what our Constitution says on whether gay people should have an equal right to marry (in opposition to the understanding of marriage for 7,000 years by every culture and religion known to man), have done it again.  They have decided, in the case of Kelo v. City of New London, Connecticut, that if a city wants to do a city revitalization project, all it has to do is say they'll create jobs with it, and they can throw people out of nice residential homes that their families have owned for 80 years and even more, and use the land to build a shopping mall.

The only comfort is that four justices of the Court, led by Sandra Day O'Connor, saw the insanity and total unconstitutionality , not to mention the horrid violation of the human right of private property, and condemned it properly.  A 5-4 decision of the Supremes definitely sets itself up for reversal at a later time.  And that may change soon, given that probably two of the justices, and possibly three, are going to announce retirement next week.  So, who knows?

Well, there are no new messages on what, or whether, Gail and I are going to get capital in the near future.  I hope to know tomorrow.  Oops!  That's today.  I'll be online more tomorrow.  Got plenty to do.  Just need some sleep first.  Was gorgeous here in San Diego, again.  I'm ready to move from the South Bay to the North Bay.  Just too many gangbangers around.  Plus, the wife needs to be closer to both her children and her doctor.  That's another subject, though.  Well, adios for now. 

Well, I am just sitting here, waiting on several things to happen.  I'm applying for the business loan I need for my import-export business, and I'm waiting for the decision from the SBA--that's Small Business Administration for all you non-U.S. guys.  And I'm waiting for my lovely bride--the sweet and foxy Gayle (I know she spells it differently, but I always found this one more sexy.), to complete the latest stage of webpage building for our self-same business.  So, I try to work on tax reports I have to file, doing further research, working on finding good affiliate programs to make money for us, doing some writing, writing in my blog here.  Not too productive, but gaining ground nonetheless.

Nothing new in the realm of immigration law, or in the realm of intellectual property (my new other area of legal interest).  But I am sure that will change in the next few days, since I hear that the U.S. Supreme Court will be deciding the Mozilla case any day now, the determination on whether file-sharing services are all violating the copyright laws.  I'm hopeful that the Supremes will side with progress and free expression and not with big entertainment corporations (many of which it has been said are controlled by the Mafia), but that's a little bit of a stretch, I know. 

No new movies, either.  That's ok.  Not been paid in a little while, either.  A great opportunity to trust in God's care. 

Well, I am going to get off to sleepy land.  There's no reason to take up dead space with empty talk.  More later.  Adios.

Well, hello, everybody.  I'm back and functional.  I am engaged in more than a few little exercises in my life that are on the verge of changing pretty much everything.  Yesterday was Father's Day in the USA, and it was a nice weekend overall.  Not a lot in the way of excitement, my eldest daughter and son-in-law in town from the OC, went down to the Gaslamp to have a really nice dinner at one of the neat restaurants here.  If you haven't been to San Diego, the Gaslamp is the transformed downtown area, which was turned from a low-light dive for prostitutes and drug dealers into one of the most popular areas in North America for tourists, and especially during baseball season, with the new Petco Park for baseball.  Friday and Saturday nights are especially crowded. 

Well, I decided to share with everybody a clarifying statement made by the U.S. Citizenship and Naturalization Service (CIS) about the state of affairs on people who are possibly eligible for what is called "adjustment of status" to legal residency (green card) who may have come into the USA during the 1990s and up to April 30, 2001 under another person's (usually a parent or spouse) permanent visa.  These people who came on someone else's 'green card' or a similar application before that date are able to apply for legal residency on their own, which especially helps people who came as children to the USA.  The announcement by CIS also makes it clear that while these people who are "grandfathered" into eligibility by the law, which is Section 245i of the Immigration and Naturalization Act, cannot similarly pull in close family members, such as spouses, who were not in that relationship prior to the cut-off date of 30 April 2001.  Such a state of the law for would-be immigrants is especially applicable for many illegal immigrants from Mexico and Central America, but it's not just limited to them.

There have been three interesting case rulings on the rights of immigrants both coming into the USA, and those who have resided for a while, but have run afoul of the law on the issue of supporting groups that have been designated as terrorist organizations.  In one, an immigrant from Senegal, whose tourist visa had run out, but who was legitimately married to an American citizen and had been given legal parole to stay by the CIS, was detained illegally for 3 months because of rank incompetence on the part of a Customs official.  The good news is not only that he was released and granted legal status by an immigration judge not long after, but he was able to win a lawsuit against the U.S. government and the Customs official who made the colossal screwup.  Well, there the rule of law is working properly.  The name of the case is Sissoko v. USA, out of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Los Angeles.

