The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux) [Archive] - Page 24

flippyshark

03-25-2010, 02:04 PM

My only point in this, Flippy, is to say that this is nothing new. I have been more than clear in condemning any violence and property crimes. I am just amazed at those who seem to believe (and sincerely so) that it is one sided or that this is new, particularly when the Iraq war is relatively recent. I won't go back as far as Viet Nam or any other number of controversial things.

It isn't right. It also isn't new.

Actually, I thought my post was implicitly agreeing with you. I certainly acknowledge that you are clearly not in sympathy with hooligans of any stripe, on either side. Everyone in this conversation (and I mean everyone everywhere, not just here on LoT) wants to hear those across the ideological aisle say "Oh my gosh, you're right. My group really IS acting evil, backwards and un-American!" We all have our filters on at all times, and weed out the bad on our own sides while having a hair-trigger detector for faults on the other. I thought Boehner's statement was about as good as could be expected, (though he took his little digs, of course) and predictably, plenty of Democrats are outraged that he didn't go far enough. As ever, this is one of the most predictable, least productive and most boring games in all discourse. But, honestly, I believe you're one of the good guys. (Anyone wishing to trash me for being conciliatory, please kiss my butt right now.)

That said, the gun-toting "don't push us" rhetoric in the health care resistance gives me the absolute shivers.

mousepod

03-25-2010, 02:13 PM

On Tuesday, Republican Representative Cantor had his office shot at. (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/virginiapolitics/2010/03/richmond_pd_investigating_cant.html)

Oh, so someone threatened a Republican, too? Makes me feel so much better.

He's the highest-elected Jewish official in the country and the only Jewish Republican in the House? Gotcha.

Yeah, much better.

innerSpaceman

03-25-2010, 02:18 PM

Wouldn't Benedict Lieberman be the highest-elected Jewish official? Senator outranks Representative, right? Or are they supposed to all be "equal" Congressmen?

flippyshark

03-25-2010, 02:19 PM

On the other hand, here is something rather encouraging. Did any of you see the horrible video (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/18/tea-party-protesters-bera_n_504183.html) of the man humliating a Parkinson's sufferer by throwing dollar bills at him? I did, and it was appalling and depressing.

But here's the good news. The guy who did it is honestly remorseful (http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2010/03/24/dollar-bill-throw.html?sid=101), and frightened at how his participation in a political rally brought out the worst side of his humanity. So, a big kudos to this guy. The follow-up story doesn't say that he changed parties or changed his mind about health care, but it does give what I consider an inspiring example of somebody having the wisdom to see their own folly and the courage to admit it and do something about it.

Strangler Lewis

03-25-2010, 02:22 PM

Baruch Obama is the highest elected Jewish official in the country.

Alex

03-25-2010, 02:24 PM

Hey, depending on how you count 15% of U.S. Senators are Jewish (is that higher than a Representative or co-equal?). Not bad for 2% of the population. Only 8% of the House is Jewish (again, depending on how you count.)

Apropros of nothing and no intent behind saying it other than surprise after mousepod's comment made me look it up.

mousepod

03-25-2010, 02:25 PM

flippyshark

03-25-2010, 02:38 PM

I'm sticking with my optimistic take on it for now. I'm cynicism'ed out. (To say nothing of cosmically bummed out.) Leaving this discussion for now, with puppy tail wags for all.

alphabassettgrrl

03-25-2010, 08:49 PM

I don't recall the level of violence and threats to have been quite this bad during the time I've been paying attention to the news (coming of age in the 80s or so). It's not any better now that some Republicans are apparently targets for crackpots; actually that makes it worse. Tit-for-tat does nothing.

Shouting out of turn on the floor of Congress. Bricks through office windows. "I hope you die" telephone threats. Congressmen and women on the capital steps cheering on the people spitting on other members of Congress?

Not ok, and I think it has gone to a new level.

scaeagles

03-26-2010, 07:44 AM

mousepod

03-26-2010, 08:41 AM

Some of this is getting a bit absurd....and serves to water down the seriousness of the real violence.

Now the terms "battleground" and "target" are being chastized. Battleground states and target district have been in the political lexicon...um....forever.

Sheesg. Don't turn something serious into a joke.

You're right. Let's keep it serious.

Road rage, accident centers on Obama bumper sticker (http://www.wkrn.com/Global/story.asp?s=12208009&clienttype=printable)

JWBear

03-26-2010, 08:49 AM

Nope. Right wing anger and violence aren't on the rise. Everything is fine. Keep your heads in the sand, folks!

scaeagles

03-26-2010, 09:18 AM

I'm feeling this need to play tit for tat and bring up riots at G20 meetings, or the man who brought molotov cocktails to the Republican National convention in 2008 to disrupt it, or the ELF resorting to arson to burn down car dealerships are cutting down radio towers in Seattle, or how at a health care town hall how union members (of the SEIU) beat up an african american man who was speaking his mind....yeah, nothing new. I could list lots more from the last decade without even trying very hard.

All tragic. All wrong. Nothing new.

mousepod

03-26-2010, 09:35 AM

As long as you need to play "tit for tat", I should bring up the fact that the extremists at the G20, the RNC and the ELF incidents tend to identify themselves as across the board anarchists - not Democrats or Liberals. The story about the Town Hall meeting that you cite has been debunked as b.s. (http://www.seiu.org/a/healthcare/reality-check-false-claims-debunked-about-last-weeks-town-hall-in-st-louis.php) (at least the way you're citing it).

I think what's frightening people like me is that the threats and violence seem to be coming from people who identify themselves as Republicans and Teabaggers.

scaeagles

03-26-2010, 09:51 AM

I love how it is necessary to refer to them as teabaggers. I don't think they refer to themselves as teabaggers.

innerSpaceman

03-26-2010, 09:53 AM

Yes, let's not feign surprise when "anarchists" take to violence. Do "Teabaggers" want the same connections applied to them? (Sorry, TeaPartiers).

innerSpaceman

03-26-2010, 09:54 AM

My last post was written before I saw scaeagles'. Yes, it's a habit I'm finding hard to shake. Among us gays, it's pretty universal and, yes, derisive. My apologies.

mousepod

03-26-2010, 10:03 AM

I apologize for calling the Tea Party Patriots "Teabaggers". I know that that's a derogatory label and it was a cheap shot.

Let's let them expose their own hypocrisy. (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-03-25/tea-party-backers-who-scorn-socialism-want-government-jobs-push.html)

Tea Party activists, who are becoming a force in U.S. politics, want the federal government out of their lives except when it comes to creating jobs.
More than 90 percent of Tea Party backers interviewed in a new Bloomberg National Poll say the U.S. is verging more toward socialism than capitalism, the federal government is trying to control too many aspects of private life and more decisions should be made at the state level.
At the same time, 70 percent of those who sympathize with the Tea Party, which organized protests this week against President Barack Obama’s health-care overhaul, want a federal government that fosters job creation.

Stan4dSteph

03-26-2010, 10:04 AM

I love how it is necessary to refer to them as teabaggers. I don't think they refer to themselves as teabaggers.Not anymore, but they certainly did at one time.

Alex

03-26-2010, 10:21 AM

Anybody remember when a left-wing anarchist killed McKinley? And in 1721 a blue-dog Democrat kicked a puppy. But that was ok because in 1621 at the Battle of Cornwall a Southern Republican crossed the street angrily.

All threats (A) are worrisome (C), and a generally increasing hostile and inappropriate tone (B) of discourse is worrisome (C). I just wish people would be more careful that in this case because A=C and B=C that B does not equal A.

The other other night Rachel Maddow played audio of three "threatening" phone messages left for Bart Stupak. They were all vile in their sentiment but so far as I could tell not one of them contained an actual threat (maybe they were hidden in the bleeps, one did contain a several second long bleep; but then playing the audio was not informative of threats).

To label everything that is really rude as a threat makes it easier for people to dismiss the actual threats. Something about crying wolf and all that.

The calls played on Maddow:

Congressman Stupak, you baby-killing mother<bleep>, um, you turn coat sun of a <bleep>, I hope you bleed out of your <bleep> got cancer and die you <bleep>. You do not, you do not, um say that you're pro-life and then for a few bucks um, go turncoat and hurt the country you <multi-second-long bleep>. I hope you die.

Vile, yes. Inappropriate, yes. Incredibly rude, yes. But not a threat.

You are a bastard and a baby killer, you will rue the day you did this Mr. Stupak. You are a disgusting man and I hope you're haunted the rest of yor living days. Because, you won't be a congressman much longer so you are a dirtbag and the country loathes you and god - bastard that you are - we think you're a devil and you will go the grave with this on your conscience. Was it worth it worth your soul?

"Baby killer" is inappropriate but I hear worse than this call from people on either said of issues all the time. And I fail to see a threat.

<unintelligble> low-life baby-murdering scumbag pile of steaming crap. You and your family are scum. You ought to fill your pockets with lead and jump in the Potomac, punk. That's what you are Stupak, you're a piece of crap. We despise you and every punk just like you Stupak.

Encouraging someone to killthelves, preferably with family along for the right is again vile and way over the line of anything resembling reasonable discourse. But again, no threat is in there.

Maddow said 50 "threatening calls like these" had been forwarded to the police. I wouldn't be at all surprised if there actually were threats in some of them, but if they are all like this then I wonder what exactly the police are expected to do but wait for actual threats to come in.

Yes, there are loons and overreacters on both sides and yes the right side will probably be more prominent because being completely out of power tends to exacerbate the feelings of oppression.

As always, "that's awful but you're side did it too" is a sentiment weakened by the caveat. But then so is "that's awful and it is somehow peculiarly unique to your side."

JWBear

03-26-2010, 10:47 AM

But then so is "that's awful and it is somehow peculiarly unique to your side."

If that was aimed at me, I want to make it clear that I have never claimed that only the right has resorted to violence; only that right wing violence is on the rise.

mousepod

03-26-2010, 11:01 AM

Alex, you're not wrong (of course).

I guess the reason the latest spate of violence (and threats) makes me particularly uncomfortable is because of its link to a growing political movement.

