Depending on your personal perspective, our immigration policy regime -- currently a hodgepodge of federal, state, and local law enforcement measures mixed with populist impulses -- is too lax, unjustifiably harsh or nonexistent. So is it working? Depends on how you define success.

A conservative think tank in Washington has taken a stab at evaluating the current approach to immigration enforcement by trying to measure its impact on illegal immigration. The Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates for more immigration restrictions, used various government data sources to calculate change in the undocumented population from August 2007 to May 2008. The study found a roughly 11 percent drop, and researchers speculate the trend is tied to increased immigration enforcement.

But the study has attracted criticism from other immigration experts, who say it is skewed by methodological flaws and overgeneralizations about the dynamics of migration and immigrant communities.

A new congressional report traces a harrowing pattern of American deaths in Iraq. Military personnel were killed suddenly by an electric jolt, sometimes when they least expected to encounter danger -- in their own living quarters.

The suspected culprit? Kellogg Brown Root, one of the main contractors involved in the Iraq reconstruction efforts.

In one case probed by the investigators, Staff Sgt. Ryan D. Maseth was electrocuted in the shower because of a water pump malfunction, which KBR had been warned about previously:

"After an investigation of Staff Sergeant Maseth’s death, the Defense Contract Management Agency reported to its director on February 25, 2008, that 'KBR failed to correct known deficiencies.' In an extensive e-mail chain, top DCMA officials acknowledged that they should have done more to address the electrical deficiencies in Staff Sergeant Maseth’s building. Less than two weeks later, however, DCMA reversed its position and agreed with KBR that the company was not required to perform the repairs."

The congressional probe is spurred by families demanding answers from a company that has prospered enormously from the alignment between the military and the private sector. KBR has also historically been tied to Halliburton and Vice President Dick Cheney's business operations.

Governor David Paterson issued a stern warning on Tuesday and Wednesday, urging lawmakers to tighten their belts and brace for spending cuts. "The era of buy now, pay later and later is over,” he declared.

Figuring out just who pays is, naturally, the tricky part. And in that sense, we can expect the current fiscal tensions to evoke the standard tug-of-war in Albany.

The landscape is already polarizing as the business-oriented Citizens Budget Commission calls for controlling government spending on social services while the labor-friendly Fiscal Policy Institute urges ramping up taxes for higher income brackets.

Despite a diplomatic freeze between the United States and Cuba, a merger in the brewing industry is spilling a frothy trail from Belgium to Missouri to Havana, and possibly the White House.

Budweiser loyalists have protested the pending sale of Anheuser-Busch to Belgium’s InBev, maker of Stella Artois. Though InBev has promised fans of the quintessential American brewery that their product will stay pure, Bud-lovers are understandably a bit stung by the foreign takeover.

The global beer marriage (net weight: 65 billion pints per year) is even raising eyebrows on the campaign trail, due to InBev's links to one of America’s least-favored nations in the Western Hemisphere. The company does business with Cuba, which has for decades been isolated from most U.S. commerce under an economic embargo. Some legal hubbub has emerged over whether InBev’s Cuba ties would interfere with Bud’s heartland-based management operations.

And now, some speculate the power shift in the Bud empire could spill messily into the presidential race.

Memory loss is touching a growing number of minds. Researchers revealed yesterday that more people are slipping toward dementia associated with aging than previously estimated, and medical science is just starting to grapple with treatment options for this emerging disorder.

Researchers with the Mayo Clinic reported that mild memory impairment will hit nearly one million Americans each year. Men were more likely than women to develop the "pre-dementia" condition, which involves a significant erosion of memory abilities, though not as severe as Alzheimer's. Meanwhile, an additional half a million will develop full-blown Alzheimer’s and related dementia disorders.

As comprehensive treatment for the crisis may be far off, the influx in people with memory impairment means communities will have to find more immediate ways to accommodate them--and appreciate their presence. Newsday’s recent op-ed feature explored the experiences of people dealing with memory loss as they work to maintain vital social connections.

Squeezed by political and environmental tumult, the oil flows that buoy the country are now sputtering, and the public is paying for it dearly at the pump. “You can’t drill your way out” is becoming a popular cliché in Washington. Yet that hasn't stopped us from trying.

The Washington Post today examines a phenomenon that consumers barely contemplated until the current gas-price crisis hit: oil fields around the world are simply drying up. Geologically, experts worry that demand for oil is fast outstripping supply. Not to mention the political hazards of sucking the stuff out of conflict-ridden lands.

“... many oil experts warn that the world's production will hit a peak soon if it hasn't already. With the exception of Iraq's, most of the ‘easy oil’ in large reservoirs close to the surface is gone.”