The second is the case of Nanyange v. USA, out of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, which is based in Chicago.  There the court ruled that immigration judges and immigration lawyers cannot use flimsy and petty reasons to rule that a woman seeking asylum had testified falsely, which, in her case, would have meant that she would have been deported, and that, would have been tantamount to a death sentence.  The Court of Appeals reversed the immigration judge, and lectured him that trivial and easily explained flaws in her testimony were unacceptable reasons for her, or any other judge to deny asylum under such circumstances.

In the third case, Rahmani v. USA, out of the 9th Circuit, also out of LA, the court held that Iranian expatriates, living in the U.S., could not challenge the legality, under the U.S. Constitution of a law which forbids anyone from sending hundreds of thousands of U.S. dollars to support an Iranian anti-government organization which has been designated by the U.S. State Department as a terrorist organization.  Apparently the U.S. Congress had given another Court of Appeals, out of Washington, D.C., the power to decide if an organization should be considered terrorists or a legal organization, not the Court in Los Angeles.  While the determination was correct under the strict law, the Court did understand that there was a problem continuing to designate the organization, MEK, as terrorist now.  It was a terrorist organization in the late 1970s, when it opposed the Shah of Iran, but 30 years later it is a lead organization in the movement to bring democracy to Iran.  Unfortunately, it was also supported for many years by Saddam Hussein, and MEK was based in Iraq.  However, these men gave money to MEK only a few years ago, long after MEK broke off with Saddam and moved to France.  It is a case where following the law may not match the demands of justice.  This case will be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, and we'll see how this case goes.  Telling people that they can't challenge the constitutionality of a law when it's the very law under which they are prosecuted seems neither fair or just.

If you know someone who is interested in immigrating to the USA, or in coming to study or work for a shorter amount of time, and has a legal question, tell them they can contact me either here in the comment line, or they can e-mail me at FJ.Fernandez@gmail.com .  Well, I'll see you all tomorrow.  Adios/Au revoir/Ciao/Sayanora/Wao An/Anyo/Salaam/Bye and God bless.

A few nights ago I had the opportunity to view a perfectly charming movie, which would be pretty cool to take in this summer.  'The Perfect Man', starring Hilary Duff, Heather Locklear (the queen of several TV Gen-X series, dating back to 'Dynasty', 'Melrose Place', and 'Spin City', as well as Christ Noth of 'Sex and the City' and 'Law & Order' fame, is a surprisingly fun look at the struggles that a teen daughter of a single mom who is still hopeful for love (but needs to learn to be strong in her own skin), has to endure.  The film takes the attitude that it is the daughter who needs to learn to be appreciative of the struggles and heartache of her mom, and in so doing, makes it a morality play (though a nice, subtle one), about the need of teens to respect and honor parents.  While that is true, the movie for me showed how much children often try mightily to have some sense of normalcy in their lives.  Poor Holly Hamilton, played by Miss Duff, is totally distraught about how her mom Jean, played by Ms. Locklear, always seems to go 'vamonos muchachas' when she gets dumped by another second-rate, bottom-feeder kind of guy.  She doesn't just get upset, no, she gets out of town, which means another school, another attempt at new friends and fitting in.  Being drop-dead pretty doesn't hurt that struggle, and being mature and responsible for her age, but it doesn't seem to matter. 
When Jean wants to leave Wichita, Kansas, after being dumped again, she moves to New York, where she takes a job at a bakery.  Turns out that Jean has a great talent at baking, and is encouraged by an old friend to enter a professional contest.  But in the meantime, Holly, who doesn't want her and her precocious 7-year old sister (Aria Wallace) to get into another traumatic situation with her mom's men problems, suddenly comes on an idea:  she concocts a composite (and false) boyfriend, which she arranges for Jean to meet on--where else--the Internet.  She borrows, with the help of a new friend at school, a picture of her friend's uncle, who owns a classy Manhattan restaurant.  All at the same time, she struggles with the opposite problem from her mom, Holly has a young man (Ben Feldman), who is falling for her--hard, and she is struggling to overcome her own fear of commitment to let her heart lead her into his arms.  The shenanigans in keeping up the image of the faux boyfriend for Jean has Holly sucked predictably deeper in the whirlpool of her lies.  Fortunately for her, mom finds a way to see beyond the offenses to the reasons for them, her own inability to face heartbreak and her need to stand strong on her own, without a man.  Again, almost predictably, it is when Jean discovers her own inner strength that she meets Mr. Right, (Noth). 