While I don't mean to downplay the left-wing violence scaeagles cited in this thread, I also know that these are extremist groups who, by their very acts of violence, have taken themselves out of any serious political debate (at least in my eyes).

The Tea Party Patriot movement is young and potentially a real political movement. They're taken seriously by politicians, that's for sure. If members of the rank-and-file of this movement resort to threats of violence as a tactic and the leaders (who exactly are the leaders, by the way?) don't do anything substantial to reign them in, then they become a gang.

Alex

03-26-2010, 11:02 AM

If that was aimed at me, I want to make it clear that I have never claimed that only the right has resorted to violence; only that right wing violence is on the rise.

Trust me, I hardly ever think of you so you can stop wondering if everything I say is directed at you (mentioned only because this is the second time in as many days you've said something like this).

But because you did bring up what you've said, I did just now go back and look and I find that my final point does apply to at least one thing you've said. Oh lucky day for me.

You have not said violence is unique to a side, and I didn't say you did (even if I had been replying to you). You did, however, say that right wing violence is, to use what I actually said, peculiarly unique (Post #5753) in comparison to the violence of the other side. Specifically in that violence associated recent anti-war protests don't frighten you but that right wing violence and rhetoric do.

This is not to say that you're not telling the truth. I'm sure you are completely correct that right-wing violence scares you more than left-wing violence. But it does, to me, undercut the informational value of your outrage over right-wing violence. Just as much as "Yes, Republican violence is awful but you must remember Democrats have done bad things" undercuts the initial condemnation.

JWBear

03-26-2010, 11:19 AM

Trust me, I hardly ever think of you so you can stop wondering if everything I say is directed at you (mentioned only because this is the second time in as many days you've said something like this).

But because you did bring up what you've said, I did just now go back and look and I find that my final point does apply to at least one thing you've said. Oh lucky day for me.

You have not said violence is unique to a side, and I didn't say you did (even if I had been replying to you). You did, however, say that right wing violence is, to use what I actually said, peculiarly unique (Post #5753) in comparison to the violence of the other side. Specifically in that violence associated recent anti-war protests don't frighten you but that right wing violence and rhetoric do.

This is not to say that you're not telling the truth. I'm sure you are completely correct that right-wing violence scares you more than left-wing violence. But it does, to me, undercut the informational value of your outrage over right-wing violence. Just as much as "Yes, Republican violence is awful but you must remember Democrats have done bad things" undercuts the initial condemnation.

Insults and ad-hominem attacks now? Way beneath you, Alex.

Your argument makes no sense to me. I acknowledge that there is left wing violence in a post, and this is proof to you that I said violence is unique to the right? WTF?!

JWBear

03-26-2010, 11:21 AM

Bullet That Struck Cantor's Office Appears to Have Been Randomly Fired (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/26/bullet-struck-cantors-office-appears-randomly-fired/)

Alex

03-26-2010, 11:22 AM

I guess the reason the latest spate of violence (and threats) makes me particularly uncomfortable is because of its link to a growing political movement.

And I don't mean to suggest that as rhetoric gets more heated it isn't worth watching for when the lines really start to get crossed.

But the sentiment underlying the most vocal part of the Tea Party movement is not new and it has repeatedly knocked itself to the fringe of society before as it has with the John Birchers, the Patriot (militia) movement in the '90s, etc.

Similarly the left has spawned movement that have fringes more accepting of violence who initially are tolerated and there's some bending over backwards to keep them in the fold and then eventually they've spun off to be isolated groups.

This is not to say that they still can't do bad things once isolated (as it could be argued that the Patriot movement reached its pinnacle with the OKC bombing) of course.

But this latest incarnation of things in the Tea Party is only a year and a bit old and while there are certainly people involved who I'm sure would be happy to do extraordinary violence so far, for the most part, it has been relatively muted.

It may prove to be the case that a violent wing of the Tea Party will be first such in quite a long time to not get spun out to the fringe once it turns violent but I tend to doubt it. It is also true that such groups tend to not get entirely cut off until after they've crossed the line rather than pre-emptively.

All I'm saying is that so far I haven't seen anything that is particularly new or unique about what is happening. This is not to say that what is happening isn't bothersome (regardless of how condemned by mainstream political leaders a person or group may have been ahead of time it won't ease the pain of another OKC-style event).

But even more important (to me, anyway, and maybe I'm only making the point in my head) is that when issuing condomenations, much like apologies, it is best to stick to the issue at hand an avoid anything looking like justification, equivocation, or insincerity.

Alex

03-26-2010, 11:36 AM

Insults and ad-hominem attacks now? Way beneath you, Alex.

I can see how you might be insulted by what I said, but I fail to see anything ad hominem in there.

Your argument makes no sense to me. I acknowledge that there is left wing violence in a post, and this is proof to you that I said violence is unique to the right? WTF?!

That's not what I said at all. In fact, I'd say I quite explicitly agreed with you that you had said no such thing. I'll repeat it and make it orange and bold and bigger so it stands out more.

You have not said violence is unique to a side,

I'd explain my point again but in rereading what I wrote it would appear to be as clear as I can make it so I'll just leave it be.

Ah hell, no I'll give it a shot. You have not said that violence is unique to the right and does not happen on the left. You said that violence from the right is peculiarly unique in that it scares you but violence on the left (at least, specifically, anti-war violence) does not. And that, to me, isn't much different in how it reduces the value of the condemnation than saying "violence form the right is bad but remember than there's been violence from the left too."

BarTopDancer

03-26-2010, 11:46 AM

Originally Posted by Call #2
You are a bastard and a baby killer, you will rue the day you did this Mr. Stupak. You are a disgusting man and I hope you're haunted the rest of yor living days. Because, you won't be a congressman much longer so you are a dirtbag and the country loathes you and god - bastard that you are - we think you're a devil and you will go the grave with this on your conscience. Was it worth it worth your soul?

"Baby killer" is inappropriate but I hear worse than this call from people on either said of issues all the time. And I fail to see a threat.

Bolded part could be taken as a threat. The rest are just rude, vile and very immature.

JWBear

03-26-2010, 12:07 PM

I can see how you might be insulted by what I said, but I fail to see anything ad hominem in there.

That's not what I said at all. In fact, I'd say I quite explicitly agreed with you that you had said no such thing. I'll repeat it and make it orange and bold and bigger so it stands out more.

I'd explain my point again but in rereading what I wrote it would appear to be as clear as I can make it so I'll just leave it be.

Ah hell, no I'll give it a shot. You have not said that violence is unique to the right and does not happen on the left. You said that violence from the right is peculiarly unique in that it scares you but violence on the left (at least, specifically, anti-war violence) does not. And that, to me, isn't much different in how it reduces the value of the condemnation than saying "violence form the right is bad but remember than there's been violence from the left too."

Here is exactly what I said in the post you referenced:

I never condoned violence conected to anti-war demonstrations, but it never frightened me. The violent actions and rhetoric coming from the right do frighten me.

How on Earth do you equate that with "violence form the right is bad but remember than there's been violence from the left too."? Those who have made that type of statement have used it to try and excuse or lessen right wing violence. Statements like "Well... your side has done it to!"

My point, in the referenced post and elsewhere, is that right wing violence is on the rise; not an attempt to try and dismiss left wing violence.

Morrigoon

03-26-2010, 12:14 PM

I'm so sick of this crap. From both parties. Let's be honest, both parties are fvcked up and failing to really represent the desires of their members. And none of this is going to change until there's a major paradigm shift wherein either there's a realignment of the existing parties (for example Republicans go more Libertarian and leave the religious right to a new fringe party, and Democrats do something similar), or we have another major shift in the power of parties and newer parties rise to the top. But while the GOP has a viable alternative (Libertarian), I don't think there's a viable Democrat alternative (no, Green party is not viable, it's too fringe to mainstream), and I don't think a major paradigm shift can happen unless it happens to both.

scaeagles

03-26-2010, 12:37 PM

I would love to see the Libertarian party become a viable alternative, but it honestly is not. The candidates offered by the Libertarians are typically a joke, and the current supporters of the Libertarian party are for the most part WAY out there, with philosophies of the local sherriff being the only persn with authority over them.

LIbertarian philosophy is much closer to me than the Republicans are at present. But they are far from a ready for prime time alternative.

Ghoulish Delight

03-26-2010, 12:41 PM

Here is exactly what I said in the post you referenced:

How on Earth do you equate that with "violence form the right is bad but remember than there's been violence from the left too."? Those who have made that type of statement have used it to try and excuse or lessen right wing violence. Statements like "Well... your side has done it to!"He's not saying they mean the same thing, he's saying they are equally undercutting.

Someone on the right might say, "violence from the right is bad but remember there's been violence from the left too" in an effort to downplay the violence from the right. Someone on the left might say, "There's been violence from the left, but the violence from the right is scarier" in an effort to downplay the violence from the left.

JWBear

03-26-2010, 12:48 PM

But I wasn't attempting to downplay violence from the left. All I said was that I find the current level of violence from the right more of a concern.

innerSpaceman

03-26-2010, 12:56 PM

JW, maybe you are too close to it to be getting it as clearly as I do, and apparently as GD does (and hopefully others). This is not all about you, but Alex is - I believe - using a sample of your posting and a sample of another's (scaeagles, I think) to point out how such statements are used to combat the other side's arguments - but are simply undercutting their own - due to their hypocritical and rather lame attempts at deflection.

Ghoulish Delight

03-26-2010, 12:57 PM

But I wasn't attempting to downplay violence from the left. All I said was that I find the current level of violence from the right more of a concern.
So you're not downplaying it, you're just trying to say it's less of an issue. Got it.

scaeagles

03-26-2010, 01:28 PM

My point, rather than to downplay any of it, was that these things really aren't anything new. I will admit that after trying to make that point I was irritated by the implication that this comes only from the right, and therefore went about pointing out other violence from other sources.

JWBear

03-26-2010, 02:02 PM

So you're not downplaying it, you're just trying to say it's less of an issue. Got it.

At this point and time, yes. All the examples of left wing violence that have been cited here were in the past. The right wing violence we are discussing is happening now; and it is increasing. So, to me at least, it is more of a concern.