Governor David Paterson’s 52nd veto may have seemed nondescript, but it shed light on both his personal journey and the evolution of education for people with disabilities over the past generation.

Under the bill in question, Newsday reported today, parents of blind or deaf children would have received mandatory information from their local school district about special state-run schools for the deaf and blind.

In Paterson's view:

"Providing parents with information about only one educational option, our state-operated facilities, might lead some parents to discount the full range of options that might be appropriate and available for their children,"

The Governor grew up legally blind, and rather than placing him in a segregated educational setting, his family sought out a public school system on Long Island that enabled him to attend “mainstream” classes.

While Paterson went on to thrive intellectually and professionally, there is nonetheless an ongoing debate in the disability community over how best to meet the needs of blind and deaf students. Does a child benefit more from specialized schooling or a more integrative approach? How do you foster equality of opportunity but at the same time recognize unique needs?

The Bush-era Environmental Protection Agency has often been deeply disappointing. But the EPA is taking a smart step to protect our food and our farm workers.

In 2006, the EPA said it would cancel registration of the pesticide carbofuran, because it has nasty effects on people and is lethal to birds. But the manufacturer went to court to block that cancellation. Now, the agency proposes to revoke regulations that allow residues of this pesticide in food. This revocation will pretty much mean that carbofuran won't be able to be sold in the domestic market.

This pesticide is extremely deadly to birds. The American Bird Conservancy estimates that it has killed millions of wild birds since it first entered the market in 1967. It's also not so healthy for the farm workers who have to apply it and those who buy food or drink water contaminated with carbofuran residue.

On other occasions, we've criticized the EPA for not doing what it should. So it's our pleasant duty to tip our hat to the agency now for doing the right thing.

NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg has found a ready source of cash for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority -- he says the state should enforce cigarette tax collections on New York's Indian reservations. The idea has a spotty history, as the mayor surely knows.

And in any case, Bloomberg's suggestion would be only a partial solution. The MTA is facing a $700 million shortfall next year, and state budget experts estimate that between $120 million and $140 million could be had by enforcing the court decision saying that non-Indians must pay taxes on cigarettes purchased from a reservation.

From heavy metal to instant messages, it seems like a new intellectual bogeyman appears every few years, feeding parents' alarm about the influence of popular culture on their kids' minds. Now, thanks to a Sunday New York Times feature, everyone's talking about how online interactivity may be changing young people's reading skills, as digital denizens supposedly ditch Macbeth for MySpace.

The chief concern, according to literacy experts, is that the overstimulation dished out by the web undermines the deeper experience of absorbing a good book. Others believe that time spent browsing online text--be it chatting or Wikipedia--is expanding young people's literary horizons in a way that books never could.

This is hardly virgin territory, of course. At Newsday, we've weighed in on the online literacy debate as well, with our op-ed features and blog entries on how text messaging is changing the way young people communicate. In our research, we uncovered a different picture of online culture as a unique expressive medium--a format that kids not only absorb but also actively contribute to. Along with new, innovative literary forms inspired by SMS language, we stumbled on a Pew study suggesting that the kind of simplified chat-speak lambasted by teachers actually has little bearing on academic reading and writing.

So how do we distinguish between the kind of Internet activity that blunts critical thinking and the kind that enhances it? And why bother?

How fast can you take 300 people to court? The raid of an Iowa meatpacking plant earlier this year was a grim case study in rapid-response law enforcement. Hundreds of workers at the Agriprocessors plant in Potsville, Iowa were swept up by federal authorities and within days, swiftly processed and convicted through a makeshift court and detention camp set up at a cattle fairgrounds.

The workers, most from Guatemala and unable to communicate with the court in English, were essentially herded through the proceedings with little understanding of what was happening. In the end, 260 people pleaded guilty -- on the promise of less prison time and a chance to return home sooner -- and received five-month prison terms for using false employment-related documents.

Though officials claim that workers’ rights were respected, the Potsville raid signals a shift in immigration enforcement that is shaking up communities from Los Angeles to Long Island.

Before a House panel yesterday, legal observers said the uncanny efficiency of these “fast track” convictions reflects a deeper malaise in immigration policy.

What did you think was going to happen when folks were told they'd have to pay more for a train ride?

Yet beneath the simmering outrage among commuters, there are many subsurface factors at play at the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, from rising fuel costs to abysmal revenue shortfalls. Has the system finally run out of places to squeeze?

Eager to distance themselves from the fare hike threat, state and local officials have urged the MTA to look for more internal cost cuts before raising fares or further draining government coffers.

For Long Islanders, the potential fare increases are compounded by another possible hit to the local transit infrastructure: the MTA's budget gap may derail the "Third Track" project--an initiative aimed at enhancing vital train access between Long Island and the city.

