The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services just released a major study on drug use and sexual behavior that purportedly used more thorough, scientific means than ever before to get more reliable results than prior surveys.

One striking conclusion: our children appear to become sexually active at surprisingly young ages. A higher percentage reports first sex below age 15 (15.6%) than the percentage waiting till age 21 or later (only 14.7%) The biggest group experiences sex for the first time between the ages of 15 and 17.

The CDC survey also shows striking racial differences when it comes to first sexual experiences. Among “non-Hispanic whites” 13.9% become sexually involved below 15; among “Mexican-Americans” the figure is 14.3%, and among “non-Hispanic blacks,” the number is nearly twice as high – with a full 27.5% experiencing sex before age 15. Only 5.8% of blacks wait till age 21 or later for first sex, but among whites a full 15.0%-- nearly three times the percentage –delay sex till the traditional age of maturity. Among Mexican-Americans, the highest percentage (16.6%) waits till age 21 for sexual initiation.

Most authorities (and most parents, certainly) would agree that sex for twelve, thirteen and fourteen year olds brings a host of problems, so it stands to reason that the much greater incidence for blacks of intimacy at these tender ages correlates with a wide range of problems in high school and even middle school. If a thirteen or fourteen year old is sexually active, for many (if not most) kids this distracting intimacy can make school that much more difficult (or even irrelevant).

It makes sense, in other words, to help close the racial gaps in educational performance by working to help inner city teenagers to avoid early onset of sexual behavior. 

One more number from the new study seems difficult to explain, or even to believe: among married people, a surprising 1.9% report that they have never had sex. If this figure reflects accurately on American reality it means that close to four million adults who are currently married still qualify as virgins.

Now that Hollywood has mined comedy gold by portraying “The Forty Year Old Virgin,” the new CDC study suggests endless dramatic and humorous possibilities for a future project about “Married Virgins.” If some enterprising screenwriter hasn’t already commandeered this idea, you can hereby steal it from this blog.

The talk about imposing a "fairness doctrine" on radio and TV has now migrated from the fringes of the far left to some of the senior Democrats on Capitol Hill -- including Senators Feinstein, Durbin and Kerry. Believe it or not, these legislators appear to be serious about abusing the power of the federal government to control the political programming private companies would be allowed to broadcast, and to prevent the public from choosing stations that sounded “too one-sided” to bureaucrats. This chilling prospect reflects the totalitarian temptation at the heart of today’s so-called progressive agenda. Leftists trust bureaucrats to determine the cars you’re allowed to drive, the guns you’re allowed to own, the terms of employment you’re allowed to negotiate, and the sort of political messages you’re allowed to receive. Conservatives prefer free-market solutions and open competition – in mass media and elsewhere – because we trust the people more than the regulators. 

Meanwhile, the prominent Democrats who have begun discussing a return of the “fairness doctrine” to regulate media debate need to answer questions on applying this policy. Since the ostensible purpose of this initiative is to guarantee the airing of all sides of hot issues, how would they treat radio or TV shows like mine that always argue the questions of the day with opposing viewpoints? Would they count the disagreeing callers each hour to make sure we conform to some governmental standard? Meanwhile, a popular late night broadcast focuses on UFO’s and ghosts. Would stations now be required to counter such discussion with skeptical programming debunking paranormal claims? Thirty years ago, liberals justified the fairness doctrine because of the limited number of media outlets: today, with hundreds of cable TV channels, radio stations, satellite radio and the internet, the consumer chooses from more alternatives than ever before – and hardly needs a paternalistic bureaucracy dictating the nature of his choices. 

It’s easy to see why the heavily-hyped Angelina Jolie movie “A Mighty Heart” flopped at the domestic box office.

Opening in 10^th place, with about half the expected proceeds, this chilling re-telling of the story of murdered reporter Daniel Pearl hardly qualifies as a good time at the multiplex or a feel-good excuse to munch popcorn. For one thing, there’s no real suspense: everyone who recalls the disgusting beheading video (referenced, but not shown, in this R-rated movie, and starring Guantanamo-detainee Khalid Sheikh Mohammad as the wielder of the knife) already knows how this awful story turns out.

