David Frum tries to fill the pair of clown shoes that have been sitting around the CNN offices since Lou Dobbs left:

Many Americans carry in their minds a family memory of upward mobility, from great-grandpa stepping off the boat at Ellis Island to a present generation of professionals and technology workers. This story no longer holds true for the largest single U.S. immigrant group, Mexican-Americans.

Stephen Trejo and Jeffrey Groger studied the intergenerational progress of Mexican-American immigrants in their scholarly work, “Falling Behind or Moving Up?”

They discovered that third-generation Mexican-Americans were no more likely to finish high school than second-generation Mexican-Americans. Fourth-generation Mexican-Americans did no better than third.

If these results continue to hold, the low skills of yesterday’s illegal immigrant will negatively shape the U.S. work force into the 22nd century.

Ignoring for a second the obvious flaws in this argument – that the poor educational results aren’t necessarily a result of ability, but of circumstance and environment, both which can be improved upon – you can click through to the report to see that Mexican-Americans do about as well as African-Americans. In other words, David Frum is arguing that African-Americans and Mexican-Americans negatively shape the U.S. work force. The overall argument he’s making regarding immigration is no different than if he was arguing that we need to save the U.S. economy by keeping black people from having children.

Of course, this sentiment among conservatives shouldn’t be surprising to hear. Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina specifically pointed to his state’s large African-American population as a “problem” facing his state. Conservatives often like to claim that the racism of the 1960s is dead. And in a way, they’re right. But a different racism has taken its place. What was once a more individualized contempt for any and all people of a different color has just transformed into a more subtle belief that people of a different ethnicity are collectively a burden on greater society.

Last week’s winner was mlc1us. The correct location was in Kent, WA, where a woman was saved from being crushed by a car because of her decision to add more cheese to her chili. My in-laws live right near there and sent me this picture from on the ground.

As I mentioned last week, the secret locations each week will now be related to something in the news. I should also mention that the views are no longer guaranteed to be at the default orientation. By default the Bird’s Eye Views are facing north, but you may have to rotate the view to match the picture below. Good luck!

Despite the amount of inadvertent entertainment value he provides for this site, I haven’t been very familiar with the work of Ted Van Dyk. But in looking around at various items related to the new law in Arizona, I came across his column from yesterday in Crosscut.

In providing some context for why the law has enjoyed widespread popularity, Van Dyk writes:

The middle-sized central Arizona city, where I spend time, until recently was best known for its small colleges, farming, and ranching. It is a conservative place but populated as well by California and Midwest retirees drawn to the city’s natural setting and authentic old neighborhoods with Victorian homes. In recent years, however, it has been flooded by inflows of illegal Latinos far different from the family- and church-oriented, hard working Latinos familiar to Arizonans over many decades. Violent crime, drug production and trafficking, burglaries, and road accidents have skyrocketed. Burdens (and costs) also have mushroomed for local law enforcement, social service, and education agencies. Citizens no longer take casual night strolls they once did.

The home I share there with my life partner has been shaken twice in recent months by automobiles careening at high speed into its yard, both times driven by illegals high on drugs (who both fled the scene on foot, to be apprehended later). The drivers had no insurance and promptly disappeared, making restitution for property damage impossible.

Down the street, in this traditional neighborhood, a family residence became a notorious drug-distribution point, with autos driving through to make pickups, night and day. Couriers on bikes (Latinos, as it happens) made drug deliveries throughout the city. Law enforcement recently was able to stop the operation, after several years. But it was only one of many in the city.

The deterioration of Phoenix is not merely anecdotal. The amount of drug cartel activity and kidnappings has gone way up in recent years. But as Dave Neiwert points out here, this is a drug prohibition problem, not an illegal immigration problem. Going after illegal immigrants will do absolutely nothing to address what many Arizonans see as the justification for their new law.

The escalation in the violence has been a result of a number of factors. As I’ve written about previously, the strength of Mexico’s drug cartels was a result of our relative success in cracking down on Colombian cartels. In addition, the border crackdowns since 9/11 have forced those cartels to move more of their operations into the United States, especially by growing marijuana in public lands within America instead of trying to smuggle it across the border. Third, the nationwide efforts to restrict sales of over-the-counter cold medicines – making it much harder to cook up large quantities of methamphetamines – has shifted that trade from being small and local to being a more high-scale operation that makes its way from Mexico through the southwest.