JWBear

03-26-2010, 02:04 PM

Ghoulish Delight

03-26-2010, 02:12 PM

Yes, I'm obviously a complete dolt because no one gets my point. :rolleyes:
Err, you have 3 people trying to explain Alex's point to you, and all of your posts have indicated that you still don't get what Alex is saying.

Yes, we UNDERSTAND that what you meant was "the right wing violence is more worrisome than the left wing violence." Which is exactly what Alex said you meant, and exactly what Alex is saying is a weak position to be arguing.

ETA: and in case it wasn't clear, my previous post was heavy with sarcasm as I'm not exactly seeing the distinction between "downplaying" and "saying it's less of an issue".

innerSpaceman

03-26-2010, 02:23 PM

And, JayDub, you also seem too close it when you react to a post which started with the very tactful "maybe you are too close to it" by offering hyperbole like "I'm obviously a complete dolt."

BarTopDancer

03-26-2010, 02:26 PM

Violent threats from both sides are wrong.

JWBear

03-26-2010, 03:04 PM

Yes, we UNDERSTAND that what you meant was "the right wing violence is more worrisome than the left wing violence."

No. What I am saying is that I find the current rise in right wing violence more troubling right now than what the left wing has done in the past. What is past is past. What is going on right now is an issue that needs to be addressed. How much clearer do I need to be?

ETA: Perhaps the problem is that there is an assumption that I am making a left vs right argument. I am not. It's simply that the violent talk and actions that concern me at the present time happen to be coming from the right. If the sides were reversed, I would be just as concerned.

Ghoulish Delight

03-26-2010, 03:08 PM

No. What I am saying is that I find the current rise in right wing violence more troubling right now than what the left wing has done in the past. What is past is past. What is going on right now is an issue that needs to be addressed. How much clearer do I need to be?

"I never condoned violence conected to anti-war demonstrations, but it never frightened me."

How much clearer indeed.

BarTopDancer

03-26-2010, 03:27 PM

No. What I am saying is that I find the current rise in right wing violence more troubling right now than what the left wing has done in the past. What is past is past. What is going on right now is an issue that needs to be addressed. How much clearer do I need to be?

Try this:

What I am saying is that I find the current rise in right wing violence more troubling right now than what the left wing has done in the past.

JWBear

03-26-2010, 03:34 PM

"I never condoned violence conected to anti-war demonstrations, but it never frightened me."

How much clearer indeed.

Concern and fright are two different concepts. So, since I find I must clarify every single point now... The anti-war violence concerned me, but did not frighten me. The current events both concern and frighten me; not because of the ideology involved, but because of the rising frequency and disturbing support of it that I see in some quarters. I am concerned and frightened that it will get even uglier, and that someone is going to get killed.

And with that, I bow out of this discussion. I have said what I have to say. I've made my concerns known, and have been taken to task for them. I'm starting to feel a little like Cassandra. Hopefully, unlike her, my prophecy won't prove true.

JWBear

03-26-2010, 03:35 PM

Try this:

What I am saying is that I find the current rise in right wing violence more troubling right now than what the left wing has done in the past.

Yes, thank you. BDT gets it.

€uroMeinke

03-26-2010, 08:12 PM

Yes, let's not feign surprise when "anarchists" take to violence. Do "Teabaggers" want the same connections applied to them? (Sorry, TeaPartiers).

Hey - Anarchists aren't necessarily violent, it's just the violent one's get all the press - and being anarchist, there is no organized response to denounce.

On the other hand, I think people resort to violence when the feel they have been marginalized which is why you see it arise from the fringes.

The competitive model has done us some good, but it's ashame we really don't have many cooperative models for bringing people together for a common goal unless its a common enemy.

BarTopDancer

03-26-2010, 08:15 PM

Yes, thank you. BDT gets it.

Actually I was trying to help you get that everyone else got what you were saying and a misinterpretation of what Alex said started this.

Ghoulish Delight

03-26-2010, 08:27 PM

The competitive model has done us some good, but it's ashame we really don't have many cooperative models for bringing people together for a common goal unless its a common enemy.
Fvcking Socialist.

€uroMeinke

03-26-2010, 08:45 PM

Fvcking Socialist.

I think I'm leaning situationist lately

Ghoulish Delight

03-26-2010, 09:58 PM

I think I'm leaning situationist lately
Fvcking moral relativist.

Ghoulish Delight

03-30-2010, 01:16 PM

Dang, I've been following the proposal by USPS to drop Saturday delivery with purely spectator interest, it really wouldn't effect me much at all.

However, I just read an article that had a good point. Netflix might be boned.

Alex

03-30-2010, 01:24 PM

At first, that was the only reason I could come up with for caring if they drop Saturdays but then remembered its been months since I actually used them for a physical DVD (the most recent disc I have was mailed in November).

But the bigger reason I eventually thought of was not that I care about losing a day of delivery but that I would prefer it not be Saturday. On those rare occasions when I need to use the post office, Saturday is frequently the most convenient day to do so, especially if it is to pick up a package or something at a specific post office. They should eliminate Tuesdays (or Mondays if it has to be consecutive, but it has lesser benefit since so many holidays are Mondays).

flippyshark

03-30-2010, 01:34 PM

I regularly get paychecks in my mailbox on Saturdays, and even though I cannot then take them to the bank, I get to do so first thing Monday morning, whereas this change would force me to "wait by the mailbox" on Mondays. so, i'm agin' it.

Ghoulish Delight

04-02-2010, 09:56 AM

Sean Hannity calls a crowd of Tea Partiers "Tim McVeigh wannabes"...and they applaud!

I sh*t you not (http://www.dailykos.com/tv/w/002641/).

Now, I'm willing to grant that yes, the applause started before he said the Tim McVeigh line, and because of the applause, many may not have even heard it. So I don't see the applauding crowd as the big story here (as good of a headline as it makes). But the fact remains, Hannity said it, with zero sense of irony, and meant it as a compliment. WTF? W-T-F?!

ETA: Hmm, a comment elsewhere seems to indicate that Hannity WAS using it ironically, that other people had referred to them as "Tim McVeigh wannabes" and he was using it sarcastically. Wow, he did NOT think that through.

Strangler Lewis

04-02-2010, 10:26 AM

Judging from the tone, I would say it was a compliment. Now, it may have been a compliment along the lines of "These idiots actually did some good," but it was a compliment nonetheless.

Alex

04-02-2010, 10:41 AM

Ghoulish Delight

04-02-2010, 10:45 AM

I'd be curious to know what had been discussed earlier in the show, perhaps something about how everybody who opposes HCR is lumped in with violent right-wing terrorists. I'm sure he meant "these people who the left would call Tim McVeigh wannabes in a shotgun blast attempt to discredit them..." but yeah, it makes for a horrible soundbite.
I don't know if he brought it up earlier in the interview, but he apparently did on the radio the day before, and certainly did mean just that. But man, throw some air-quotes in there or something if you're going to use it like that.

Alex

04-02-2010, 10:55 AM

Yeah, and while I don't condone presenting a clip as saying something you reasonably know it doesn't, Sean Hannity is hardly in a position of purity to bitch if people do it to him.

alphabassettgrrl

04-03-2010, 10:40 AM

The problem with using irony in politics is that some people don't get the joke....

And when you're talking about blowing things up, or reloading in a gun context, that can get ugly.

Morrigoon

04-12-2010, 03:51 PM

Ghoulish Delight

04-12-2010, 03:55 PM

I'm not sure Poizner's ads are having the effect he intends with them. I was feeling kinda negative on Meg Whitman, then he runs ads accusing her of not being Republican enough. Sounds like a selling point to me. And definitely sets me up against him. He's obviously forgotten that in a close race you need to appeal to moderates.She's running the same line against him, but cherry-picking a different set of votes than he is. This is for the primaries, they need to get the support of their party to get the opportunity to court moderates. "I'm more republican" is the way to do that.

Alex

04-12-2010, 05:26 PM

I'm very much against Meg Whitman and Poizner's view on how to handle illegal immigration is horrible and, in my opinion, disqualifying.

Not too keen on Jerry Brown again (he didn't impress me when he was my mayor). But California is so broken that the only way I can see any tough choices being made is for one party to control the legislature and governorship. Yeah, they may drive us off the cliff but we're already going over and the current situation just gives both sides the incentive to prefer inaction over letting the other side win any point.

Ghoulish Delight

04-14-2010, 02:11 PM

:mad:

Whaddya think Arizona, should hispanics who are here legally start wearing sombrero-shaped patches on their clothes so bus drivers know who they can pick up without fear of legal action?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/14/arizona-tough-immigration-laws

innerSpaceman

04-14-2010, 02:16 PM

Round 'em all up, and sort out the rest later. We'll show them to demographic us out of our privileged majority status.

Alex

04-14-2010, 02:23 PM

Considering that there is no legal requirement to carry evidence of citizenship with you, how would a lack of documentation be evidence of being here illegally?

Maybe this is how certain portions of the right finally come to support a national identification card with requirements that it be carried at all times.

innerSpaceman

04-14-2010, 02:32 PM

As I understand it, Alex, the Arizona law requires everyone in the state to carry documentary proof of citizenship.

That would seem to run afoul of, oh, I dunno, the Constitution. And perhaps I'm misinformed about the law -- I haven't read it, just reports. But those reports make internal sense -- otherwise, as you point out, the law is entirely unenforceable.

Which I wouldn't mind at all.

JWBear

04-14-2010, 02:40 PM

So, which side of the Tea Party will prevail over this new law... the racist anti-immigration side, or the Sovereign Citizen/government-out-of-my-life side?

scaeagles

04-14-2010, 03:14 PM

I'm not sure if the tea party movement is too involved in that decision. I'm good with the tea party, but I don't like this new law.

Speaking of the whole tea party movement, what do you think of crashtheteaparty.org? There is some question as to if it is a real movement, but I find it somewhat classless, should it be real, to intentionally pose as a tea partier so you can make them out to look like exactly what you think they are.