Nevertheless, British director Michael Winterbottom has crafted a documentary-style narrative that feels utterly authentic, startlingly intimate and horribly depressing. While he nods dutifully to the love story between two pampered idealists (the Wall Street Journal’s Pearl and the convincing Ms. Jolie as his pregnant Cuban-French wife, Marianne) the film focuses most of its attention on the desperate difficulties of even determined and ruthless security personnel in overcoming chaos to capture or counter jihadist killers. Amazingly, this worthy effort represents only the second serious Hollywood attempt since 9/11 to portray murderous Islamist fanatics in action, and the other project of similar nature (“United 93”) also offered a chilling, verite’, historical retelling excellently crafted by a leftist Brit director.

The film’s most striking aspect involves its vivid portrayal of the crowded, sweltering, fetid, corrupt, chaotic reality of Karachi, Pakistan – a typical third-world hell-hole, rendered especially dangerous and demented by an unmistakably malevolent layer of Islamist insanity. The film hardly shies away from the unspeakable cruelty and sheer evil of Pearl’s Muslim-fanatic kidnappers – though they remain a largely unseen, if deeply felt and formidably frightening force. In the context of the dysfunctional and degenerate world captured so memorably in “A Mighty Heart,” there’s no wonder that we sometimes lose in our efforts to fight the terrorists; the real miracle is that our dedicated protectors (and their occasional Muslim allies, as shown in the film) manage to win any victories at all.

On Sunday morning, I had the opportunity of appearing on the CNN show “Reliable Sources” with Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post and one of the issues we discussed involved the recent survey by MSNBC of political donations by leading reporters and broadcasters. Of 144 journalists who had won major reputations in pint as well as electronic media, the investigation found an astonishing 90% who donated money exclusively to Democratic candidates and liberal causes. This conclusion not only provides powerful evidence (if any more proof were needed) of the consistently leftward tilt of our most important communications media, but also highlights an ongoing problem: the troubling financial connection between reporters and commentators on the one hand, and candidates on the other.

On CNN this morning,, I made the case that it’s inappropriate for journalists or editorialists to make political contributions of any sort – whether they choose to send their money to Republicans or to Democrats. Most observers would react with horror to the idea of a political candidate providing money to a journalist with the hope of more favorable coverage. Scandals in the Bush administration, involving columnist and erstwhile radio host Armstrong Williams and others, produced appropriate public indignation over an apparent effort to pay a reporter to promote a specific agenda. Even in a frankly partisan medium like talk radio, it’s not healthy for a host or commentator to find himself financially entangled with a subject of his commentary.

But it’s essential to remember that financial entanglement cuts both ways: in a sense, contributing to a candidate creates an even more compromising association than taking money from that candidate. If you support a political cause financially, you are invested in that cause, very obviously. And making an ongoing investment in the career of some politician damages objectivity far more seriously than receiving reward.

I’ve been privileged to host my talk radio show for nearly eleven years now – a bit more than a year as a local host in Seattle, and then almost ten years on a nationally syndicated basis. In that period I’ve scrupulously avoided financial contributions to any political candidate. I hardly hide my political views; I freely, and sometimes fiercely, express my enthusiasm or enthusiastic contempt for various politicians.

But contributing financially to a campaign has also struck me as unseemly and ill-considered. There are hundreds of millions of Americans who work in the widest variety of jobs who can, and sometimes do, make donations to political candidates. That’s plenty of potential political dough, without candidates taking money from those of us who enjoy the opportunity to work as journalists covering or commenting on these campaigns

Surely my favorite headline of the week came attached to an Associated Press story about a Georgia camping trip.

“EX-MARINE KILLS BEAR WITH LOG” announced the June 21^st report with a dateline of Helen, Georgia.

It turns out that a 300 pound black bear picked the wrong campsite to assault, going up against Marine Corps vet Chris Everhart and his three sons. The ursine invader initially grabbed a cooler full of food and began retreating to the forest before 6-year-old Logan threw a shovel at the woodland thief.

