I'm still laughing over a recent Friedman column praising Singapore for how they've adapted to the flat world.
But today its per capita income is just below U.S. levels, built with high-end manufacturing, services and exports. The country’s economy grew last year at 14.7 percent, led by biomedical exports.
...
Singapore probably has the freest market in the world
Props
So what's similar between Singapore and the United States?
Singapore is tiny and by no means a U.S.-style democracy. Yet, like America, it has a multiethnic population — Chinese, Indian and Malay — with a big working class.
HAHAHAHA. You're kidding, right? Friedman is essentially saying that being ethnically diverse is a characteristic in and of itself, and the type of diversity means nothing.
Singapore ethnic breakdown:
Chinese: 76.8%
Malay: 13.9%
Indian: 7.9%
Other: 1.4%
United States ethnic breakdown:
White: 60% (80-15% hispanic)
Black: 12.85%
Hispanic: 15%
Asian: 4.43%
Other: 2%
So, the Singaporeans have the Indians and Malays to work with, we have blacks and hispanics. Let's compare:
According to the wikipedia article
Today, Indians earn higher average monthly incomes than the Chinese or Malays and are more likely to hold a university degree than these groups.
Hmmm.....not exactly the equivalent for a minority group, eh?
this article speculates on why Malays haven't done as well as Chinese:
What is of particular in this subject is the way that Malays tended to retain their traditional social forms and many of their occupational patterns despite urbanisation, while the Chinese have embraced the whole process more wholeheartedl
Come on....do you really need to know the answer?
Here is the link: average IQ in Malaysia: 92. Average IQ in China? 100.
Even assuming that the average Malay has an average IQ of 90, African Americans have an average IQ of 85. Hispanic IQ is in the low 90's.
Therefore, Singapore has 14% minority population dragging it down, while the United States has 27.8% Black + Hispanic. Significant difference. This is in addition to a Chinese IQ higher than white IQ.
Thank god we have the jews
Yet another example of Thomas Friedman ignoring racial implications of his flat world theories.
The rest of his column, though, has good pointers about how to reform the government in the US.
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Common Sense Immigration Policy
Here is a recent op ed on immigration policy advocating more skilled workers.
The United States issues far more patents - a primary measure of innovation - than any other country, but immigrants were responsible for about a quarter of them in recent years, according to a study by researchers at Harvard Business School and elsewhere.
At Intel, the world's largest maker of semiconductors, 40 percent of the patents are for work done by Chinese or Indian immigrants, the Council on Foreign Relations reported in 2009.
Immigrants create patents at twice the rate of native-born Americans because they disproportionately hold degrees in science and engineering, Marjolaine Gauthier-Loiselle and Jennifer Hunt concluded in a study published last year by the Center for Economic Research in London.
Yes, more high-IQ immigrants! I don't think the average American is opposed to that. However, they are opposed to low-IQ Mexican immigration.
Border security and skills have nothing to do with each other. Politically linking them may placate the nativists, but it also puts us on the road to national decline, which surely neither party wants.
What the hell does this mean? Look, just come out and say it: we want engineers, not dumb illiterate Latino peasants.
Now, was that so hard?
The United States issues far more patents - a primary measure of innovation - than any other country, but immigrants were responsible for about a quarter of them in recent years, according to a study by researchers at Harvard Business School and elsewhere.
At Intel, the world's largest maker of semiconductors, 40 percent of the patents are for work done by Chinese or Indian immigrants, the Council on Foreign Relations reported in 2009.
Immigrants create patents at twice the rate of native-born Americans because they disproportionately hold degrees in science and engineering, Marjolaine Gauthier-Loiselle and Jennifer Hunt concluded in a study published last year by the Center for Economic Research in London.
Yes, more high-IQ immigrants! I don't think the average American is opposed to that. However, they are opposed to low-IQ Mexican immigration.
Border security and skills have nothing to do with each other. Politically linking them may placate the nativists, but it also puts us on the road to national decline, which surely neither party wants.
What the hell does this mean? Look, just come out and say it: we want engineers, not dumb illiterate Latino peasants.
Now, was that so hard?
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
SOTU Point by point II
We need to teach our kids that it's not just the winner of the Super Bowl who deserves to be celebrated, but the winner of the science fair.