And anti illegal immigration is not racist. I am indeed anti illegal immigration, but am not a racist.

innerSpaceman

04-14-2010, 03:15 PM

I've got a thousand pesos on the racist side.

innerSpaceman

04-14-2010, 03:16 PM

I don't think anyone's contending being anti-illegal immigration is racist, scaeagles. Just that the new law is.

It's hardly the way to fight illegal immigration. It's the way to stop all Latino reporting of crime, for one thing. And, well, I would almost hope incite mass rioting and revolution for another.

Alex

04-14-2010, 03:20 PM

And anti illegal immigration is not racist. I am indeed anti illegal immigration, but am not a racist.

That's true. I'm anti-illegal immigration too (though I suspect I disagree with each other on how the fact it happens anyway should be handled).

However, when you're allowed to someone stop someone simply because you've decided you have a reasonable suspicion that they're in the country illegally I'm going to say that most of the methods for reaching that suspicion are going to be racial and very easily move into racism. I'm guessing that an illegal Irish nanny in Yuma is going to have a lot less reason to be scared of this law than a legal hispanic busboy in Flagstaff.

Alex

04-14-2010, 03:23 PM

I should also note that because I'm freaky that way I tried to go read the law passed rather than take press reports at their word but I can't find it at the AZ legislature web site so any help appreciated. I did find a immigration related bill that seems to have been active today but it has nothing to do (that I can see) with what the article describes.

Ghoulish Delight

04-14-2010, 03:30 PM

SB1070 (http://www.azleg.gov/DocumentsForBill.asp?Bill_Number=SB1070)

Fact Sheet (http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/summary/s.1070pshs.doc.htm) prepared for the legislators.

scaeagles

04-14-2010, 07:43 PM

To be clear, and I did state earlier, I am completely against the law as passed. I do not think it should be within the purview of police to stop someone because they don't look right.

I believe the way to go about this is to eliminate the market for work for illegal immigrants. Go after employers and have stings for those who hire illegal day laborers. And it's also time to control the border.

innerSpaceman

04-14-2010, 08:12 PM

If I go to my local Home Depot and pick up a couple of guys for sex and some random construction work, is it my duty as a private citizen to see their green cards or birth certificates or otherwise determine their immigration status?

There are plenty of hungry legal residents willing to paint my bedroom and then blow me for chump change.

scaeagles

04-15-2010, 04:57 AM

Along those lines, I find it amusing on Cesar Chavez day, a rather large celebration in Arizona, when the local leaders of the primarily hispanic community use the podium to talk about fairness for all laborers.

Cesar Chavez encouraged members of the hispanic community to report illegals and he was pro-deportation. The reasons are clear. He knew that the literally millions of extra workers that were off the books in the US lowered the cost of labor immensely, creating a very low standard of living for those that were here working legally.

That said, I don't know how to deal with the day laborers hanging out at home depot. Only a few miles from my home, there was an attempt for day laborers to organize. They ended up, along with the HOme Depot they were hanging out at) to get a day labor center built for them to hang out at and wait for people to come hire them. It quickly became problematic in that organizers would only allow people in who committed to accept no less than $8/hour for labor. To gain an advantage, several went back to the street corner, looking to work for $7/hour. Soon no one used the shelter that cost $150K to build. It's now back to normal at the Home Depot (except the numbers are way down as not many people are hiring day labor in this economy).

ISM, I honestly don't know what the solution is for day labor. There may not be one. But the day labor situation hurts the wages of those who are here legally and legally operated businesses. Yeah, maybe I can't fin someone who will come and build my fence on the day I need it - I might have to plan ahead - but that seems a minor convenience. As for your specific needs, I'm sure a few blocks away on Van Buren you might find another hourly laborer to take care of you. :)

Can't say I know what the best solution is. I don't like the new law. I don't think what is happening now is acceptable, though.

Strangler Lewis

04-15-2010, 06:21 AM

You're the second conservative I know to express alarm about the alleged tea party crashers. Obviously, if their stated goal is to make the tea partiers look stupid in the manner posited, they are harmless idiots.

More importantly, they are unnecessary idiots.

scaeagles

04-15-2010, 06:44 AM

Why are generalizations about this particiapnts in this movement acceptable to you? Obviously you think that the participants in this movement are already racist homophobic idiots (thus the unnecessary comment). Is it because you agree with the generalization that it becomes acceptable to express it?

Strangler Lewis

04-15-2010, 06:56 AM

I believe that, liberal or conservative, anyone who approaches a political issue or candidate with excitement is suspect, and anyone who approaches it with excitement about their own excitement is to be feared and condemned.

So, I don't even have to get to the questions of racism and homophobia to make negative generalizations about the tea party movement.

scaeagles

04-15-2010, 07:16 AM

That's fair enough, but an honest couple of questions - Do did you fear or condemn those who were fervent Obama supporters? Or those who have been excited about healthcare reform?

Strangler Lewis

04-15-2010, 07:30 AM

Perhaps it's more of an "ick" factor with Obama supporters than a fear factor, but yeah. There was this guy with a ponytail who stood behind Obama in a number of shots that I especially wanted to pound into the ground with a cartoon mallet.

Personally, I initially favored the dreary Bill Richardson. Then I favored Hillary, but switched to Obama when it became apparent that McCain would be the Republican candidate, and I didn't want the entire campaign to be about Bill Clinton's avoidance of Viet Nam.

This is not to say that Obama's election was not historic or not worth reflecting on. It was. For about five minutes.

scaeagles

04-15-2010, 07:33 AM

That's cool, and i admire your consistency.

On a completely unrelated note, I found this (http://www.v-r-a.org/ppp/UncleSam/UncleSam.htm) amusing and worthy of linking to on tax day.

JWBear

04-15-2010, 07:58 AM

€uroMeinke

04-15-2010, 09:22 AM

If you have no documentation how do they know what country to deport you to? If I left my wallet at home and turned myself in as a French National, could I get a free trip to Paris?

Ghoulish Delight

04-15-2010, 09:31 AM

They'd take a DNA sample and send you to germany.

JWBear

04-15-2010, 09:34 AM

If you have no documentation how do they know what country to deport you to?

There you go, using logic again. You know that kind of thing can't be allowed when setting public policy!

innerSpaceman

04-15-2010, 09:34 AM

Pfft, they'd peg you for a kraut instantly and ship you back to Prussia, pronto.

scaeages, I don' think there is any solution for the "home depot" problem, which is - in miniature - the entire global economy problem. Like water, money will always find a way. As for labor and services, if they can be done cheaper and still attract enough buyers to make a go of it, it will be done. Land borders won't stop it. At the higher economic levels (even those that reach to the very lowest, such as Chinese exports), no earthly barriers such as air or ocean will stop it.

Making economic immigration illegal is, imo, akin to making marijuana illegal. It's folly to outlaw a plant that nature will have grow and no amount of fear or coercion will stop the demand for. Similarly, people WILL go where they can to enable them to eat, and other people WILL search out the greatest value for their money so that have more of it to eat with. No fence, militia, or law will stop the tide for a moment.

The key is to find ways to DEAL with it, as we must deal with the sun rising in the east. If we have no sway over Mexico, we have to deal with the situation here in the U.S. It obviously won't be easy. It just as obviously must be done.

ETA: Hahahah, 3 of us simultaneously posting about €uro's deportation!

Alex

04-15-2010, 09:35 AM

The other country has to agree take you (this has been a problem with getting rid of several Guantanamo detainees; we wanted to release them but had nowhere to send them and it was politically unacceptable to release them into the United States) so if you can't prove to the French that you're French I'm guessing they won't. So the end result if you're here illegally, I think, is just ending up in permanent lock-up.

There are several countries that also have standing policies of not accepting deportees even if it is true that they're the nation of origin (Vietnam, Jamaica, Laos, and a few others).

Alex

04-15-2010, 09:40 AM

Sure there's a home depot issue.

1. Liberalize legal immigration so that the volume allowed self-supporting entries better matches the demand for self-supporting immigrants.

2. Eliminate the minimum wage so that people can do whatever work they want for whatever wage they want meaning that illegal employment no longer undercuts legal employment on price.

and

3. Execute illegal immigrants so the incentive is strongly in favor of using legal means.

JWBear

04-15-2010, 09:41 AM

I once read where someone compared trying to stop illegal emigration to trying to bail out a flood with a bucket. It might give you some satisfaction to think you're actually doing something, but even if you could accomplish your goal, where will you put all that water where it won't just flood someplace else?

JWBear

04-15-2010, 10:56 AM

A friend just sent me a text that read "Happy Buying Civilization Day!" :snap:

Strangler Lewis

04-15-2010, 11:11 AM

Scaeagles, is your concern truly with the fact that illegal workers undercut legal workers or simply that their ability to do so brings them here, where they consume more services and cause other problems?

If the former, I don't understand it. If there were no such thing as illegal immigration, but there was a class of workers willing or able to work more cheaply than anybody else, every corporation would rush to hire them to discharge their fiduciary duty to their shareholders, and you would say that was part of the free market.

Of course, we already have such workers in our work force. They're called Chinese, Malaysians, robots and computers.

scaeagles

04-15-2010, 11:40 AM

it is a combination of both, really.

The underground economy pays no taxes. While it is a sad fact now that since 47% of wage earners pay no federal income taxes making it perhaps not so uncommon, the underground economy pays no medicare or social security tax either. In avoiding the system, they still consume government resources. Yeah, that pisses me off.

The economics of the situation are indeed complex and hourly rates go far beyond this issue. Unions, skilled vs. unskilled, regulation, minimum wages....all come into play in that determination, so I don't think there is an issue of corporations being able to do much of that. Corporations certainly look to keep their salary obligations to a minimum and play within the rules as best they can to seek whatever advantage they can.

Ghoulish Delight

04-15-2010, 11:59 AM

The underground economy pays no taxes. While it is a sad fact now that since 47% of wage earners pay no federal income taxes making it perhaps not so uncommon, the underground economy pays no medicare or social security tax either. In avoiding the system, they still consume government resources. Yeah, that pisses me off.
Pays no taxes?