At that point Mr. Everhart himself picked up the nearest log, and quickly managed to dispatch the bear. He later received a ticket “for failing to secure his camp site,” but he also drew admiring comments for protecting his children—especially after the recent reports of a bear attack in Utah which proved fatal to a human 11-year-old.

My talk radio colleague David Boze (co-host of the morning show on our Seattle flagship station KTTH) took some satisfaction in the story, but questioned the attention-getting headline-- “Ex-Marine Kills Bear With Log.”

“Memo to AP,” he appropriately commented. “There is no such thing as an Ex-Marine.” 

The Seattle Times recently ran a front page story about Rev. Ann Holmes Redding, an Episcopal priest who converted to Islam. She claims that her Muslim status enhances her effectiveness as a Christian leader and teacher and her proud bishop declares himself “excited” by “interfaith possibilities.” Actually, Rev. Redding’s position involves numerous distortions – as with her insistence that belief in Christ’s divinity isn’t an essential element of Christianity, and her simulatenous dismissal of several Koranic fundamentals.

 Her situation shows that efforts to embrace two faiths simultaneously often fail to do justice to either religion. That’s also true for self-proclaimed “Messianic Jews” – whose worship of Jesus identifies their movement as a sect of Christianity, not Judaism. They may embrace their Jewish ethnicity with pride and practice numerous Hebraic customs, but in religious terms they’re properly identified as Hebrew (or Jewish) Christians, not members of some branch of Judaism.

Blurring distinctions between faiths leads to both religions being taken less seriously. Christians would laugh at the notion of Rev. Redding as an “Episcopalian for Mohammed,” and might feel appropriately indignant at a suggestion that her embrace of the Koran now made her a "Completed Christian."  

  Why do Americans feel so much more satisfied than Europeans with their jobs and with their lives in general?

   That’s the most significant question raised by a provocative column in today’s Wall Street Journal by Professor Arthur Brooks of Syracuse University. He notes that the well-being reported by Americans at every economic level (even 87% of those who describe themselves as “working class” say they’re satisfied with their jobs) becomes particularly perplexing in light of the fact that we work much longer hours, with far fewer vacations, than our counterparts on the other side of the Atlantic.

   Nevertheless, 56% of Americans say we’re “completely happy” or “very happy” with our lives, compared with 35% of the French (who average more than twice as many days of paid vacations) or 31% of the Germans.

   Professor Brooks points out that the correlation of long work hours and greater happiness applies to US citizens regardless of their income or education level: even those who toil at seemingly dull or menial jobs report that their level of contentment rises along with the hours they invest in work. But in his column, Brooks offers no explanation of why this hard-working model works particularly well for Americans.

   I would suggest that one way of coming to terms with these surprising observations involves the logical assumption that you feel most gratified with work when you believe that your labor is important, and the sense that our individual labor is important connects to the fact that America in general is undeniably important. A Belgian may feel great pride in his productive and charming little country, but he can’t believe that the fate of his nation counts as significant to the world at large. The fate of civilization doesn’t depend on what happens to Belgium, nor will the future of humanity change because of decisions made in Brussels, or the labor of ordinary Belgians.

  For Americans, on the other hand, we can relish the certainty that our work, whatever it happens to be, makes some contribution to the most significant nation on earth.

   The unique religiosity of our society also contributes to the realization for most Americans (nearly 90% express overall job satisfaction) that our toil counts for more than a paycheck. The public believes that God has directly touched and blessed this Land of Liberty, as so many of our patriotic songs declare (“God Bless America,” “America, America, God shed his grace on thee,” “Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord” and so forth). Far more Americans attend church and synagogue than do residents of any Western European country, and we commonly perceive a divine role in our past, present and future.

   This sense of lasting significance for our national experience contributes to a sense of satisfaction in toiling away at our various jobs. It makes sense for members of the populace in this deeply religious country to understand that their work matters to the nation itself, and that this vastly powerful and fortunate nation matters a great deal in the overall scheme of things.