No wonder LIRR Commuters Council President Gerard Bringmann called the potential fare increases "a kick in the butt" to local commuters.

Outside of official circles, the blogosphere is percolating with rage as well as some fresh ideas.

The three branches of government got into a bit of a tangle yesterday on Capitol Hill: the White House called on lawmakers to restrain the judicial system's authority to hear the cases of people the president has deemed America's enemies.

Responding to a recent Supreme Court decision on the rights of Guantanamo Bay detainees to judicial review, Attorney General Michael Mukasey told the House Judiciary Committee that Congress should pass legislation to restrict court access for the so-called unlawful enemy combatants.

While the Supreme Court affirmed detainees' constitutional right to challenge their detentions, Mukasey argued that allowing detainees to press their cases through the regular federal court system would threaten national security and counter-terrorism efforts.

Global-warming activist extraordinaire Al Gore made a media splash last week with a grand plan to wean the country off polluting fossil fuels: a completely carbon-free electricity supply by 2018. Meanwhile, oil barron T. Boone Pickens called for a nationwide wind turbine system and clean vehicle fleet. The awe, confusion and ridicule such plans inspire may give them a somewhat fantastic sheen. But on-the-ground examples and government research suggest that getting from here to there might be easier than critics imagine--and hard in ways that idealists overlook.

Pickens's plan to produce 20 percent of the country's electricity from wind is actually in line with government forecasts. The Department of Energy says that getting 20 percent of the country's electricity from wind by 2030 is feasible, depending on cost trends and support for the manufacturing and infrastructure for building that capacity.

Still, Gore's 10-year plan for the electricity grid veers into the realm of zaniness: another federal study released last month projects that by 2025, solar could potentially provide only about 10 percent of the country's electricity, and that too depends on the development of an viable national solar infrastructure.

And as always, what's possible is not always practical, especially when you add money and people's backyards into the mix.

Nassau County Comptroller Howard Weitzman who relishes his job of exposing fraud and the waste of taxpayer dollars may have gotten a little too enthusiastic two weeks ago.

At a Hofstra forum entitled "Fraud Knows No Bounds" Weitzman touted a new technique his auditors were using which looked at "outliers," people who were collecting too much sick time or using too many vacation days or using too much gas. And to juice up the story he mentioned a county employee who had allegedly used a government gas card to pump $17,000 worth of gasoline in one year.

Afterwards, Newsday reporter William Murphy followed-up with Weitzman to get more details and the comptroller said situation actually was even worse. Newsday's story reported that the unnamed employee had used 17,000 gallons of gas making the possible fraud at least $51,000.

Faced with runaway medical spending and tightening resources, communities across the country are finding themselves with no choice but to get back to basics: investing in primary care and front-end measures to stop costly problems before they start.

In some states, insurers and government funders are experimenting with cost-cutting schemes that invest in frontline primary care services, which traditionally pay less than downstream specialty care. The programs focus on giving physicians extra funding to boost frontline care and creating a "medical home" for families to maintain good health, rather than just treat sickness.

On Long Island, the concept is inspiring Nassau Healthcare Corporation's nascent NuCare program--a system of care that gives sustained support to underinsured and uninsured people, treating them like long-term rather than one-time patients.

Albany has begun to respond, with a plan to shift Medicaid funding from inpatient care to cheaper, less intensive preventative and primary care services. The state budget also seeded a program to offer tuition reimbursement for doctors who commit to providing primary care in underserved areas for several years.

The New York Times' rejection of an op-ed piece by John McCain has gotten a lot of blogosphere attention.

And it brings up some of the issues that I deal with myself as the op-ed editor for Newsday's daily Opinion section. Whenever an election nears, I'm approached by candidates of all stripes with submissions. Sometimes the essays are little more than press releases about this or that accomplishment an incumbent wants to remind voters about. Or they're predictable complaints about the incumbents from challengers. Less frequently -- but it does happen! -- the submissions are thoughtful and nuanced essays about important issues facing the community and the electorate. I reject them all.

Why? Because even if I did run the thoughtful, nuanced, issue-driven essay, I would feel obligated to give equal time to the candidate's challenger. And the challenger's piece might not be well-written or relevant or even the slightest bit interesting. But if I'd accepted the first piece, out of fairness, I'd have to accept the second.

That's how the Times got into this situation.

As the Washington press corps swarms around Obama's diplomatic whirlwind tour, the Man in the Street is becoming a very popular guy.

Street interviews occupy a special place in the establishment press. The charmingly gritty quote from the cab driver cursing the occupiers, the wistful ruminations of the medical student who dreams of going abroad--such snapshots add color and dash to an otherwise drab media landscape of dismal economic indicators, dry death tolls and wonky policy debates.