They are (on average) the lowest of low wage workers. Let's go ahead an presume a legal worker of similar income. They would pay no income tax. Their contribution to SS and meidcare (programs from which an undocumented worker would have no ability to collect benefit) would be a pittance. The biggest chunk of taxes collected from such a worker? Sales tax on goods and services they purchase. Guess who still has to pay sales tax, documented or not.

And what massive government resources are they consuming? Occasional visits to medical clinics, education (for children who often are legal US citizens by birth), maybe some food banks and shelters, and.....drawing a blank. They do not collect unemployment, SS, medicare, welfare, etc. etc.

So they end up paying only a fraction less in taxes than they would were they legal, and they are have the benefit of only a fraction of government services available to a legal worker.

None of which adds up to reasons to completely ignore the issue. But they contribute far more to, and consume far less from, government resources than the anti-immigrant propaganda would have you believe.

Betty

04-15-2010, 12:02 PM

And what massive government resources are they consuming? Occasional visits to medical clinics, education (for children who often are legal US citizens by birth), .

But their children would not be citizens if they weren't born here, and they wouldn't have been born here had their parents not been here illegally.

Alex

04-15-2010, 12:38 PM

Besides, working under the table is a time honored tradition. I wouldn't have had my first three jobs if were working aboveboard.

I would be fine with the United States changing and joining most of the world works in not granting citizenship simply for being born on U.S. soil.

But that would probably take an amendment to the constitution to accomplish. And it wouldn't really change anything. "Anchor babies" may be a nice side benefit of illegal immigration but I don't think it is likely a driving force behind it.

Ghoulish Delight

04-15-2010, 12:48 PM

But their children would not be citizens if they weren't born here, and they wouldn't have been born here had their parents not been here illegally.
That is correct. But it remains a fact that those children are US citizens as under current Constitutional law and are therefore entitled to the benefits.

Ghoulish Delight

04-20-2010, 10:27 AM

Hey look. Some of the Tea Party's best friends are black (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2010/04/16/white-nbc-reporter-confronts-black-man-tea-party-rally-have-you-ever-fe)

Strangler Lewis

04-20-2010, 10:49 AM

You're degrading Hitler? Or Obama?

And once again, I am reminded of the Dave Chappelle sketch where he played a blind white supremacist who always appeared in a mask.

Ghoulish Delight

04-24-2010, 11:43 PM

I had to leave the room today as my in-laws started talking about the new Arizona immigration law. "You know what precipitated that? There were murders. The illegals came over here and they [emphasis NOT mine] murdered people." Yeah. Illegal immigrants invented murder. Until they got here, murder didn't happen, did y'all know that?

scaeagles

04-25-2010, 07:10 AM

Actually, there is a little bit of truth to that. The bill wasn't looking to pass, as it had been floating around in committee for a while, but a well known and well respected rancher on the AZ-Mexico border was murdered at his home, and while there have been no convictions, there is a suspect and evidence is pointing to someone involved with a human smuggling ring, and the police have some leads and a specific "person of interest" they are looking for.

So no, illegal immigrants did not invent murder. But this particular murder was the catalyst.

Ghoulish Delight

04-25-2010, 09:24 AM

Please tell me you realize how ridiculously stupid it is to accept that as a valid justification for this law.

JWBear

04-25-2010, 09:25 AM

Just because one man, who may or may not have been an illegal alien, commits murder does not mean all illegal aliens are murderers.

Scapegoating and demonizing a whole class of people whose only crime is to try and find a better life for themselves and their children is wrong.

scaeagles

04-25-2010, 11:00 AM

Oh, absolutely. I was simply stating specifically to what your in-laws may have been referring.

I might also point out, JW, that you are also correct. Which is why I hate the whole tea-party-people-are-racists-and-irrational-yellers thing. Generalizations are always more acceptable to an individual when they happen to agree with the side that is making the generalizations.

I have no doubt that a HUGE majority of illegals are here in this country to work and make a better life for their families. Please don't assume that being anti-illegal means I think the system is great as it is. I'm all for some form of guest worker program, but an uncontrolled deluge of undocumented individuals is not acceptable to me on many fronts.

Ghoulish Delight

04-25-2010, 11:47 AM

I have no doubt that a HUGE majority of illegals are here in this country to work and make a better life for their families. Please don't assume that being anti-illegal means I think the system is great as it is. I'm all for some form of guest worker program, but an uncontrolled deluge of undocumented individuals is not acceptable to me on many fronts.
Nor to me. However too many of the proposed solutions focus on punishing those already here rather than coming to a workable solution. Yes, the one over here have broken a law, but they've been able to do so because this country has willfully turned a blind eye and everyone knows it. Whether you think we should have been turning that blind eye or not doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of people who took advantage of that are NOT evil law breakers who deserve harsh punishment, they are people trying to earn a living for their family.

Do something to secure the border and ensure future legality of worker trying to cross the border for legitimate reasons. Don't punish people simply to prove a point.

scaeagles

04-25-2010, 12:11 PM

Secure the border.....seems like such a simple concept. Political forces from Reagan to Clinton to Bush to Obama refuse to do it for whatever reason. My beloved Reagan gave amnesty to millions of illegals. Clinton did nothing. Bush could have had something done but did nothing.

With the agreement that most illegals are not evil lawbreakers who deserve harsh punishment, what then should be done? When amnesty was granted during the Reagan admin, the thought was "well, now that these people are legal we will REALLY control the border". All it did was encourage more to come. I cannot support amnesty.

Deportation is ridiculous. Fines? If they are here because they are poor and want to earn a living, how can they do that? Imprisonment? No. So what does one do to discourage illegals from coming here when there is no punishment that seems appropriate or effective?

I suppose those are meant as half way rhetorical. I have no answer except to stop them from coming in, but we still need to do something about the millions upon millions of people here illegally.

Bornieo: Fully Loaded

04-25-2010, 12:51 PM

Randomly thought this was kinda funny... work safe...

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2010/04/25/10-reasons-the-man-rejected-that-chris-ware-fortune-500-cover/

Ghoulish Delight

04-25-2010, 03:34 PM

I suppose those are meant as half way rhetorical. I have no answer except to stop them from coming in, but we still need to do something about the millions upon millions of people here illegally.
While you and I may agree on some, if not many, points, you'll forgive me if as long as "They're taking over our economy, diluting our culture, and taking our jobs, so they better show me their papers!" remains on the table, I'm going to remain pretty skeptical of the motivation and morality of any proposal that focuses on people who are already here and committing no other crime than working without papers. Like Seth Meyers said on Weekend Update, "Show me your papers" was pretty much the Nazis' catch phrase.

innerSpaceman

04-25-2010, 04:32 PM

scaeagles, would you approve of putting the punishment onus on employers? Making it criminally illegal to hire undocumented workers?

How fast do you think illegal immigration would stop if the president and board of directors of Tyson Foods were jailed tomorrow?

scaeagles

04-25-2010, 06:27 PM

AZ has several emplyer enforcement laws, and in fact, two McDonald's restaurants near my home were recently raided with 60(ish) illegals apprehended and detained as well as the employers facing a loss of business licenses and immense fines. I whole heartedly support that.

And frankly, it is inexcusable with the new eVerfy system in place, to do it accidentally. Either there is identity theft and the employee is using false information, or the employer is not going through the process.

innerSpaceman

04-25-2010, 08:22 PM

Yes, but arresting the fry cook or even the owners of BOTH Mickey D franchises will not stop the practice. Once again, the big fish are immune and instead we punish the most vulnerable - because they are powerless, and the corporate overlords of our society are powerful beyond reach of law.

Of course, Tyson is not "going through the process." Why should they?

scaeagles

04-26-2010, 06:13 AM

Making murder illegal doesn't stop murder. Making shoplifting illegal doesn't stop shoplifting. I don't really think we should say that since a law doesn't make the impact we would like that we should abandon trying to stop certain practices and behaviors.

All that is possible is to enforce the law to the best of the enforcer's ability. I can't say I am familiar with the practices of Tyson, but if the orders are coming from the top as far as hiring practices then I say we need to find a way to get those callng the shots. May not ever happen. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't enforce the laws at the local level, arresting the fry cook and the employer that blatantly ignores the law.

Alex

04-26-2010, 09:39 AM

However, when there is wholesale disregard for a law it is worth at least stopping to look if maybe the law is wrong, either at its core or in its specific implementation.

BarTopDancer

04-26-2010, 09:54 AM

The only way that illegal immigration is going to slow/stop is when it becomes undesirable for them to be here. "show me your papers" may keep them out of AZ, but it won't keep them out of the rest of the US. Raiding businesses will just sprout up sweat shops where they will work.

Even the worst conditions in this country are better than mediocre conditions in many others.

Alex

04-26-2010, 09:56 AM

The only way that illegal immigration is going to slow/stop is when it becomes undesirable for them to be here.

Or just make it much easier to come here legally.

BarTopDancer

04-26-2010, 10:00 AM

That too.

I am amused by Mexico officials upset by this (http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Americas/2010/0426/Mexico-issues-sharp-rebuttal-to-Arizona-immigration-law).

“They have the right to be there, they are good workers,” says Ms. Olivera, a secretary in Mexico City, even though she admits her uncles originally crossed illegally. “When Americans come here to work, we treat them with respect. They should do the same with us.”

innerSpaceman

04-26-2010, 10:39 AM

It appears there's gonna be a clash with the federal government over this. I'd love if, as one Congressman (I forget who) is proposing, the feds simply refused to cooperate. Arizona's law would be moot without anyone from immigration going along with it.

So I think the Dems are laughing all the way to the voting booth with this one, as Republicans just drive this major demographic into Democrat territory - despite the generally conservative nature of the people in that demographic.

scaeagles

04-26-2010, 10:58 AM

I disagree with your assessment of the political situation in AZ. A huge majority of 70% of the populace supports the legisation. Also, that demographic already votes overwhelmingly on the dem side anyway. The political calculation (at least for the governor) is trying to get the 70% to vote for her reelection.