Occasionally, the formulaic Saturday radio addresses by the President and his designated Democratic “responders,” provide telling glimpses of our current political follies.

This past weekend, the Democrats chose Washington State’s junior Senator, the embarrassingly inept Maria Cantwell, to deliver their partisan preachment.

In the course of her dreary address about energy policy, she revealed her underlying contempt for her fellow citizens. “America deserves more fuel-efficient cars,” she announced with peerless eloquence, and then added: “But the only way consumers are going to get more out of a tank of gas is if the president and his party help deliver votes in a narrowly divided Congress.”

In other words, hard-pressed Americans who note the high price of gas at the pump, can’t do anything for themselves to save money? We can’t purchase more fuel-efficient vehicles until the Republicans vote for new regulations forcing us to do so?

And auto designers and engineers and inventors can’t possibly create the “more fuel efficient cars” Senator Cantwell says we deserve, unless bureaucrats give the orders? The prospect of earning billions in profits by building such vehicles won’t be enough without a vote of Congress?

Senator Cantwell no doubt speaks for many of her fellow Democrats in her startling suggestion that the American people can’t be trusted—even on an important and very personal decision like buying a car – and instead need to count on politicians to make wise choices for them.

 My son Danny, 14, is just completing the ninth grade and on Father’s Day (yesterday) I actually learned some valuable lessons from the process of helping him with his homework.

   He’d been given a few provocative questions on Roman history by an altogether outstanding teacher at his high school (a Jewish parochial school), and this assignment gave me the chance to go over the textbook with him.

   Amazingly, his particular history text seemed to pay more attention to historical accuracy than political correctness. “History and Life” (Fourth Edition – from Scott, Foresman and Company) made a credible, reasonable effort to explain the relentless growth of the early Roman state. Under the heading, “Many Factors Contributed to the Military Success of the Romans,” the book listed Geography, Military Strength, Wise Leadership….and “Family Values.”

    The relevant passage related battlefield triumphs to successful home life, with the following words:

    “Most of the early Romans were farmers. They lived simply, worked hard, and fought well. In general, the Roman family was a close-knit group held together by affection, the necessities of a frugal life, and the strict authority of parents. Both parents played important roles in family activities and taught their children loyalty, courage and self-control. Most Romans took their civic and religious duties seriously.

   “The stern virtues prized by Roman family life were a source of strength in the early republic. In later years, when increasing power and wealth began to undermine family life, some people were unhappy about the passing of the old order. ‘Rome stands built upon the ancient ways of life,’ warned a poet of the 3^rd century B.C. who felt the need for a return to the strong family values of the past.”

   Given the text’s candor in later describing the slow unraveling of Roman virtue over the next five generations, this testimonial to the centrality of the institution of the family counted as a powerful reminder to today’s students.

  The passages I read in my son’s history textbook bear obvious relevance to our current situation where “increasing power and wealth” have also begun to “undermine family life.” The story also reminds us that we’re not the first generation in Western history to seek a return and revival of timeless values – and there’s reason to hope that we’ll find more success in restoring those virtues than our long-agoRoman counterparts.

   Meanwhile, I also felt gratified and reassured by the powerful evidence that some schools, and some textbooks, avoid the traps of trendiness and actually manage to convey, at least occasionally, valuable messages to our children.

Friday’s Wall Street Journal reported more alarming news for the Republican Party: according to the new WSJ/NBC Poll, Hispanics now identify themselves as Democrats rather than Republicans by a horrifyingly lopsided margin of 51% to 21%.

This reflects a collapse of Hispanic support for Republicans since 2004, when Bush nearly matched John Kerry in the Latino community, 45% to 55%.

Senator Mel Martinez, an ardent advocate of comprehensive immigration reform and Chairman of the Republican National Committee, tried to put the best possible spin on the new figures. He told the Journal that “a skillful 2008 Republican candidate can recover ground because ‘Hispanics tend to personalize politics’ rather than identify with parties.”