I would LOVE this to happen, but all I can do is point to a phrase:
FOLLOW THE PUSSY
Roissy explains here why nerd-worship is not possible among a broad selection of the population. Guys will always go for the image that's going to get them laid, not the image that's going to help the US maintain dominance!
And let's stop expelling talented, responsible young people who could be staffing our research labs or starting a new business, who could be further enriching this nation.
I actually agree with the DREAM act, from an HBD perspective. But, we also have to do the corollary policies: Build a wall, deport those who aren't contributing, and amend the immigration system to make it easier for educated workers to immigrate, and harder for peasants with nothing to offer.
China is building faster trains and newer airports.
When supposedly patriotic conservatives criticize high speed rail as pie in the sky, what is their reaction when they see China leaping ahead in train technology? They would rather continue subsidizing Saudi oil then making it easier to ride a train from LA to San Diego instead of driving?
Within 25 years, our goal is to give 80 percent of Americans access to high-speed rail.
Nice sentiment, but geography is quickly becoming irrelevant. See here
What I'm not willing to do -- what I'm not willing to do is go back to the days when insurance companies could deny someone coverage because of a preexisting condition.
Which brings us back to the eternal fundamental health care debate: do I have the obligation to pay for the health care of another American? If, over the course of 30 years, an American is going to use 5 million dollars worth of health care, but only contribute 1 million dollars in taxes, does society have an obligation to keep him maintained?
Ok, I'm done.
SOTU Point by point I
I'm going to do what every blogger in the world has been doing: SOTU point by point. However, I hope two things will set me apart from the HBD-osphere:
1) I'm hardcore pro American
2) I was an Obama maniac in 2008, and honestly, I still like the guy and wish him well. While no one really knows whats going on in his head the way GWB or Reagan was readable, I think there is some inherent goodness in him.
Here we go, random quotes that I think are important either for their truth or shocking confusion:
We believe that in a country where every race and faith and point of view can be found, we are still bound together as one people; that we share common hopes and a common creed; that the dreams of a little girl in Tucson are not so different than those of our own children, and that they all deserve the chance to be fulfilled.
That, too, is what sets us apart as a nation.
Basic American creed, that the US, as a nation, transcends race and religion.
At stake is whether new jobs and industries take root in this country, or somewhere else. It's whether the hard work and industry of our people is rewarded. It's whether we sustain the leadership that has made America not just a place on a map, but the light to the world.
At stake is whether we or China dominate the Globe.
In a single generation, revolutions in technology have transformed the way we live, work and do business. Steel mills that once needed 1,000 workers can now do the same work with 100. Today, just about any company can set up shop, hire workers, and sell their products wherever there's an Internet connection.
Meanwhile, nations like China and India realized that with some changes of their own, they could compete in this new world. And so they started educating their children earlier and longer, with greater emphasis on math and science. They're investing in research and new technologies. Just recently, China became the home to the world's largest private solar research facility, and the world's fastest computer.
It was important for him to say this. Put our national challenges in a technological and globalized context. This, to some degree, pre empts the tea party "leave me alone" rhetoric.
What's more, we are the first nation to be founded for the sake of an idea -– the idea that each of us deserves the chance to shape our own destiny.
A profound statement, but accurate. Unfortunate that it was buried amid other ideas. We really are the best.
The first step in winning the future is encouraging American innovation. None of us can predict with certainty what the next big industry will be or where the new jobs will come from. Thirty years ago, we couldn't know that something called the Internet would lead to an economic revolution. What we can do -- what America does better than anyone else -- is spark the creativity and imagination of our people.
That's it - no escaping it. The creative will dominate once automation and outsourcing become standard.
But because it's not always profitable for companies to invest in basic research, throughout our history, our government has provided cutting-edge scientists and inventors with the support that they need.
This is basic economics. Basic research is a HUGE positive externality, so no one has the motivation to do it. Right wing libertarians have no way to generate basic research when free riding is so rampant.
So instead of subsidizing yesterday's energy, let's invest in tomorrow's.
Even if global warming is a sham, do we want to be behind China on this? Do we not want to be on the forefrunt of new industries? Do we want to keep subsidizing Russia and Saudi Arabia?
Over the next 10 years, nearly half of all new jobs will require education that goes beyond a high school education. And yet, as many as a quarter of our students aren't even finishing high school.
The singularity is coming. Automation is going to kill our workers more than cheap workers in China or India.