All of these things have made Phoenix, which sits in an ideal location near the Mexican border, a major transit and operation point for Mexican-based drug distribution networks. This is wholly separate from the reality of the vast majority of illegal laborers within the United States, most of whom are still the “church-oriented, hardworking Latinos” that Van Dyk fondly remembers. He probably doesn’t see that so much now that the growing anti-immigration paranoia has painted targets on their backs.

Not surprisingly, none of this history shows up in Van Dyk’s column, despite the fact that it’s the reason for why there’s now so much crime there. Instead, what’s left unchallenged is the incorrect assumption that all of these bad things are simply the result of people coming here illegally to work. In reality, the cause and effect is reversed. Drug prohibition and the empowering of the cartels over the past 20 years is what has created the need for so many people in Mexico to seek low-wage employment in the United States. And now that the violence and economic devastation is starting to follow them across the border, we’re blaming them and continuing to ignore the real villain.

I don’t think I need to add anything to Jon’s sentiments from earlier this week. There’s little to no distinction between the actions of those behind the Arizona law and the kinds of things that real fascists were doing in the beginning of their rises to power. And the attempts to misdirect blame for the failures of drug prohibition onto some of the individuals who’ve been most negatively affected by it is appalling.

Of course, this isn’t a criticism of Ted Van Dyk. In his column, he recognizes the potential grave injustices that this law tries to normalize. But there’s a separate criticism that needs to be made. And it’s to all of those in the media who continue to discuss the topic of illegal immigration without even mentioning the central role that drug prohibition plays in it. Without that context, we will continue to remain angry at the wrong people and will continue to steer ourselves towards that more dangerous world where large classes of our fellow citizens lose the presumption of innocence that should be a right to us all.

– Today is the Global Marijuana Liberation March, another great day to go out and sign the petition for I-1068. Ironically, today is also the day for a large pro-immigration reform march downtown as well. I say ironically because ending marijuana prohibition might do more than anything else to reduce the number of people fleeing Mexico’s tattered economy and violent war against the cartels in order to seek employment in the United States.

– A group called Citizens Against Legalizing Marijuana (CALM) is taking the lead in putting out absurd arguments in favor of maintaining prohibition.

– Tom Schaller writes about why the Arizona immigration law remains popular, despite the scary reality of what it does and the clear parallels to other police states throughout history. Liliana Segura at Alternet gives the law enforcement perspective on why the law will end up undermining the safety of Arizonans, rather than improving it.

As I’ve mentioned previously, my lack of posting in recent weeks has been due to a house move. My wife and I sold our 1950s style house in Maple Leaf and bought a larger and newer house in the outskirts of Renton. The primary motivations for the move were to get a home that better fit our growing family (my son just turned one) and to find a place that was quieter (for 6 years, we lived next to a rental property that had a number of late night gatherings). The latter issue became especially more difficult as the former issue became a reality. There’s nothing more infuriating than being woken up by a drunk college girl yelling “woooooooooo” outside your window at 2am when your baby is actually getting some sleep in.

We’re now nestled in a quiet cul-de-sac with a three car garage. No bus access, no ability to walk to the grocery store or the pizza place. Even with my wife so determined to leave the city behind, as the time approached, she began to think more and more about how hard it would be to let go of those niceties. Everything is a trade-off though, and you can’t go through life moping about the things you don’t have. You’ll never have everything, so it makes sense to just appreciate what you have. And despite all of the totally fucked up things I write about here – from war to corruption to our broken political culture – I don’t let that overwhelm the fact that a person in my shoes is luckier than most in this world.