One can only hope that he’s right, and the Republicans avoid the obvious disaster of nominating anyone who has flirted with the anti-immigrant rhetoric so popular at the moment among conservatives. But even if the Presidential nominee can win back some of the lost ground among Latinos, that doesn’t necessarily mean progress for candidates on the rest of the ballot or on national efforts to recapture the House and the Senate.

The new poll should come as a sobering reminder that the current hysteria against “illegal aliens” (and even opposition to further legal immigration by Tom Tancredo and his followers) is helping to alienate the most rapidly growing ethnic segment of the American electorate.

Hispanics now represent at least 14% of the US population and the strong majority of these people have immigrated legally, or else they’re native born. Even if all the illegals went home in the next few years (fat chance), and even if we stopped all future immigration from Hispanic countries (both legal and illegal), Latinos would still rapidly increase their political influence and power. For one thing, their high marriage and birth rates means a growing population and, for another, every year more legal immigrants manage to complete the naturalization process to become citizens (and voters).  

In recent years, Republicans have managed to remain a competitive party in most states of the union in part because they have successfully competed for Latino support. If, on the other hand, we ever reached the situation where 80% of Hispanics automatically, unthinkingly, voted for Democrats (in addition to the more than 80% of African-Americans who automatically, unthinkingly vote for Democrats), then we will never again see a GOP president, or a Republican majority in either House of Congress.

Sure, Republicans might still win occasional local fights in Utah or Nebraska or Alabama, but they would become just as irrelevant in national terms as they are today in the State of California. The anti-immigrant posturing of former Governor Pete Wilson in 1994 helped transform the nation’s largest state from a battleground that Republicans often won (with strong Hispanic support) into an-all-but uncontested Democratic fiefdom where only a GOP anomaly like Arnold the Governator (with his outspoken record of sympathy and support for his fellow immigrants) can secure enough Latino backing to prevail.

Despite the courageous reform efforts of far-sighted Republican Senators and of President Bush, the loudest voices in the GOP currently speak in strident, angry, desperate, uncompromising and unmistakably anti-immigrant tones. In the midst of our ongoing debates, all those who care at all about the party’s future ought to keep in mind that the nation’s more than 40 million Latinos are avidly listening.   

Time to update an important aspect of my website:

Among little known personal details about me, there’s a mention that my favorite beer is “Hale’s Pale Ale” – a tasty local brew here in Seattle.

While I’m still a fan of Hale’s Pale, my affections actually shifted some years ago and now, with a magnificent new discovery, I’m prepared to declare a revised favorite.

Fortunately, for a Northwest booster type like me, it’s also from a local operation: the Pyramid people, who run an elegant ale house across the street from Safeco Field, where the Mariners play (though they lost their second in a row in Chicago earlier today).

In any event, this ambrosial delight is called “Thunderhead IPA” – the best India Pale Ale, and one of the best beers at any price, of any type, I’ve ever tasted. Even if you don’t think you like beer, this concoction is world class.

The promotional legend on the spring-leaf-green label declares, “Way back when IPA’s were loaded with hops to stand up to oceans, elephants, finicky Colonists and spicy curries. Likewise our India Pale Ale is a powerful beer for bold tastes.”

Bold indeed: the amazing aspect of this brew is the layers of taste and sensual experience that provoke your mouth and throat when you imbibe. At first, the beer goes down smooth and silky, easy and light, but  then moments later the hops explode on you with jolting force: as fresh and edgy and stimulating as the morning’s first cup of joe, but also stunningly, joyously, lip-smackingly bitter.

In other words, this beer is one complicated party in a Pilsner glass.

Forget political disagreements or draining controversies. Instead, drain a bottle of Thunderhead IPA and then thank me for the recommendation.

By the way, the Pyramid company is not now, nor have they ever been, a sponsor of mine – or in any way connected with any of our radio stations. I wish I could advertise for them (because of the supreme craftsmanship of their product) but I don’t believe our syndication deals allow any promotion of adult beverages.

In that context, you might ask why a “traditional values” social and religious conservative would be trying to commend a new brew of beer. But actually, what could be more traditional than the juice of the hop or the grape? About two years ago, they discovered a sealed jar in Egypt which contained the world’s oldest beer --- lovingly prepared by some Nile-river brewmaster nearly 5,000 years ago. Far more primitive peoples than the ancient Egyptians also prepared beer of various kinds – for the fun, the fellowship, the exhilaration, the array of tastes.