The quality of our math and science education lags behind many other nations.
This is purely an HBD issue. Steve Sailer eloquently breaks down the dempgraphics of our PISA scores here .
1) I'm hardcore pro American
2) I was an Obama maniac in 2008, and honestly, I still like the guy and wish him well. While no one really knows whats going on in his head the way GWB or Reagan was readable, I think there is some inherent goodness in him.
Here we go, random quotes that I think are important either for their truth or shocking confusion:
We believe that in a country where every race and faith and point of view can be found, we are still bound together as one people; that we share common hopes and a common creed; that the dreams of a little girl in Tucson are not so different than those of our own children, and that they all deserve the chance to be fulfilled.
That, too, is what sets us apart as a nation.
Basic American creed, that the US, as a nation, transcends race and religion.
At stake is whether new jobs and industries take root in this country, or somewhere else. It's whether the hard work and industry of our people is rewarded. It's whether we sustain the leadership that has made America not just a place on a map, but the light to the world.
At stake is whether we or China dominate the Globe.
In a single generation, revolutions in technology have transformed the way we live, work and do business. Steel mills that once needed 1,000 workers can now do the same work with 100. Today, just about any company can set up shop, hire workers, and sell their products wherever there's an Internet connection.
Meanwhile, nations like China and India realized that with some changes of their own, they could compete in this new world. And so they started educating their children earlier and longer, with greater emphasis on math and science. They're investing in research and new technologies. Just recently, China became the home to the world's largest private solar research facility, and the world's fastest computer.
It was important for him to say this. Put our national challenges in a technological and globalized context. This, to some degree, pre empts the tea party "leave me alone" rhetoric.
What's more, we are the first nation to be founded for the sake of an idea -– the idea that each of us deserves the chance to shape our own destiny.
A profound statement, but accurate. Unfortunate that it was buried amid other ideas. We really are the best.
The first step in winning the future is encouraging American innovation. None of us can predict with certainty what the next big industry will be or where the new jobs will come from. Thirty years ago, we couldn't know that something called the Internet would lead to an economic revolution. What we can do -- what America does better than anyone else -- is spark the creativity and imagination of our people.
That's it - no escaping it. The creative will dominate once automation and outsourcing become standard.
But because it's not always profitable for companies to invest in basic research, throughout our history, our government has provided cutting-edge scientists and inventors with the support that they need.
This is basic economics. Basic research is a HUGE positive externality, so no one has the motivation to do it. Right wing libertarians have no way to generate basic research when free riding is so rampant.
So instead of subsidizing yesterday's energy, let's invest in tomorrow's.
Even if global warming is a sham, do we want to be behind China on this? Do we not want to be on the forefrunt of new industries? Do we want to keep subsidizing Russia and Saudi Arabia?
Over the next 10 years, nearly half of all new jobs will require education that goes beyond a high school education. And yet, as many as a quarter of our students aren't even finishing high school.
The singularity is coming. Automation is going to kill our workers more than cheap workers in China or India.
The quality of our math and science education lags behind many other nations.
This is purely an HBD issue. Steve Sailer eloquently breaks down the dempgraphics of our PISA scores here .
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Japan vs. China
Is the China fear a rehash of the Japan fears? this nytimes article says possibly .
What I think is funny, though, is no worries about Nigeria, Brazil, Indonesia, India, and Pakistan challenging US superiority.
Why? IQ.
Does no one see the irony that the two non western countries to challenge the US while the Soviet Union was in decline are both Asian?
What I think is funny, though, is no worries about Nigeria, Brazil, Indonesia, India, and Pakistan challenging US superiority.
Why? IQ.
Does no one see the irony that the two non western countries to challenge the US while the Soviet Union was in decline are both Asian?
Saturday, May 15, 2010
What would Friedman say
So if he could say what he wanted, what would he say?
This analysis of Friedman's Dream Team column talks about the real kind of immigration that Friedman wants:
His enthusiasm is authentic, but the immigration he's endorsing is of a kind that never figures in any of the tediously repetitive Times editorials in favor of open borders. The immigration Friedman wants – "legal," "orderly," resulting in America's attracting and retaining "the world's first-round aspirational and intellectual draft choices" – can actually be seen as consonant with the Center for Immigration Studies' advocacy of a "pro-immigrant policy of lower immigration" predicated on the national interest.