Districts are drawn in such a way in AZ that two districts have House Seats that will always go to the incumbants of Ed Pastor and Rual Grijalva (not sure on the spelling of that one). Where this is hurting the dems in AZ congressional elections is in the disctrict of Harry Mitchell and Ann Kirkpatrick, who both occupy districts that are leaning toward their republican challangers.

innerSpaceman

04-26-2010, 11:59 AM

I wasn't so much talking Arizona as national politics. This is BIG NEWS among Latinos outside your state. Anti-immigrant tactics have gone against Republicans before. This is the biggest boondoggle I've seen them make in this regard.

scaeagles

04-26-2010, 12:33 PM

Again, though, when has the Latino voting block EVER gone republican?

Alex

04-26-2010, 01:34 PM

Once upon a time, when they lived in Florida.

BarTopDancer

04-28-2010, 04:42 PM

Meg Whitman and Steve Poizner. Who are they, where did they come from and do they really thing CA is going to go all conservative? We might vote for Republican Governators but we're still a pretty left-leaning state (despite Prop H8).

All their ads are doing is helping me decide who is more liberal. I'm so confused.

Ghoulish Delight

04-28-2010, 05:16 PM

Currently they're running against each other in the republican primary, so all you're going to hear about is how each of them is more conservative than the other. In the end, they're both pretty conservative and don't stand a chance of getting my vote.

The most recent This American Life had a very interesting piece on Poizner. Again, there was zero chance of me voting for him to begin with, but this story just got under my skin.

BarTopDancer

04-28-2010, 05:55 PM

And that's all I need to know.

Thanks!

Ghoulish Delight

04-28-2010, 07:29 PM

From here on out, I'm going to take a page from the "pro lifers" (who like to refer to pro-choice people as "pro abortion") and start referring to conservatives as "anti-progress".

Similarly, I may start referring to "pro lifers" as "pro rape-baby".

scaeagles

04-29-2010, 04:53 AM

That's great, GD. I lolve how liberals and progressives want to talk about eliminating divisions and coming together to solve problems. I am constantly amazed on how it is OK to be divisive and not care about unity or rational debate when a liberal feels like it.

Perhaps I will start referring to pro-choice individuals as "pro-genocide", as many people in the pro-choice movement early on were racists and saw it as a good way to trim down the number of african americans in this country.

On a different note, for those of you that think the tea party movement has been a group of violence loving yellers, seen any of the anti-Arizona immigration law rallies? State capital and surrounding areas have been vandalized, with swaztikas painted on sidewalks and the capital building itself. Gotta love those peaceful, peace loving liberal rallies.

Perhaps I will start referring to those against the immigration law in AZ as the "pro-murder" and "pro-identity theft" and "pro-violence" and "pro-vandalism" crowd. Yeah, that'll help the situation with rational discussion.

Sheesh.

Ghoulish Delight

04-29-2010, 06:56 AM

scaeagles

04-29-2010, 07:28 AM

Wow, way to miss my point.

I sure hope I did.

Alex

04-29-2010, 08:20 AM

Unless I too missed it, you responded to "See, wouldn't it be stupid if I started doing what the other side is going" with "Yeah? Well then we're going to be even stupider!"

That said, I think both sides already engage in this form of stupidity, though I do think the Republican noise machine has proven more adept than the Democratic one.

Strangler Lewis

04-29-2010, 08:37 AM

Thus, as I understand the issue, if a left-leaning Sarah Palin equivalent was addressing a liberal tea party, she would say, "Change? No thanks, we'll just keep our spray cans . . ." instead of "we'll just keep our guns."

No matter how many times an angry leftist mob yells "Kill Bush," the right-leaning mobs will always be scarier because of the gun porn.

JWBear

04-29-2010, 09:01 AM

VSLM!

scaeagles

04-29-2010, 09:37 AM

flippyshark

04-29-2010, 11:34 AM

Except that I haven't heard of any gun violence associated with the tea party (there may have been - I just haven't heard of any), yet the vandalism has been present.

Also, there have been threats of violence against latinos that are in support of the immigration law pased in AZ.

I guess scary is in the eye of the beholder.

Gun violence, no, but so much rhetoric essentially saying "we're playing nice for now but push us a little further and we will start shooting." Those sentiments have been from a loud minority, but they are unmistakably threats. (Here, Obama. take my gun, barrel first! - We came unarmed, THIS time! - The tree of liberty must occasionally be watered with the blood of tyrants - all recent and real examples.)

I haven't seen reports of vandalism and death threats such as you mention yet. (if you have links, cool.) The usual name-calling and "but YOUR side is just as bad" crapola aside, no reasonable person approves of threats, vandalism or violence. That doesn't change a thing about the very obvious violation that this new law represents. The smoking gun - those who made and signed the law cannot define a reasonable non-race-based way of defining what constitutes justification for demanding identification. Its glaringly and publicly obvious. Its a bad law and ought to be embarrassing even to those who support tougher immigration laws. Change my mind with reasoned argument. Meanwhile, though I won't approve of destructive behaviour, I will certainly understand why a great big chunk of brown-skinned folks feel very angry right about now.

innerSpaceman

04-29-2010, 11:52 AM

I saw ONE account of vandalism and, despite what flippy implies, I approved of it completely. It was a swastika made of refried beans on a government building in Arizona.

Perhaps it's because I hold to the Roger Rabbit philosophy of "only when it's funny." But the beans are easily washed off - and though technically vandalism, I found it a rather pointed and funny example of non-violent civil disobedience, which I completely approve of.

BarTopDancer

04-29-2010, 12:03 PM

I cannot get behind any sort of law that was taken from the Nazis and I think the AZ government should be ashamed of themselves.

Sca - would you be all for this law if your family didn't look like they belong here? If it was your family who was at risk of getting pulled over and/or questioned about their immigration status?

flippyshark

04-29-2010, 12:05 PM

Yeah, I can't see much wrong with temporary baked bean expression. Can political macaroni art be far behind?

scaeagles

04-29-2010, 12:16 PM

Ghoulish Delight

04-29-2010, 01:04 PM

First of all, I never said I was completely for the law. However, I do think that this is being blown completely out of porportion be people who haven't read it.
I did read it, when I linked to the text in full earlier. I remain unconvinced that there is a satisfactory definition of "reasonable suspicion" that doesn't involve race. And that article points out exactly the paradox that Alex alluded to previously, the fact that a large portion of those in favor of it are the same that bristle at the mention of the phrase "national ID card", and yet the defense of this bill is that we're all okay with showing or driver's license.

Until you can convince me that a white person standing in front of Home Depot is just as likely to be asked for his driver's license as a brown person is, no dice.

Strangler Lewis

04-29-2010, 01:07 PM

Assuming the letter of the law is as described, and assuming everyone behaves angelically in implementing it, it is still unnecessary pandering unless Arizona had a pre-existing limit on law enforcement's powers in this area.

It's as if a law was passed requiring the police to detain every homosexual that they reasonably suspected to have molested a child. The police can already do that.

By the way, whenever you read about something that's been "reasonably crafted" and "narrowly tailored" after "due deliberation," lock your door and hide. Something outrageous is about to happen.

Ghoulish Delight

04-29-2010, 01:18 PM

By the way, whenever you read about something that's been "reasonably crafted" and "narrowly tailored" after "due deliberation," lock your door and hide. Something outrageous is about to happen.“Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal.”

That's attributed to MLK, though I cannot find a reference that sites a source.

Strangler Lewis

04-29-2010, 01:24 PM

I still can't find the text of the darned bill.

As a practical matter, there would be a big difference in harassment potential if the bill said "during a lawful encounter with police" rather than "during a lawful detention." A lawful encounter is any encounter with law enforcement that is not the product of an illegal detention. "Hey, amigo, can I talk to you?" is not an illegal detention because, the decisions are clear, unless you are detained, you can terminate an encounter with an officer and just walk away.

Everyone knows that.

Ghoulish Delight

04-29-2010, 01:29 PM

The bill (http://www.azleg.gov/DocumentsForBill.asp?Bill_Number=SB1070)

Senate fact sheet (http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/summary/s.1070pshs.doc.htm).

I'm not 100% sure that's the absolute final version of the bill that was passed, but from what I gather it's at least very close.

Ghoulish Delight

04-29-2010, 01:33 PM

The article you posted, scaeagles, also doesn't address exactly how us law-abiding citizens are supposed to magically determine who we can and can't hire, or give a ride to. Are bus drivers now going to have to refuse service to anyone they saw walk over from standing in front of Home Depot, lest they turn out to be illegal immigrants, putting the driver at risk of prosecution?

Strangler Lewis

04-29-2010, 01:36 PM

Survey says: "lawful contact."

Upon rereading, I see that Scaeagles' article mentions this as the saving grace. I think it's where all the mischief lies.

BarTopDancer

04-29-2010, 01:43 PM

First of all, I never said I was completely for the law. However, I do think that this is being blown completely out of porportion be people who haven't read it.

Rather than try to explain why I think this isn't as bad as it is being made out to be, i think this (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Byron-York/A-carefully-crafted-immigration-law-in-Arizona-92136104.html) explains it reasonably well.

Why oh why did I think things may have changed around here and you'd actually answer a question. Since it seems you want to play semantics I'll rephrase:

would you have the same feelings towards this law if your family didn't look like they belong here? If it was your family who was at risk of getting pulled over and/or questioned about their immigration status?

scaeagles

04-29-2010, 02:48 PM

Sca - would you be all for this law if your family didn't look like they belong here? If it was your family who was at risk of getting pulled over and/or questioned about their immigration status?

I did answer your original question, though I suppose indirectly. Apparently you haven't read my earlier comments. Earlier in this thread I said I oppose this law. Because I oppose the law and have stated that, it seems relatively obvious that I would not be "all for" the law under your express circumstances.

So snark on semantics all you want - if you read what I said earlier you might get what I was saying now.

My only point is people are making all sorts of hell about this when it's basically allwwoing the law enforcement of AZ to do the same thing the feds have the authority to do but won't.

Alex

04-29-2010, 02:58 PM

First of all, I never said I was completely for the law. However, I do think that this is being blown completely out of porportion be people who haven't read it.

I have read it. It is a truly awful law (though I won't go so far as to say it was taken from Nazis as I don't believe it was).