In our Jewish religious tradition, alcohol (in moderation) is considered a great blessing, a gift from God, a means for gladdening the hearts of men (and some discerning women). Welcoming the Sabbath every Friday night, we say a special blessing on wine (grape juice can substitute, if absolutely necessary) and most families will bring out additional spirituous refreshment in the course of a festive meal.

When I attended Yale in the late ‘60’s, the entire student body was bitterly divided between alcohol people and marijuana people. In this context George W. Bush (one year ahead of me) was definitely an alcohol person and Howard Dean (and, later, Hillary Rodham in law school) was definitely a marijuana person. One of the reasons that I cast my lot with the drunks rather than the stoners was that alcohol had such an honorable tradition, whereas pot seemed synthetic, trendy, shallow, with no historical grounding. Shakespeare writes about booze very lovingly, of course (try “Merry Wives of Windsor,” or “Henry IV, Part I”) and nearly all the great American writers were, to a greater or lesser extent (usually greater) drinking men. I went through a stage in my life when I idolized William Faulkner, who fueled his eloquence with Bourbon and branch water, and F. Scott Fitzgerald, who happily drank anything he could find (and needed only two drinks to get himself roaringly, embarrassingly soused), and Sinclair Lewis (my fellow Yalie) who didn’t let his alcoholism slow his witty, biting, vivid literary production.. Dylan Thomas composed some of my favorite poems in a state of perpetual inebriation (he was Welsh, after all). Some of these

Raising a glass of beer, or a shot of Scotch, in other words allowed you to make common cause with some of the greatest artists and thinkers in all human history. Smoking a joint, on the other hand, aligned you with a bunch of fruity, dandified, hippy-dippy losers, who seldom produced anything of lasting value (Sergeant Pepper excepted).

I’ve admitted on the air that I like to relax with a great beer when I come home, but I never drink at work and strictly limit my intake. Some of my talk radio colleagues clearly fuel their tirades with the demon rum—and the slurred speech undermines their passion and conviction.

Sure, I feel some sympathy with the tea-totaler position: you save calories and, probably, brain cells, by avoiding liquor altogether. I respect and admire Mormons, Baptists and others who seem to enjoy life thoroughly without any alcoholic enhancement.

Nevertheless, there’s a Talmudic Jewish declaration that at the end of your life you’ll have to give an accounting of all the permitted pleasures that you somehow missed in life.

In my book, Pyramid Breweries Thunderhead IPA is an important permitted pleasure.

Cheers – and L’Chaim--- “To Life!” 

The headline in the Los Angeles Times should grab attention from all sides in the immigration debate: LEGALIZATION OF IMMIGRANTS WIDELY BACKED, declared California’s top circulation newspaper, reporting on the results of a Times/Bloomberg poll.

Reporter Janet Hook began her article this way:

 “A strong majority of Americans – including nearly two thirds of Republicans – favor allowing illegal immigrants to become citizens if they pay fines, learn English and meet other requirements, a new Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll has found.

  “That is a striking show of support for a primary element of an immigration overhaul bill that has stalled in the Senate amid conservative opposition.

  “Only 23% of adults surveyed opposed allowing undocumented immigrants to gain legal status. This finding bolsters the view shared by President Bush, that the bill’s opponents represent a vocal minority whereas most people are more welcoming toward illegal immigrants.”

This is highly biased reporting, of course: even though I agree with the basic conclusion (that a “silent majority” exists favoring some means of earned legalization for some of the illegals living in this country) the Times story is somewhat misleading.

When you actually read the question the poll asked, they pointedly used the term “undocumented immigrants” rather than “illegal aliens” or “illegal immigrants” – and I do think that makes a difference. No, I don’t believe it would have reversed the results, but I do think that if they had used the key word “illegal,” those results would have been somewhat less lopsided than they were (with Republicans favoring earned legalization 65% to 27%, and Democrats backing it even more overwhelmingly, 66% to 19%).