In fact, it's axiomatic that immigration Friedman-style is wholly antithetical to current immigration policy and "comprehensive immigration reform" – which begins with amnesty, though that's an instrumentality, not remotely an end in itself.
This cataclysmic immigration will come overwhelmingly from oligarchic Latin American cultures with chasm-like divides between the rich and the poor, with oppressive, rigid class systems that give their citizenry, particularly their own poor, little access to learning or the means or motivation to pursue the life of the mind. It will result in the importation of a vast less-skilled demographic that is the inverse of Friedman's "Real Dream Team." According to data from the Pew Hispanic Center, some 30 percent of immigrants from Mexico have not finished 9th grade; some 62 percent lack high school diplomas.
Unlike the 40 finalists, a high proportion of the children of today's legal and illegal less-skilled immigrants from Mexico and Central America have parents with very low levels of education, and the parents' education attainment is one of the best predictors of a child's success. The result is that many children from Latin American immigrant families are dropping out of school and socializing downward. While Hispanics once had the highest rate of intact families of any group, the native-born children and grandchildren of Hispanic immigrants have rates of out-of-wedlock births second only to those in the African-American community, one of the principal causes and symptoms of the crises that beset the black community. Nearly half of Hispanic immigrant families use at least one federal welfare program, and the education system is not providing a basis for upward social mobility. In our knowledge-based, post industrial society it is unlikely that the immigrants who come here from Mexico and Central America will provide many of the finalists for the Intel Talent Search for generations; meanwhile we can predict inverse outcomes: high rates of academic failure, functional illiteracy in two languages, welfare dependency, out-of-wedlock births, and disproportionate rates of incarceration.
Devastating.
If Thomas L. Friedman chose to use his influential voice – one especially resonant among liberal Americans – to help them understand how radically different is the immigration he advocates from the sort being pushed by the cynical, greedy, or ethnically chauvinist "comprehensive reform" crowd, he might actually make a difference.
One is allowed to hope, right?
here is another realistic take on Friedman.
another piece actually accuses Friedman of pro-Asian racism:
In our brave new multicultural world presumably it’s okay to be racist so long as the preferred groups aren’t white. Friedman (or his “brainy Indian friend”) are arguing for more immigration by what used to be called the “model minorities,” East and South Asians, who unlike America’s own minorities apparently possess the human, social, and economic capital to become exemplars of the Protestant Ethic. Of course, arguing certain nationalities inherently possess these superior traits is the essence of racism, the flipside of the Nordicism of historical restrictionism and contemporary Buchananism. Though Friedman does make a passing genuflection for immigration by the world’s “best and brightest,” it’s clear who he thinks they are.
Is that really so bad?
Either way, Mexico is completely hypocritical in it's criticism of the Arizona law
And they are actually trying to push illegal immigrants to the US to remove the powder keg.
This analysis of Friedman's Dream Team column talks about the real kind of immigration that Friedman wants:
His enthusiasm is authentic, but the immigration he's endorsing is of a kind that never figures in any of the tediously repetitive Times editorials in favor of open borders. The immigration Friedman wants – "legal," "orderly," resulting in America's attracting and retaining "the world's first-round aspirational and intellectual draft choices" – can actually be seen as consonant with the Center for Immigration Studies' advocacy of a "pro-immigrant policy of lower immigration" predicated on the national interest.
In fact, it's axiomatic that immigration Friedman-style is wholly antithetical to current immigration policy and "comprehensive immigration reform" – which begins with amnesty, though that's an instrumentality, not remotely an end in itself.
This cataclysmic immigration will come overwhelmingly from oligarchic Latin American cultures with chasm-like divides between the rich and the poor, with oppressive, rigid class systems that give their citizenry, particularly their own poor, little access to learning or the means or motivation to pursue the life of the mind. It will result in the importation of a vast less-skilled demographic that is the inverse of Friedman's "Real Dream Team." According to data from the Pew Hispanic Center, some 30 percent of immigrants from Mexico have not finished 9th grade; some 62 percent lack high school diplomas.