And Kris Kobach as quoted in that article is repeating what he said in his NYT op-ed and it is misleading.

What fewer people have noticed is the phrase "lawful contact," which defines what must be going on before police even think about checking immigration status. "That means the officer is already engaged in some detention of an individual because he's violated some other law," says Kris Kobach, a University of Missouri Kansas City Law School professor who helped draft the measure. "The most likely context where this law would come into play is a traffic stop."

That's simply misleading. Lawful contact is much broader than that. Asking a policeman for directions is lawful contact. Entering a police station to report a crime is lawful contact. Being a passenger in a car going through a sobriety checkpoint is lawful contact. If the desire was to limit to giving tickets or when dealing with another crime committed by the suspected illegal immigrant then they should have written the bill that way.

As far as "reasonable suspicion" is concerned, there is a great deal of case law dealing with the idea, but in immigration matters, it means a combination of circumstances that, taken together, cause the officer to suspect lawbreaking.

Do you know why there's a great deal of caselaw on this issue? Because nobody can agree on what "reasonable suspicion" is and are therefore constantly litigating it.

It's not race -- Arizona's new law specifically says race and ethnicity cannot be the sole factors in determining a reasonable suspicion.

It does say that. Personally I don't think it is any improvement say it was because you were walking on the side of the road, drinking Hecho en Mexico Coca Cola and looked Hispanic.

For example: "Arizona already has a state law on human smuggling," says Kobach. "An officer stops a group of people in a car that is speeding. The car is overloaded. Nobody had identification. The driver acts evasively. They are on a known smuggling corridor." That is a not uncommon occurrence in Arizona, and any officer would reasonably suspect that the people in the car were illegal. Under the new law, the officer would get in touch with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to check on their status.

A. Since there is no requirement that citizens carry any papers, on what reasonable suspicion did the police officer act in determining that none of the passengers had identification? It is a bit of circular logic to say that lack of identification when none is legally required is evidence of illegal lack of identification.

B. Just how long are you, as a citizen of the United States, allowed to be detained while you're identity is confirmed? Even though there is no legal requirement that a citizen be able to provide evidence of citizenship during random encounters with the authorities ?

But what if the driver of the car had shown the officer his driver's license? The law clearly says that if someone produces a valid Arizona driver's license, or other state-issued identification, they are presumed to be here legally. There's no reasonable suspicion.

That's backwards, the reasonable suspicion was eliminated by action only required if there's reasonable suspicion (for the passengers, obviously a driver has to produce a drivers license). It doesn't say whether producing a Mexican drivers license constitutes reasonable suspicion since Mexican tourists will often be traveling that way.

Is having to produce a driver's license too burdensome? These days, natural-born U.S. citizens, and everybody else, too, are required to show a driver's license to get on an airplane, to check into a hotel, even to purchase some over-the-counter allergy medicines. If it's a burden, it's a burden on everyone.

First, there is no legal requirement that a person actually have any form of ID. I have a friend who lived in California for a decade without a drivers license (he didn't drive) and he never got a California state ID card when his Washington State ID card expired. Hope he never gets pulled over as a passenger in Arizona where a cop thinks he talks funny.

Second, is that really the treshhold? Because there are some times you'll have to show ID it is ok for it to be expected any time?

To use the example given in that article, me and 12 of my Hispanic friends, all born in Seattle, decide to visit my grandmother in Yuma. I'm driving. One of my friends forgets his wallet but that's fine because we'll cover him on the expenses and he can pay us back when we get home. Somewhere around Tucson (we got lost and are trying to make up time) I get pulled over for speeding. THe police officer decides this overly crowded vehicle appears to be full of Mexicans and their gringo coyote. How long will my ID-less (and not legally required to have ID) friend going to be detained while the police officer contacts ICE to confirm identity and me, as a suspected human smuggler?

And if it won't be race based, how much less will I have to fear if instead I fill my car with friends from Toronto, all in the country illegally?

JWBear

04-29-2010, 02:59 PM

Puma County Sheriff will not enforce new immigration law (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/abraham/detail??blogid=95&entry_id=62421)

JWBear

04-29-2010, 07:02 PM

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_awACeqK1Eg0/S9iWIxF1ZvI/AAAAAAAARWw/k6i-O9ZPDmE/s1600/JoeHeller_GreenBayPress-Gazette.jpg

innerSpaceman

04-29-2010, 07:29 PM

And heheh, Lady Liberty started out brown-skinned, and only greenified with age.

alphabassettgrrl

04-29-2010, 08:06 PM

Ha!!! Good point. :)

wendybeth

04-29-2010, 08:31 PM

Excellent post, Alex- VAM.

Alex

04-30-2010, 07:31 AM

Figured I'd share a response to the Arizona bill that might have some resonance here:

Q: Do you agree with the recently passed law in Arizona that empowers law enforcement officials to check whether a person being stopped or detained is a U.S. citizen? It's not my place to agree or disagree.

A: I understand why it was passed and why 70 percent of the people of Arizona support it. They're angry, they're frustrated, and they're scared. There are a half-million illegals who have poured into their state. ... They feel under siege, and I understand that. What does concerns me is that if it's not carried out and applied carefully, you could end up in the situation where people are indiscriminately stopped who are absolute citizens. ... America is a lot like Disney World in that once you get a ticket, you're in. You don't have to keep showing your ticket to keep riding the rides. That's the whole point of liberty.

innerSpaceman

04-30-2010, 08:05 AM

Cute ... but what an ignorant analogy. We weren't denied any liberty when each attraction required a ticket - and you had to not only keep showing them, had to keep buying them throughout the day? More inconvenient, maybe. I wonder if it would work out cheaper than the roughly hundred bucks it takes you to have full "liberty" at a Disney park nowadays.

I don't see how the ticket book system was racist. So person A is a dope. (though of course, his simple analogy that would pass muster with 99% of casual Americans has an instantly-recognizable point.)

wendybeth

04-30-2010, 08:31 AM

I think the author was referring to the current system, iSm, not the former.

Alex

04-30-2010, 09:49 AM

Yeah, he's saying citizenship is like the current system at Disney World, you don't have to continuously provide proof you belong (the obvious hole is that while as a practical matter you'll only ever be asked for such proof when trying to get back in, just like the new Arizona law if at any time Disney security decides they have reason to suspect you don't actually belong they could ask for confirmation and eject you if you can't provide it, even if you had purchased a ticket).

It does not carry that he's saying that the ticket book system was racist.

innerSpaceman

04-30-2010, 09:54 AM

Of course he was Wendy. My point is that his analogy is flawed because the previous system was exactly the opposite and did not impinge on anyone's liberty. So although his analogy was readily understandable, it also pointed out how an entirely opposite system could work just as well and have other benefits.

If "E-Ticket" had not become part of the popular lexicon, I would give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that no one on earth remembered the previous system. But it's been enshrined in our language.

Alex, of course the other system wasn't "racist" per se. It was also not in any way depriving anyone of their liberty to ride rides. I suppose if citizenship were required to avail oneself of services in the U.S., we would be perfectly used to showing our ID everywhere. Um, I think we're pretty used to that right now, in fact.

No one demanded to see your ticket book while you were pleasantly strolling around Disneyland or Disney World. You presented it if you wanted to ride a ride. His analogy is both simple to understand and fundamentally flawed.

Ghoulish Delight

04-30-2010, 09:58 AM

No one demanded to see your ticket book while you were pleasantly strolling around Disneyland or Disney World. You presented it if you wanted to ride a ride. His analogy is both simple to understand and fundamentally flawed.
No, you simply extended it beyond the bounds that were intended. The analogy was referring ONLY to the current system, any attempt to extend the analogy to the ticket-book system are your own and not what A meant.

Alex

04-30-2010, 10:14 AM

Yeah, I don't see it iSm.

He's saying that citizenship should be like Disney World's system of not constantly having to prove you're allowed to be there. He's making no judgment at all as to whether Disney World's system should be like that, just that it is like that.

But yes, all analogies are inherently flawed. If they weren't, the analogy wouldn't be required, you'd just have two of the same thing.

Strangler Lewis

04-30-2010, 10:22 AM

The Arizona law is the usher who stops you from sneaking down in the fifth inning to the empty box seats of some season ticket holder at some meaningless game you couldn't pay most people to attend.

No, wait, it's the carnival barker . . .

Alex

04-30-2010, 10:25 AM

By the way, since I forgot to include in the quote tag who said it, it was Mike Huckabee.

innerSpaceman

04-30-2010, 11:05 AM

I'm glad I didn't know that. My attack on A would have been much more vicious.

Disneyphile

05-07-2010, 03:11 PM

Been stewing a bit about the Arizona law thing, and came up with a fun solution that would bring home the role of illegals in our country:

California farms should stop all supplies of produce to Arizona. After all, the majority of it is harvested by illegals, since good ol' American peeps refuse to take those kinds of jobs.

Don't want them in our country? Okie dokie. Time to start paying $10 for a head of lettuce to support the American wage demands.

innerSpaceman

05-07-2010, 03:14 PM

That would be fantastic. I'm hoping the boycotts of Arizona are successful. I'm personally putting off all travel plans there (and I do indeed have some).

scaeagles

05-07-2010, 05:45 PM

Boycotts are not going to work. Seriously. The people are not smart enough to make it happen, honestly.

There was a boycott organized of the "Arizona Ice Tea" brand. Thing is that isn't made in Arizona.

There is no way businesses are going to stop selling products to AZ. They might stop buying from AZ, but no way they are going to tell AZ to take their dollars anywhere else.

The Grand Canyon isn't moving.

I think perhaps there is a possibility the MLS All Star game could be taken away - I think it's scheduled to be here in 2012. Maybe a convention or two. But is possible that there is enough support of some groups that it will inspire them to bring their conventions or business here. I think last I heard nationwide the polls showed a solid majority of 57% in favor.