This result mirrors a similar poll in the New York Times a few weeks ago, with 66% of the public backing a path to legalization based on paying fines, background checks, paying back taxes, learning English, and so forth.

If there really is such strong support for the provisions of the compromise Senate bill, why do so many conservatives (and nearly all of my fellow talk hosts) believe that opinion is nearly unanimous in the other direction?

In a sense, I suspect that this perception stems from the obvious fact that opponents of the bill are far more outraged, indignant and desperate than are those who want to see comprehensive reform go forward. Anger is energizing—and nearly all of the energetic calls to talk radio seem to come from angry and, for the most part, decent and patriotic Americans who nonetheless feel furious about the prospect of any path to legalization for any of those who reside in this country illegally.

There’s another factor that makes much of talk radio feel like an echo chamber, or the “amen corner,” with the same impassioned arguments deployed again and again and again (“What is it about illegal that you don’t understand?,” “If you reward people for breaking the law, you’ll only get more law-breaking,” “It’s unfair to all the patient legal immigrants to let the illegals cut to the front of the line,” “why don’t they just enforce the laws we have, before we make new laws” etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.) Each of the arguments against the bill can be answered, patiently and substantively, but it’s wearying to go through the same points repeatedly when people on all sides of the argument seem so unwilling to listen.

After several weeks of near hysteria, I believe that most Americans have begun to suffer (appropriately) from “immigration fatigue” – or even “immigration exhaustion.” Angry people let off steam by expressing their righteous wrath repeatedly. The rest of us begin to feel fatigued by all the indignation and apocalyptic talk.

If a comprehensive immigration bill passes the Senate, and then the House, and then surveys the House-Senate conference, and passes again in each house and then makes it to the president’s desk, I believe it will be good for the country. But if it fails to pass, it won’t be the end of the world. The next day the sun will still rise, and we’ll still live in the greatest nation on God’s green earth, and we’ll manage to go on to other issues.

The silent majority on immigration reform isn’t just silent because they’re less impassioned on the issue, but because they’re more tired of it.

That’s why I’ve made a concerted effort to prevent immigration talk from taking over my radio show. What could we possibly hear that’s new?

An illegal immigrant from Peru named Luis provided one answer to that question by calling my show today and expressing his own opposition to the bill: he hates the idea (as a homeowner and independent businessman who’s been hear more than a decade) that he’d be forced to go back to his wretched home country before he could get his green card, let alone citizenship. He says he’d pay any fine, file any papers, wait patiently in line, and so forth: but he won’t go through the motions at all if it means he’s forced to separate from his American-born kids and go home.

In any event, that seemed different: an illegal who’s opposed to earned legalization, if it takes the form required in the current bill.

But still – enough already!

Listeners have probably noticed: I won’t let IDS (Immigration Derangement Syndrome) take over my whole show, and we try to strictly limit any conversation on the subject to one hour (at most) out of the daily three.

Meanwhile, polls and common sense indicate that despite remaining questions about many of the details of the current bill, the public (including a strong REPUBLICAN majority, in the Senate and in our communities) wants Congress to move forward to address this issue.

Maybe, at that point, the weary but quiet majority can get some much-needed relief from the sour affliction of immigration fatigue.

Despite impressive medical and governmental credentials, the new nominee for US Surgeon General has become controversial because of a 1991 paper he wrote for a Methodist Church committee investigating homosexuality. Scientific, dispassionate and carefully footnoted, his paper never declared sodomy “immoral,” or called for its suppression by government. Instead, he warned of the negative medical consequences associated with this element of gay male eroticism, and made the obvious point that it could never result in conception. For this, John Edwards describes the appointee as “divisive,” Hillary Clinton wants his nomination withdrawn, and gay activists describe his 16-year-old paper as “hate speech.” The Surgeon General has been described as “America’s family doctor,” so wouldn’t we want him to tell us the truth? A surgeon general shouldn’t keep quiet about the dangers of smoking just because smokers might feel insulted. If critics show that Dr. Holsinger's conclusions were untrue, they’d have a point, but he shouldn’t be attacked just because his assertions are uncomfortable.