Unlike the 40 finalists, a high proportion of the children of today's legal and illegal less-skilled immigrants from Mexico and Central America have parents with very low levels of education, and the parents' education attainment is one of the best predictors of a child's success. The result is that many children from Latin American immigrant families are dropping out of school and socializing downward. While Hispanics once had the highest rate of intact families of any group, the native-born children and grandchildren of Hispanic immigrants have rates of out-of-wedlock births second only to those in the African-American community, one of the principal causes and symptoms of the crises that beset the black community. Nearly half of Hispanic immigrant families use at least one federal welfare program, and the education system is not providing a basis for upward social mobility. In our knowledge-based, post industrial society it is unlikely that the immigrants who come here from Mexico and Central America will provide many of the finalists for the Intel Talent Search for generations; meanwhile we can predict inverse outcomes: high rates of academic failure, functional illiteracy in two languages, welfare dependency, out-of-wedlock births, and disproportionate rates of incarceration.
Devastating.
If Thomas L. Friedman chose to use his influential voice – one especially resonant among liberal Americans – to help them understand how radically different is the immigration he advocates from the sort being pushed by the cynical, greedy, or ethnically chauvinist "comprehensive reform" crowd, he might actually make a difference.
One is allowed to hope, right?
here is another realistic take on Friedman.
another piece actually accuses Friedman of pro-Asian racism:
In our brave new multicultural world presumably it’s okay to be racist so long as the preferred groups aren’t white. Friedman (or his “brainy Indian friend”) are arguing for more immigration by what used to be called the “model minorities,” East and South Asians, who unlike America’s own minorities apparently possess the human, social, and economic capital to become exemplars of the Protestant Ethic. Of course, arguing certain nationalities inherently possess these superior traits is the essence of racism, the flipside of the Nordicism of historical restrictionism and contemporary Buchananism. Though Friedman does make a passing genuflection for immigration by the world’s “best and brightest,” it’s clear who he thinks they are.
Is that really so bad?
Either way, Mexico is completely hypocritical in it's criticism of the Arizona law
And they are actually trying to push illegal immigrants to the US to remove the powder keg.
Monday, April 26, 2010
How to articulate an immigration policy Part 2: Thomas Friedman is HBD aware
So we've seen somewhat different perspectives on immigration. But ultimately this is the key fact:
Demography is destiny . The higher intelligence a country's population has, the stronger it will be. The better suited it will be to complete in a flat world. The more time will pass before the country's workers become irrelevant through automation. The more likely the country will not be a replay of what happened to Native Indians when the Europeans came .
Anyway, you got my point. But even more basically, I think the United States is the greatest force for good in the world. We spread freedom, communication, democracy, equality, human rights. And the best way for us to keep doing that is to stay as strong as possible by having the most productive people.
This means people with high IQ. This will mean an immigration policy that screens for IQ. This will mean disparate impact between races. This isn't allowed.
So, how do we gain such a policy without it being defeated by egalitarians? Marketing.
And we consult the go to guy of sexy policy marketing, Thomas Friedman.
In a recent column on America's capital, he talks about the role of intelligent immigrants in improving the US.
Linda Zhou, Alice Wei Zhao, Lori Ying, Angela Yu-Yun Yeung, Lynnelle Lin Ye, Kevin Young Xu, Benjamin Chang Sun, Jane Yoonhae Suh, Katheryn Cheng Shi, Sunanda Sharma, Sarine Gayaneh Shahmirian, Arjun Ranganath Puranik, Raman Venkat Nelakant, Akhil Mathew, Paul Masih Das, David Chienyun Liu, Elisa Bisi Lin, Yifan Li, Lanair Amaad Lett, Ruoyi Jiang, Otana Agape Jakpor, Peter Danming Hu, Yale Wang Fan, Yuval Yaacov Calev, Levent Alpoge, John Vincenzo Capodilupo and Namrata Anand.
No, sorry, it was not a dinner of the China-India Friendship League. Give up?
O.K. All these kids are American high school students. They were the majority of the 40 finalists in the 2010 Intel Science Talent Search, which, through a national contest, identifies and honors the top math and science high school students in America, based on their solutions to scientific problems. The awards dinner was Tuesday, and, as you can see from the above list, most finalists hailed from immigrant families, largely from Asia.
Not shocked. China and India are the two biggest countries in the world. So when both each are limited to only 50K immigrants per year you're naturally going to get some sort of cream. Also, the elites in both countries (especially so in India) have cultures pro-Education.