But it might be best not to read too much out of these exported soundbites.

Example: The New York Times recently reported that the Iraqis have fallen for Obama. A handful of interviewees from different areas "expressed broad approval for him personally."

"Saad Sultan, an official in an Iraqi government ministry, contended that Mr. Obama could give a fresh start to relations between the Arab world and the United States....

" 'Every time I see Obama I say: "He’s close to us. Maybe he’ll see us in a different way," ' Mr. Sultan said. “I find Obama very close to my heart.'

"Race is also a consideration. Muhammad Ahmed Kareem, 49, an engineer from Mosul, said he had high expectations of Mr. Obama because his experience as a black man in America might give him more empathy for others who feel oppressed by a powerful West. 'Blacks suffered a lot of discrimination, much like Arabs,' Mr. Kareem said. 'That’s why we expect that his tenure will be much better.' "

(The Obamania stops short, however, on the issue of withdrawal, where the interviewees seem to fear that his proposed pullout plan would be too hasty.)

The little thresher shark who showed up in Zach's Bay last week is actually good news in a way.

To begin with, these animals, which typically have tails as long as their bodies, are not aggressive or interesting in munching on homo sapiens. As the photo that ran in the paper shows, this was a baby thresher, not at all threatening when you look at a lifeguard grasping the shark by its long tail, an image that looked a bit like someone walking a dog on a leash.

What we don't know about the thresher is almost as important as what we do. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service does not list any of the thresher species as either threatened or endangered. At the moment, not enough is really known about the threshers.

Advancements in the science of criminal investigation--particularly genetic data--offer the comforting notion that courts and law enforcement are becoming more objective and less error prone. But just how damning is DNA evidence?

A series in the Los Angeles Times questions a law enforcement tool that many take for granted as being in our best interest. The drama started when a probe of a government database by an Arizona crime lab analyst turned up a remarkable number of DNA matches. The revelation cast doubt on the presumption that genetic evidence is an unassailable smoking gun.

The FBI and state officials have tried to dismiss the findings, alleging that the statistics and methodology used are misleading. But advocates for the accused argue that it is in fact the government that is manipulating DNA evidence, by misrepresenting the odds of a coincidental match and potentially swaying jurors in the wrong direction.

Today, after years of political warfare and convoluted legal reasoning, the trial of Salim Ahmed Hamdan finally got underway.

At issue is whether Hamdan, a Yemeni national accused of serving as Osama bin Laden's driver and supporting terrorism, played a substantial role in carrying out terrorist activity, or was merely an insignificant cog in bin Laden's organization.

But the muted question in the background is whether the Bush administration's war on terror provides a legal premise for stripping away constitutional cornerstones: over the years, a growing chorus of legal observers have blasted Gitmo's military commissions as an insult to the American and international justice systems.

It's tough these days to hear anything calm and rational about Iran.

There are still rumors about a desire deep within the Bush administration to launch a military attack on Iran before a new American president takes office.

A recent Seymour Hersh piece in The New Yorker reports on a presidential decision to allow more covert military operations within Iran.

Congress is moving toward a concurrent resolution, spearheaded in the House by Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-Jamaica Estates), urging President George W. Bush to put increasing pressure on Iran. Critics of that resolution say that, although it doesn't mention the word blockade, the actions it asks Bush to initiate would amount to a blockade.

Newsday reports today that the Federal Aviation Administration couldn't require commercial airliners to carry a system to prevent explosions like the one that doomed TWA Flight 800 until the technology became light enough, small enough and cheap enough. This happened after two "eureka" moments for researchers in 2002. Then came years of wrangling with the airline industry.

Fortunately all was settled in the nick of time, as the 12th anniversary of the TWA crash was about to roll around.

The acting FAA administrator, Robert Sturgell, greeted the new regulation on the day before the anniversary as "another step forward on what has been a long journey of investigation, discovery, innovation and cooperation."

His boss, Transportation Secretary Mary Peters, welcomed the FAA's achievement with a crash victim's brother at her side, as "a memorial to the victims and a tribute to dedicated public servants who have spent their lives making flying safer."

You can't complain about the outcome, but you might wonder about the timing and these folks' dedication to our safety.

Since the research was ready six years ago (perhaps on the anniversary of no significant event) and the parties had years to work out a deal, might the regulation have been ready to go, say, three days before the anniversary? Two months before? Seventeen months before?

Wouldn't federal and industry officials committed to the safest possible skies want to rush such a regulation into effect as soon as it was available? Why risk even one more midair explosion?

We've become so accustomed to the news being packaged for consumption and timed for maximum impact and availability of related video that nobody is even asking these questions.