That trade-off, between living in a dense walkable area and living in a spread out suburb, is one that sparks a lot of political judgments. I’ve never quite understood the passion behind those judgments. Urban vs. suburban living is a matter of personal choice. In the years previous, my desire to avoid having to drive to work outweighed just about all other factors in my choice of where to live. This time, other factors informed my choice and the outcome was completely different. As we did our house search, I became fascinated by the effect that the Growth Management Act had on the way we valued potential homes. While I don’t question the need for the GMA, it certainly made us more inclined to look at older homes with more of a yard. In the end, we still bought a house built after the GMA took effect, but we hardly looked at new construction at all, as most of them had hardly any yards at all.

The biggest change for me might also be the most politicized aspect of the trade-off. I’m now car-dependent again. Commuting across the 520 bridge to Microsoft in the early 2000s was my last straw then, and I now find myself with another notorious commute (although nowhere near as bad) – going from Renton to Bellevue. I recalled the old debates over roads and transit that occurred in years past, and I’ll soon recognize myself as someone who is the target of folks whose desire is to “get people out of their cars”, which I’d most likely do again – if there was a realistic alternative for me. But knowing that I’d end up in that boat had little effect on my valuation trade-off, and I’ve taken the bus for years. I’d imagine that few of my new neighbors would consider public transportation – even if it were available.

Other than that, I’m enjoying my new suburban paradise. I hooked up a toddler swing to the play area we inherited from the previous owners. I’ve baby-proofed my new kitchen cabinets and set up baby gates. And Sunday night, I watched from an upstairs window as what appeared to be bobcat sniffed our garbage. But I think the real fun starts when I start going door-to-door trying to get people to sign the I-1068 petition.

Last week’s winner was milwhcky. The correct location was Montreal.

As I mentioned last week, I’ve decided to add a twist to these contests. Instead of just being random locations, the locations I’ll be choosing from now on (including the one below) will be related to something in the news from the previous week. Here’s the first one, good luck!

I’m still getting set up at my new house, so blogging will continue to be light from me, but Jane Hamsher at Firedoglake has been doing some great blogging on the west coast push to re-legalize marijuana.

It’s today

Last week’s contest was won by mlc1us. It was Mattapoisett, MA.

I’m without internet access for the weekend as I’m in the middle of moving from North Seattle to Renton. And along with the change in my home base, I’m planning to add a new twist to these contests starting next week. In the meantime, this is contest #80 so far at HA, good luck!

Happening tomorrow morning in the House Domestic Policy Subcommittee, chaired by Dennis Kucinich.

Some breaking news this morning:

BOTHELL, Wash. — The Seattle Times printing facility in Bothell was evacuated this morning due to a strange odor that made some workers feel sick.

The incident happened around 6:30 a.m. just off 120th Avenue NE, near NE 195th Street. At this point, officials don’t know what the odor is or where it is coming from.

They have not activated a full hazmat response.

Last week’s contest was won by milwhcky for the second week in a row. It was South Charleston, WV.

Here’s this week’s, good luck!

Politifact does a good job knocking down what has become Drug Czar Gil Kerlikowske’s most elaborate attempt at drug war propaganda so far. But even so, I think they’ve undersold their argument:

To offer a more concrete example, it’s unclear how much impact a joint of marijuana inhaled two weeks ago may have on a driver today. It could well be that the two-week-old joint is less of an impairment than a legal level of alcohol in the blood — even though the study would count the marijuana user as part of that 16 percent “under the influence of drugs” yet exclude someone with .07 percent alcohol from the 2.2 percent of alcohol-impaired drivers.

A joint that you smoked two weeks ago impairs your driving ability less than the following things:

– Clouds being in the sky
– The radio station playing a crappy song
– A pimple on your ass
– Your lingering suspicions that Rob McKenna really doesn’t have a law degree
– Trying to remember when you last cleaned your cat’s litter box
– The lame sunglasses that you’re afraid to wear in public, but still keep in your car
– Laughing at someone with a Sarah Palin bumper sticker

Yet our Drug Czar continues to count people who simply test positive for marijuana in their system as ‘impaired drivers’. It’s not just a lie, it’s a huge lie, and one that he should be ashamed of saying in front of the mirror at his house, let alone to the country.

[via Pete]

Marijuana growers in Northern California are worried about the legalization initiative passing because it might lower the price of their artificially overpriced commodity.

Glenn Greenwald writes about what could be the Obama Administration’s most profound failure to date.