When I asked her the secret, she said it was the resources provided by her school, extremely “supportive parents” and a grant from Intel that let her spend part of each day inspiring and preparing students to enter this contest. Then she told me this: Local San Jose realtors are running ads in newspapers in China and India telling potential immigrants to “buy a home” in her Lynbrook school district because it produced “two Intel science winners.”
Haha. Supportive parents? That's code of high IQ and good parents. But yes, I agree. We've got to get the best talent possible.
But let's transition away. In wake of the Arizona law, we have to look at Mexican immigration. Well, let's see what Friedman has to say about that.
.....
No, I'm serious. On the biggest issue of the day, Thomas Friedman has absolutely nothing to say even though he's the guru of "how can America compete in the globalized economy" industry.
Oh, wait. I think I've found something from his column on green energy.
After months of heroic negotiations, Senators John Kerry, Lindsey Graham and Joseph Lieberman had forged a bipartisan climate/energy/jobs bill that, while far from perfect, would have, for the first time, put a long-term fixed price on carbon — precisely the kind of price signal U.S. industry and consumers need to start really shifting the economy to clean-power innovations. The bill was supposed to be unveiled on Monday, but it was suddenly postponed because of Graham’s justified fury that the Senate Democratic leader, Harry Reid, had decided to push immigration reform first — even though no such bill is ready — in a bid to attract Hispanic voters to revive his re-election campaign in Nevada.
That's it? Oh, wait there's one more from another recent column.
This critical piece of energy legislation was supposed to be unveiled by the three senators on Monday, but it was suddenly postponed late Saturday because of Senator Graham’s fury that the Senate Democratic leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, and the White House were planning to take up a highly controversial immigration measure before the energy bill.
If this is what the Obama administration is doing — to score a few cheap political points with Hispanics — it is a travesty.
This is something. Friedman rants about the paralysis in our political system, and is usually on. Too many extremists, not enough centrists. Too much political correctness. But I think he's trying to use complaining about our political system as a means by which to go against amnesty in immigration reform.
But he can't outright say it, or he'll lose alot of his neocon (invade the world/invite the world) supporters.
So, in today's column on the Mexico Narco war, he goes for the sensational.
The Mexican government just issued a travel advisory warning Mexicans about going to Arizona — where they could get arrested by the police for no reason — and the U.S. government just issued a travel advisory warning Americans about going to northern Mexico — where they could get shot by drug dealers for no reason.
Funny. Not so much for the people living there.
We take the Mexican-American relationship for granted. But with the drug wars in Mexico turning into Wild West shootouts on city streets and with our own immigration politics turning more heated, what’s happening in Mexico has become much more critical to American foreign policy and merits more of our attention. Mexico is not Afghanistan, but it also has not become all that it hoped to be by now. Something feels stalled here.
And that's all he has to say about immigration. How can you talk about Mexico and ignore the elephant in the room - illegal, low skilled immigration?
You can't, so he shut off comments for this column.
But anyway, the something feels stalled here has a very simple explanation. In terms of Mexico's potential it has already been reached. For the amount of educated, intelligent people in the country relative to the illiterate, Mexico has been maxed out. Unlike China and India, which still have a ways to meeting their potential, Mexico has been intertwined with the US for decades and so already has had the chance to meet it's potential but hasn't. We can't say that.
Demography is destiny . The higher intelligence a country's population has, the stronger it will be. The better suited it will be to complete in a flat world. The more time will pass before the country's workers become irrelevant through automation. The more likely the country will not be a replay of what happened to Native Indians when the Europeans came .
Anyway, you got my point. But even more basically, I think the United States is the greatest force for good in the world. We spread freedom, communication, democracy, equality, human rights. And the best way for us to keep doing that is to stay as strong as possible by having the most productive people.
This means people with high IQ. This will mean an immigration policy that screens for IQ. This will mean disparate impact between races. This isn't allowed.
So, how do we gain such a policy without it being defeated by egalitarians? Marketing.
And we consult the go to guy of sexy policy marketing, Thomas Friedman.
In a recent column on America's capital, he talks about the role of intelligent immigrants in improving the US.