. In the midst of the fierce campaign for the Presidential nomination, why did the Republican candidates choose to make an issue of the theory of evolution? In truth, none of the candidates ever emphasized this dispute, until Chris Matthews of MSNBC asked the ten contenders in the first debate if any of them rejected Darwin. When three candidates – Huckabee, Brownback and Tancredo – duly raised their hands, the media began focusing on creationism vs. intelligent design vs. evolution, as if the President of the United States got to make curriculum decisions for every local school board in the country. Establishment media often accuse religious conservatives of injecting polarizing social issues into political campaigns but this time it’s the press itself that won’t let the controversies subside—raising odd debate questions about gays in the military, and even Terry Schiavo. The President of the United States is profoundly powerful but even he (or she) doesn’t get to decide the truth or falsehood of various explanations for the origins of life.

  On occasion, even sophisticated and thoughtful reporters can make embarrassing and demagogic mistakes.

  Consider David Leonhardt, acclaimed business columnist for the New York Times, writing in today’s Times Magazine about the changing perspective of former Treasury Secretary (and former Harvard President) Lawrence H. Summers. According to Leonhardt, Summers has become increasingly concerned about the gap between the rich and everyone else – and so he is featured in a special issue of the magazine that shows John (“Two Americas”) Edwards on its cover.

   As Leonardt writes: “Summers’ favorite statistic these days is that, since 1979, the share of pretax income going to the top 1 percent of American households has risen by 7 percentage points, to 16 percent. Over the same span, the share of income going to the bottom 80% has fallen by 7 percentage points. It’s as if every household in that bottom 80 percent is writing a check for $7,000 every year and sending it to the top 1%.”

  This analysis stands as so obviously flawed and spurious that it’s hard to see how it cleared the purportedly rigorous editors employed by the Times.

   The point made by Leonhardt (in the name of Sumemrs) assumes, of course, that year after year there’s no change in the amount of overall income in this country; that our economy, in other words, has remained perfectly static for nearly thirty years. The total income of the society has increased so spectacularly that even with the “bottom 80%” drawing a smaller percentage of that income, they’re still earning far more than they did in 1979. To put it in comprehensible dollar terms, if the total economy has grown from $100,000 to $300,000 since ’79, then even a somewhat smaller percentage of that economy for ordinary workers means that you’re getting more money in your pocket than ever before – not “writing checks”: to the super rich.

   As another economist, Steven Landsburg, explained in this weekend’s Wall Street Journal, for the past half century “per capita real incomes, that is incomes adjusted for inflation… have been growing at about 2.3% (per year).” He goes on to explain: “If you’re earning a modest middle-class income of $50,000 a year and if you expect your children, 25 years from now, to occupy that same modest rung on the economic ladder, then with a 2.3% groth rate, they’ll be earning the inflation-adjusted equivalent of $89,000 a year. Their children, another 25 years down the line, will earn $158,000.”

   Landsburg adds that “rising income is only part of the story” – with Americans currently benefiting from lighter work weeks (believe it or not), more vacations, less time on housework and, above all, improved products for the money. “And as for the quality of the goods we buy,” he writes, “try picking up an electronics catalogue from, oh, say, 2001 and ask yourself whether there’s anything there you’d want to buy.”

   The focus on the spectacular progress of the super-rich obscures the less spectacular, but still significant, progress of everybody else. The concentration on the most privileged warps our perspective on reality and prevents middle class Americans from recognizing the depth and significance of our own blessings.

    The foolish notion of ordinary Americans “writing yearly checks” to plutocrats denies the obvious fact that the gains for the richest Americans come from producing more wealth – not taking the money from someone else in a static, zero sum game. Savvy observers like Lawrence Summers and David Leonhardt have acknowledged elsewhere that the only reliable way to insure increases in living standards – a larger slice of pie for every American – isn’t some complicated new way of carving up the pastry. The best means for satisfying every hunger is, rather, to bake a bigger pie.