IN-N-OUT Blues

Once upon a time I lived on the East Coast. I always knew I'd move back to California eventually so I did not miss too many things Californian--the one exception being the Double-Double cheesburger from In-n-Out Burger. Anybody not raised in Southern California finds it hard to understand the fanatical following that this particular burger joint has inspired over the 58 years it has existed. When I would try to explain the pleasure of eating a Double-Double to my east coast friends, they would inevitably try to one up me by saying something along the lines of, "yeah, we have a place like that too--Whitecastle." It was then that a flash of red would wash over my vision, and I'd take a deep breath and tell myself they simply do not understand.
Once while living in NYC I received a UPS notice at the beginning of a long weekend. I figured whatever it was it could wait until after the weekend. It turned out it couldn't. I trekked deep into Hell's Kitchen to retrieve said package four days later. Apparently one of my California friends had sent me a Double-Double. Unfortunately it did not survive the late summer heat of the UPS werehouse, and I was told it caused quite a stink before they figured out what it was and threw it away--unceremoniously no doubt.
Later that year I got back to my apartment after several cocktails and there was a package on my bed. A different friend had sent me a Double-Double via express mail. Booze compelled me to eat 1/4 of it before I realized it wasn't exactly fresh. Nevertheless, I savored those bites!
I went vegetarian once for 6 months. That is until an apres-ski stop at In-n-Out forced me to reconsider my new diet.
Another time we were returning from Tahoe and a discussion about the best fast food burger broke out. One of the guys in the car who claimed he was a huge fan of In-n-Out convinced us that there was an even better burger to be had. We stopped to try it--some joint called Murder Burger in Davis. Shredded lettuce was the first clue that I'd been had. The only person I wanted to murder after eating there was the guy who suggested the stop.
On several occasions in many parts of the world I've been out running in my In-n-Out t-shirt and heard an approving, "In-n-out, yeaah that's what a hamburger's all about...!" from over my shoulder.

So now that I've established my In-n-Out street cred, I'll point you to a very troubling article from the Washington Post today. It seems that there's some internal strife at the closely held burger chain. The 23 year old grandaughter of the founders who is also the sole heir of the business wants to change the menu. Or if you ask her, the Board of Directors wants to change the menu. Either way that's heresey plain and simple.

Somebody should remind both parties that the best custodian of a successful institution is the person that simply keeps their hands off.

It's no fun, being an Illegal Alien

I used to be a fan of Vincente Fox. He was the first man to capture the Mexican presidency from the PRI which has run the country uninterrupted since the conclusion of the Mexican Revolution almost 80 years ago. As a former Coca Cola executive, I figured he would bring good business sense to a government that from all outward appearances lacked it. I had hoped that he would end corruption and lay the foundations of economic prosperity and smooth the way for equal application of the rule of law across the nation. By making his nation stable, perhaps the most downtrodden citizens would not feel obliged to trek northward to the USA for a better life. I guess I was wrong. One need not look any further than the border each evening at dusk to glimpse the multitudes massing for their shot at economic independence to see that he has done nothing to alleviate this problem. Actually he has done something--his government has created a pamphlet that explains how to cross the border safely. From a humanitarian viewpoint this is a good idea. If people are going to cross the border illegally they may as well do it as safely as possible. From a government policy standpoint the nicest thing I can say is that it's irresponsible at best.

I saw this headline and the following story cross the newswires today:

Fox rejects stricter U.S. immigration policy and border wall

Mexico City, Jan 23, 2006 (EFE via COMTEX) -- Mexican President Vicente Fox on Monday rejected the stiffening of U.S. immigration laws and said that the proposed construction of a wall along the mutual border by his neighbor was a "disgrace."
"If they always have been on the side of democracy and the tearing down of walls, why are they building them? I don't understand it, I can't explain it to myself. It seems to me to be a disgrace," Fox said in an interview with the Televisa news show "Primero Noticias."
Fox, who will leave the presidency in November, promised "to do battle" on this matter and demanded a "comprehensive" solution to Mexico's immigration requirements.
He also demanded "an ordered, safe and legal arrangement for all of (the Mexican migrants) who are there (in the United States), and for those who are going to go there year after year."
For said that the construction of walls along the common border is in no way acceptable, but he added that the matter could be "discussed."
The U.S. House of Representatives on Dec. 16 approved a bill - currently being debated in the Senate - strengthening Washington's fight against illegal immigration.
The bill, which was sponsored by Republican Congressman James Sensenbrenner, of Wisconsin, authorizes the construction of a wall along several stretches of the border.
In addition, it makes entering the United States illegally - and helping others to do so - a criminal offense, facilitates the deportation of undocumented immigrants and increases the sanctions on employers who hire them.
(end)

Commentary

The first thing that struck me in the headline was the audacity of Fox "rejecting" the foreign policy that is being debated in our congress. Presidents of foreign nations do not have a vote in congress last time I checked. Fox has hired a PR firm to lobby our government on the matter and I have no problem with that as many nations lobby congress; but he should leave it at that.

It's clear to see that he has much to lose if we do anything drastic about the problem of illegal immigration. $17 billion in annual remittances by illegal aliens working in the USA is a nice way to paper over the real structural problems at home. Once here, the vast majority of aliens have no incentive to assimilate into the culture they now live in. Part of this is due to the fact that Mexico is so accessible, so there's no need to cut the ties to a home thousands of miles away and assimilate like so many other immigrant groups have done throughout our history. It is unfair to those legal immigrants and US citizens fighting for jobs at the entry level as a sea of illegal immigrants ensures wage depression for all. They also put a tremendous strain on all forms of our civic infrastructure. The state collects no taxes from illegal workers or the employers who knowingly flout the law which effectively sticks law abiding citizens with the bill for maintaining that infrastructure. Something that is rarely mentioned in the whole immigration debate is the impact that such a mass exodus of mostly young, able bodied men has on the villages they leave behind. Who is to play the role that these fathers, sons and husbands should be playing in their community? I fear there is a lost generation of children who will mostly know their father only as the man who sends home a check from some foreign land.

We as a nation need to find the political will to implement a "guest worker" program similiar to the braceros program that was in place in the 1940's. A key feature of that program was a certain percentage of the worker's wages were by law placed in a Mexican bank account. In theory this was a good incentive for workers to return to Mexico. In practice not much of the money ever made it back into the hands of the workers who earned it due to the endemic corruption in Mexico. Those workers who are already here illegally could pay a fine and join the program. After a grace period of say 6 months, anybody caught working here without the proper documentaion would be deported immediately and their employer heavily fined.
In the end everybody on both sides of the border would be the better for it.

Good Night Grandpa

It must be hard to argue there's no media bias when one views the photo attached to this AP story about the execution of Clarence Ray Allen lastnight. If there was no caption or accompanying story, you may be forgiven for thinking it's simply a family portrait representing 3 harmonious generations. The background even suggests it could have been taken at a Japanese Ryokan while on vacation. Now let's have a look at the text of the article:

SAN QUENTIN, Calif. - California executed its oldest death row inmate early Tuesday, minutes after his 76th birthday, despite arguments that putting to death an elderly, blind and wheelchair-bound man was cruel and unusual punishment.
(What a cruel state! Executing a helpless old man--and minutes after he finished his birthday cake. He probably still had frosting on his lips.)

Allen, who was blind and mostly deaf, (In case you already forgot he was blind, and deaf to boot!) suffered from diabetes and had a nearly fatal heart attack in September only to be revived and returned to death row, (forget the irony for a moment and imagine the outcry if he were allowed to die of a heart attack while on Death Row) was assisted into the death chamber by four large correctional officers (very important to point out the correctional officers were large--suggesting the unnecessary use of force on such a feeble and helpless old man) and lifted out of his wheelchair.