Linda Zhou, Alice Wei Zhao, Lori Ying, Angela Yu-Yun Yeung, Lynnelle Lin Ye, Kevin Young Xu, Benjamin Chang Sun, Jane Yoonhae Suh, Katheryn Cheng Shi, Sunanda Sharma, Sarine Gayaneh Shahmirian, Arjun Ranganath Puranik, Raman Venkat Nelakant, Akhil Mathew, Paul Masih Das, David Chienyun Liu, Elisa Bisi Lin, Yifan Li, Lanair Amaad Lett, Ruoyi Jiang, Otana Agape Jakpor, Peter Danming Hu, Yale Wang Fan, Yuval Yaacov Calev, Levent Alpoge, John Vincenzo Capodilupo and Namrata Anand.
No, sorry, it was not a dinner of the China-India Friendship League. Give up?
O.K. All these kids are American high school students. They were the majority of the 40 finalists in the 2010 Intel Science Talent Search, which, through a national contest, identifies and honors the top math and science high school students in America, based on their solutions to scientific problems. The awards dinner was Tuesday, and, as you can see from the above list, most finalists hailed from immigrant families, largely from Asia.
Not shocked. China and India are the two biggest countries in the world. So when both each are limited to only 50K immigrants per year you're naturally going to get some sort of cream. Also, the elites in both countries (especially so in India) have cultures pro-Education.
When I asked her the secret, she said it was the resources provided by her school, extremely “supportive parents” and a grant from Intel that let her spend part of each day inspiring and preparing students to enter this contest. Then she told me this: Local San Jose realtors are running ads in newspapers in China and India telling potential immigrants to “buy a home” in her Lynbrook school district because it produced “two Intel science winners.”
Haha. Supportive parents? That's code of high IQ and good parents. But yes, I agree. We've got to get the best talent possible.
But let's transition away. In wake of the Arizona law, we have to look at Mexican immigration. Well, let's see what Friedman has to say about that.
.....
No, I'm serious. On the biggest issue of the day, Thomas Friedman has absolutely nothing to say even though he's the guru of "how can America compete in the globalized economy" industry.
Oh, wait. I think I've found something from his column on green energy.
After months of heroic negotiations, Senators John Kerry, Lindsey Graham and Joseph Lieberman had forged a bipartisan climate/energy/jobs bill that, while far from perfect, would have, for the first time, put a long-term fixed price on carbon — precisely the kind of price signal U.S. industry and consumers need to start really shifting the economy to clean-power innovations. The bill was supposed to be unveiled on Monday, but it was suddenly postponed because of Graham’s justified fury that the Senate Democratic leader, Harry Reid, had decided to push immigration reform first — even though no such bill is ready — in a bid to attract Hispanic voters to revive his re-election campaign in Nevada.
That's it? Oh, wait there's one more from another recent column.
This critical piece of energy legislation was supposed to be unveiled by the three senators on Monday, but it was suddenly postponed late Saturday because of Senator Graham’s fury that the Senate Democratic leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, and the White House were planning to take up a highly controversial immigration measure before the energy bill.
If this is what the Obama administration is doing — to score a few cheap political points with Hispanics — it is a travesty.
This is something. Friedman rants about the paralysis in our political system, and is usually on. Too many extremists, not enough centrists. Too much political correctness. But I think he's trying to use complaining about our political system as a means by which to go against amnesty in immigration reform.
But he can't outright say it, or he'll lose alot of his neocon (invade the world/invite the world) supporters.
So, in today's column on the Mexico Narco war, he goes for the sensational.
The Mexican government just issued a travel advisory warning Mexicans about going to Arizona — where they could get arrested by the police for no reason — and the U.S. government just issued a travel advisory warning Americans about going to northern Mexico — where they could get shot by drug dealers for no reason.
Funny. Not so much for the people living there.
We take the Mexican-American relationship for granted. But with the drug wars in Mexico turning into Wild West shootouts on city streets and with our own immigration politics turning more heated, what’s happening in Mexico has become much more critical to American foreign policy and merits more of our attention. Mexico is not Afghanistan, but it also has not become all that it hoped to be by now. Something feels stalled here.
And that's all he has to say about immigration. How can you talk about Mexico and ignore the elephant in the room - illegal, low skilled immigration?
You can't, so he shut off comments for this column.
But anyway, the something feels stalled here has a very simple explanation. In terms of Mexico's potential it has already been reached. For the amount of educated, intelligent people in the country relative to the illiterate, Mexico has been maxed out. Unlike China and India, which still have a ways to meeting their potential, Mexico has been intertwined with the US for decades and so already has had the chance to meet it's potential but hasn't. We can't say that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)