A side element to the movie is the scene where Holly practically begs Noth to act as a father figure for her.  The fact that it is accomplished with matter-of-fact elan on Ms. Duff's part is a testament of how really sad our society has become, when her rootlessness is the reality for over 40% of children and teens in America, and much the same in most of the developed world--children not able to enjoy the love and presence of their mother and father--together.  Much the same thing is, almost inadvertantly stated when, not knowing that it is Duff's boyfriend on the other computer, Jean talks about her unwed pregnancies as happy, perfectly acceptable within her life's goals.  She doesn't get the point that, irregardless of the love she gives and receives from her daughters, the mistakes of illegitimacy are at the heart of her own lack of roots and unhappiness---not the children themselves---but the lack of character in failing to exercise abstinence. 

'The Perfect Man' is a sweet, though sometimes predictable movie.  The acting is actually surprisingly good.  Locklear is thoroughly believeable as a single mom, none of the glamorous, sexy, power woman of her other roles, this is a very vulnerable woman.  Noth, in a minor role, carries the place of strong yet sensitive man quite well.  And Hilary also surprises in her ability to make her character believable.  There's some lack of depth, but that's what you expect in a 16-year old.  She's clearly got a bright future.  Compared to a lot of pretty shallow teen movies, clearly catering to the 10-17 yr.-old crowd, this film is quite good.  It's an obvious come-down after seeing 'Cinderella Man' eleven days earlier, but I would still give it a surprising three stars out of four.

I'll be back for more tomorrow.  Got Father's Day to celebrate first, though.  Adios and God bless.

Today, for those of you who are outside the USA, is our Flag Day.  It's not a holiday, but it is a day that is observed by government and military offices, and by patriotic Americans as a day of respect, not so much for our flag, but for those who have given their lives in America's wars for the freedoms Americans enjoy, as well as the freedom of other nations, such as during World War II, and, if I may be so bold, in Afghanistan and Iraq.  Whether you agree with the motivation, the wisdom, the honesty of our leaders, or the actions of guards and interrogators at Guantanamo (I do), or what you think of what happened at Abu Ghraib (I hate it, of course, and the perpetrators should be punished.), 99%+ of American soldiers, and those of more than 45 countries at one time or another did something awesome.  A nation is free that never knew it before, even though there are insurgents who want to plunge them--Iraq, into an ocean of their own blood.  The effort of American troops is therefore noble, and should be appreciated, and they should be brought home, then, as soon as possible--that is, once the Iraqi army is strong enough to take care of themselves.  Add on Afghanistan, and that's about 55 million people now in democracies.  Struggling, yes.  Full of dangers and corruptions and warlords and insurgents and foreign terrorists and inconsistencies and age-old tribal conflicts, yes.  But democracies nonetheless, bought with the hard work and enormous restraint of the American soldier, all under that flag.  Way to go, guys.

Now as to the law.  There is a lot of change going on right now, and there will be plenty to talk about in the near future.  There are two proposed changes to U.S. immigration law coming up, one offered by U.S. Senator John McCain (Rep.-Arizona), and another by Senator John Cornyn (Rep.-Texas).  The two proposed laws have some differences, but they both have in common several things, which are also an extension to the proposed change in the law made by President Bush:  1) That those immigrants who are able to demonstrate a bona-fide job offer from an employer, who is not bumping off a U.S. citizen to offer the job to that immigrant, would be able to get up to 6 years on a guest worker visa; 2) That those immigrants who so qualify, whether they are already in the U.S. or coming into the country, will be able to bring their families into the country legally under their visa; 3) That the U.S. Border Patrol will have a large increase in personnel, and that electronic surveillance of the borders with the U.S. will increase, to create, in essence a virtual fence; 4) That those immigrants who qualify under the new law, even though living illegally in the country up to now, will be able, after the six-year guest-worker term ends, to apply for legal residency and eventually U.S. citizenship; 5) That employers will only admit employees that have a fraud-proof Social Security identification, with a digitally-secured strip, showing their legalized status; 6) Those employers who don't will be prosecuted; 7) Those immigrants who seek citizenship would have to learn English and take classes in U.S. history and government, so as to gain an appreciation of the country where they will become citizens and vote.

They are rough similarities, and there's a lot of disagreements over how, or even whether these proposals should become law, and I am definitely describing them loosely, but that's the basic idea behind the new law in its final form, which will probably be passed within the year.  And all I can say is, it's about time.