His lawyers had raised two claims never before endorsed by the high court: that executing a frail old man would violate the Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment, and that the 23 years he spent on death row were unconstitutionally cruel as well. (As taught in law school: If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If they're both against you, call the other side names. It seems as though both the law and the facts are against him, but instead of name calling his lawyers resorted to hyperbole.)

Here's the part about the media that I find so insidious. If you don't believe me, apply this template to the next NPR story you hear. The reporter has already set the tone of the article by painting the murderer on death row as just another victim of a police state. Now we get to hear from the other side for the sake of presenting a counterpoint. I'll call it the "HOWEVER" side. After we've tolerated what the opposition has to say, the reporter returns to the original tone of the article. The final impression reinforces the first which ensures it will be lasting.

HOWEVER...

The high court rejected his requests for a stay of execution about 10 hours before he was to be put to death. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger denied Allen clemency Friday.
Allen went to prison for having his teenage son's 17-year-old girlfriend murdered for fear she would tell police about a grocery-store burglary. While behind bars, he tried to have witnesses in the case wiped out, prosecutors said. He was sentenced to death in 1982 for hiring a hit man who killed a witness and two bystanders.
"Allen deserves capital punishment because he was already serving a life sentence for murder when he masterminded the murders of three innocent young people and conspired to attack the heart of our criminal justice system," state prosecutor Ward Campbell said.

Lest the "HOWEVER" part of the article make too great of an impression, we better hear from the victim, sorry, the murderer again:

Allen expressed his love for family, friends and the other death-row inmates in a final statement read by Warden Steve Ornoski. Allen ended his statement by saying, "It's a good day to die. Thank you very much. I love you all. Goodbye."

Now we finally get to hear from the family of one of his victims about three-quarters of the way into the article:

The family of one of Allen's victims, Josephine Rocha, issued a statement saying that "justice has prevailed today."
"Mr. Allen abused the justice system with endless appeals until he lived longer in prison than the short 17 years of Josephine's life," the statement said.

Now that we've heard from the "HOWEVER" side, we can return to the original--and correct--tone of the article:

Last month in Mississippi, John B. Nixon, 77, became the oldest person executed in the United States since capital punishment resumed. He did not pursue an appeal based on his age. (Mississippi murders old people, too.)

Allen's case generated less attention than last month's execution of Crips gang co-founder Stanley Tookie Williams, whose case set off a nationwide debate over the possibility of redemption on death row, with Hollywood stars and capital punishment foes arguing that Williams had made amends by writing children's books about the dangers of gangs.
(Despite the pleas of such model citizens as Hollywood stars and people with feelings nationwide, the State of California chose to murder another misunderstood citizen who only wanted to help the world by writing children's books.)

There were only about 200 people gathered outside the prison gates before Allen's execution, about one-tenth of the crowd that came out last month.
(Sadly for Mr. Allen, his name didn't have the same marquee value as Tookie's. Or maybe all that protesting is just too exhausting so soon after Tookie's execution?)

(end)

Commentary

It's hard to feel that any sort of justice is served when, once a death penalty verdict is handed down, it automatically gets bogged down in appeals for so long that the perpetrator is magically transformed into a victim over time. During the appeals process the crime is so thoroughly dissected that it gets reduced to the point that it has no meaning--where abstract notions supplant real human suffering and damage. The victim--whose right to life was violently taken by the person behind bars--has no advocate beyond family members who must surely become fatigued by the injustice and the continual reminder via appeals that the killer of their loved one is the "real" victim.
Opponents of the death penalty are right about one thing: it is not much of a deterrent in its present form. Who would be deterred from committing a pre-meditated murder when they know they can be kept alive for years through an endless process of appeals? With time and honest jail living they may even be able to convince lots of high profile people on the outside that they are the only victim in the whole sordid affair, as Tookie Williams did.
I believe the death penalty should be applied sparingly and then only in the most horrendous of crimes. But once a guilty verdict has been reached, the sentence should be carried out in the most expeditious manner possible. A guilty person should not be allowed the luxury of time to erode the seriousness of their crime. It may even act as a deterrent if it were carried out swiftly.