In the meantime, since the time that President Bush signed into a law an extension for 20,000 additional places for H-1B work visas for highly skilled foreign professionals with a master's degree or higher, the number of places available has been surprisingly high.  As of May 20, only a little under 7,000 places had been filled.  And the pace at which they are being filled is not enough to get alarmed.  So it is likely that anyone who obtains such a job offer from an American employer and applies for an H-1B before the end of the U.S. fiscal year, which is October 1st, should be able to get his/her application, if in good order, approved by then, though the government expects all the places to be filled by then.  If you don't get to apply until later this summer, don't fear though.  There will be a fresh 65,000 H-1B places, plus an additional 20,000 special H-1Bs available on October 1st.  And with the economy continuing to improve, the likelihood of more places coming available next year will improve as well.

If you want to know more, just get in touch with me.  I can either discuss with you what I can do for that special person you know who wants to come and work in the USA.  I will also be able, if your situation is unique, to discuss how to get good professional legal help available.  Stay tuned, I'll be talking more about immigration matters tomorrow.

I'll be back, though most of my time will be taken up working on other business matters.  Much is changing in my life, and I feel like my hair is on fire, but I'm looking forward to what God has around the corner.  Adios and God bless.

I was off, with my daughter, her probable future mister (i.e, steady boyfriend and likely fiancee+), and with my wife on Sunday.  So, I'm back, I'm late, and I'll be back later.

Michael Jackson walks, a free man.  Justice is only when the money is NOT THERE!!  Boy!  And especially when he is black.  Hearing that blacks were ready to riot in L.A. if he were convicted convinces me, too.  If you are black, and/or a celebrity, you walk!  (O.J., Robert Blake, Sicko Jacko).  HE IS GUILTY, GUILTY, GUILTY!!!!  And Nothing Will Make Me Change My Mind!

 Now it's off my chest.  That is the last I'll say about that worthless case about that worthless man.  Later.

There is an interesting article in Investors Insight Daily, by John Mauldin, entitled "Whither Europe and the Euro."  It deals with some of the reasons of why he feels the euro is in trouble against the dollar, which for a couple of years has itself been devalued by almost 50%.  But the article and stated purpose is misleading.  The real story is about the future of the world's population, about birth rates (some of his figures are misinterpreted, such as the slight recent change in U.S. fertility, to above 2.1 rather than 2.01...and in the world of demographics, that matters), and about immigration.  It is a fact that between 175 and 185 million people are permanent immigrants in the world today.  Of that number between 36 and 40 million live in the United States alone.  Even with the problems we have had with immigration, a record number of people came legally into the USA last year, and a record came illegally, too. 

Changes are being made to encourage students to not turn away from U.S. universities, the number of places made available to professionals, high-tech workers with advanced graduate degrees, the increased time allowed for researchers to stay in U.S. colleges, medical research centers, hospitals, and drug companies (just three weeks ago), and the opening of 50,000 more places for nurses and other health care support professionals to come in, all are evidence of an increased progress in adjusting our country's immigration to one that is helpful to the many decent people who wish to come here, while using our technology and other resources to secure our borders from criminals and terrorists.  Four U.S. senators, led by Sen. John McCain (Republican-Arizona), have introduced and will likely pass a new major immigration reform bill that may eliminate many of the numerical limitations on legal immigration categories which have caused our backlog in applications.  Some people have had to wait 20 years to come, and many talented, well-educated people have moved elsewhere. 

Mauldin's article points the critical point that drastically falling birth rates are a threat to the ultimate prosperity of the world.  That is a direct refutation of claims made for decades by population control advocates like Planned Parenthood, that overpopulation threatens the planet's quality of life.  But then, I have never had much use for anything PP has ever stood for, beginning with its eugenics-spouting founder, Margaret Sanger.  It is a strange fact, but true, that the USA, since the early 1980s, has been the only nation in the developed world whose birth rate has increased, from 1.8 to 2.1.  All the information I've seen has been that most of the birth rates' growth has been due to immigration.  Indeed, nearly half of America's growth of population in the past year (1.4 out of 2.9 million), has been due to the increase in the Hispanic and mostly immigrant population. 

The point?  That America is still the most hospitable place in the world for the immigrant.  If there is someone you know who wants to live, work, or study here, it can be done.  There are people who can, and will help.  Some of them are people I know, and I have been involved myself.

Tomorrow I'll be putting up some links to some helpful information that you can pass along to that special person you know who wants to make the move to come to the USA.  In the meantime, it is after 4 a.m., and I've got to get some sleep.  See you later.  Au revoir/Ciao/Adios.  God bless.