With that in mind, I just don't see their being enough motivation of most to organize or support boycotts.

wendybeth

05-07-2010, 07:40 PM

I dunno, I have a client who just canceled their family reunion at the Grand Canyon- going to Glacier instead. I think you underestimate the anger out there, Scaeagles. It's pretty far-reaching and is not going to fade away. As an American, I'm horrified and embarrassed by your state's new law. It goes against everything we are supposed to be as a country. I'm really interested in seeing one of their training sessions, where they teach law enforcement how to enforce the law without using racial profiling....... :rolleyes:

Disneyphile

05-07-2010, 07:42 PM

scaeagles

05-07-2010, 08:11 PM

Are you willing to keep exploiting people who will work for less than minimum wage off the books? Same sort of rhetoical question that is meaningless. Ever hear of Cesar Chavaz, a champion of hispanic labor? He wanted those working here legally to report those who were here illegally because he understood that the illegal population was pushing wages down. It's funny that the same people who think Walmart is despicable (I'm not saying that's you, DP) also think it's OK to exploit illegal labor pushing wages down so they can have cheap food. And no, I don't want to pay $10 for a head of lettuce (as you wrote in an earlier post), but that is, of course, a ridiculous and extreme example. Even paying legal labor 3 times what an illegal laborer makes would do no more than triple the cost, but probably far less because labor is only one portion of the cost of produce.

From this (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1982268,00.html) story -

With 6.6 million residents, Arizona's illegal-immigrant population is estimated to be half a million people.

So approximately 1 in every 13 people in AZ is here illegally. CA has a population of 37 million people, so the same ratio would put just shy of 3 million illegals in CA. The info I find on estimates of the CA illegal population averages out to about 2.8 million, so it's the same. It doesn't seem CA has a higher concentration of illegals.

And as far as polls and anger, reading this (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/05/new-fox-news-poll-democrats-wants-arizona-immigration-law-to-stay-put-.html) very recent polling data would seem to suggest that there isn't as much outright anger as you might believe.

When asked if the Obama administration should try to stop the new Arizona immigration law, or if the administration should wait and see how the law works, Republicans and Independents by large margins want the law left alone.

Interestingly, so do Democrats. And it's not a squeaker either. By a two to one margin (52-26), Democrats said the law should be left alone to "see how it works."

I don't know what to say about the anger out there. The numbers don't seem to support that there is widespread anger. I think those that are mad are just exceptionally vocal about it. Which is fine.

Ghoulish Delight

05-07-2010, 08:23 PM

So, in reality, if the nation supports this, and we ship all those people home, are we also in support of much higher food costs?

To the people who support this law: Are you willing to pay double to triple price for your current groceries? Or, are you willing to bend over all day in the hot sun, picking fruits and vegetables for only $2 per hour? If you are, then great. If not, then I really hope you think about the impact of this law some more. Every time you sit down to eat, think about who brought that to your table.
Even as someone who is against the law, I don't really find that a very compelling argument. What I pay for vegetables has no baring one way or the other on the basic human rights I think people deserve. The same "you'll pay $4 for lettuce" scare tactics were used in Cesar Chavez's era as justification for treating migrants like slaves and letting them exist in squalor. So yeah, I am willing to pay more for vegetables.

How US agriculture might operate in a world of reasonable labor control and enforceable border policies is an entirely separate issue from whether a particular attempt to enforce immigration law is fair or just.

Going on a different tangent, I recently saw a couple of interesting stats. Immigrant contribution to violent crime rates is a common justification for this law. Let's examine that claim. First off, in the last couple of decades, when the illegal immigration problem has, as the narrative goes, grown to epidemic proportions and caused all of this horrible violent crime, violent and property crime country wide has decreased. Okay, that's country wide, what about cities with large illegal immigrant populations? Violent and property crime in those cities has dropped even more. According to one reference I read, over a certain period (I believe it was something like 1990-2005), US violent and property crime rates dropped by ~35%, while over the same time frame it dropped by ~45% in Arizona.

Here are just a couple sources that seem to indicate that, while it's very difficult to get an accurate measure of effects on crime for various reasons, most of the broad estimates that can be used show no negative, and perhaps a positive, trend in violent crime rates in areas with heavy illegal immigrant populations. PPIC (http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/cacounts/CC_208KBCC.pdf) (pdf), CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/04/29/arizona.immigration.crime/index.html).

scaeagles

05-07-2010, 08:31 PM

To the people who support this law: Are you willing to pay double to triple price for your current groceries? Or, are you willing to bend over all day in the hot sun, picking fruits and vegetables for only $2 per hour? If you are, then great. If not, then I really hope you think about the impact of this law some more. Every time you sit down to eat, think about who brought that to your table.

As I reread this, the more angry it made me. You think it's acceptable to pay $2/hour for people to pick fruits and veggies? Who are the real racists - the ones who would rather they not be here illegally or the one who think paying them $2/hour is acceptable because they will?

Alex

05-07-2010, 08:47 PM

I agree with scaeagles, a boycott is unlikely to have any real effect simply because economic boycotts very rarely do (though someone writing on Twitter "I think we should all also boycott Arizona Iced Tea because it is the drink of fascists" is hardly an organized boycott (even if the guy wasn't joking (http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/28/arizona-iced-tea-shows-its-papers/)) though it made for amusing headlines").

Missed a page of discussion. Yes, I'm willing to let people work for $2 an hour picking vegetables, but that is simply because I don't particularly support minimum wage laws. That said, while it is the law, I am willing to pay the rates for vegetables such laws would indicate. That said (again), over time paying legal wages for farm workers wouldn't necessarily increase prices by multiples because there are plenty of forms of automation that could be developed easily enough -- in fact many of them were invented decades ago -- that would be cheaper than legal labor but are more expensive that black market labor. So in the end we'd end up in many cases with nobody picking (or rather one guy driving a big machine) the vegetables if current labor law was effectively enforced.

Disneyphile

05-07-2010, 08:51 PM

I'm fine with people making what they're willing to work for, yes. How that makes me racist, I honestly don't know. Please tell me. If they want to make more, they'll make it happen for themselves. It's why I'm not against Wal-Mart either. People are willing to take the jobs.

But, if we want everyone to have a "fair wage", let's start with paying everyone even "living wages" across the board, like say, $15 per hour. But, that would make me a Communist. ;)

And, for those of you who support it, then please make sure you're purchasing food and other products from companies who only pay living wages. Put your money where your mouth is, and then I'll listen to you. ;) Most products made in China and other countries are made by people working in deplorable conditions, yet most Americans don't think twice about buying that stuff. If you don't buy just "fair trade" items, then you support child labor, sweat shops, etc. That could be labelled as "racist" too. Sure, it's not ok for a farm worker to be paid $2 willingly, but man, if it's made by a 12-year-old girl in India because she's forced into it, that's ok. (Yes, that's sarcasm.)

But, I do understand the anger statements can make. I get angry every time I think about a woman being abused in Arizona, but can't speak up because she can be deported now. I get angry thinking about someone's shanty burning down, and they can't call for help out of fear of being deported now. I get angry when I read supporters comments such as, "We're tired of them murdering our people! We're tired of them taking our jobs and resources! We're tired of them crowding our schools!" Yep. I understand the anger completely.

(This is precisely why I hardly ever enter political discussions - they lead absolutely nowhere and aren't going to change anyone's beliefs anyway. Well, maybe except people's beliefs on who is racist and who isn't.)

scaeagles

05-07-2010, 09:25 PM

I don't know how to do that, actuall, DP. I know they sell cage free chickens, but I don't think they sell certified illegal labor free food.

You make a good point about sweat shops in foreign countries that pay pennies/day.

I personally don't support minimum wage laws, but the fact is they are there, and the fact is that illegal labor does drive down the overall wages paid to unskilled labor.

I don't think you are a racist. I don't think that everyone who supports the law is a racist as they are typically portrayed.

Disneyphile

05-07-2010, 10:27 PM

I don't think you are a racist. I don't think that everyone who supports the law is a racist as they are typically portrayed.
And I don't think everyone who supports the law is racist.

It's a sad situation that hopefully will work itself out, but it just seems that it's too extreme and flawed.

As for imported stuff and all, it's gradually getting better as people are made more aware, and more folks are buying directly from the artists or from fair trade vendors. For example, I bought two head scarves from a street booth today that sells stuff made by his friends and family in Peru. I actually paid $5 each for something I paid $12 for at the spa a few months ago. The latter was in a nice package, and I'm betting the spa made a nice profit, and the dealer they purchased it from made a decent profit as well, and the artisan barely made anything. Cutting out the middleman might be a good key to supporting more families worldwide. Who knows.

I wish farms were subsidized more in order to pay better. But, at least the illegals do have a chance to make a little something, whereas back in their own country they wouldn't even have a chance to make that. They really do help our country in a lot of ways. It would just be better to work with them on a solution than against them.

Ghoulish Delight

05-07-2010, 10:35 PM

I don't think you are a racist. I don't think that everyone who supports the law is a racist as they are typically portrayed.The majority of people who support the law are not racist. However the law carries a not insignificant potential to aggravate incidents of racist behavior, and to be enforced in a way that increases the likelihood of law abiding citizens running into difficulty with legal authorities simply because of their race.

ETA: to complete the thought - while the majority are not "racist", a large portion are ignorant of, or willfully ignoring, the racially charged reality of enforcing the law as written, which may not make them "racist" but does mean they are contributing to a deterioration of racial relations (I hate the term "racial relations" but I can't think of a better way to phrase that right now).

Alex

05-07-2010, 10:58 PM

I wish farms were subsidized more in order to pay better.

Man, I hope not. We already subsidize farms to the tune of $16 billion a year (many of which are designed to keep produce prices elevated) and that is just direct subsidies not even including the fact that we pretty much give away grazing land and water. It is probably true that those most subsidized are the least likely to have any interest in elevating wages.

It is one of the great sillinesses that we subsidize agriculture to keep prices stable and elevated and then subsidize poor people so that they can afford to buy it. But sadly, being opposed to the current structure of subsidization is generally something politicians are only willing to do when they have no actual power to accomplish any change.

Strangler Lewis

05-08-2010, 07:07 AM

The problem with outrage against the law is that it will lead to a push-back where Arizona thinks, "You know, all we wanted was to be able to campaign for reelection by saying we voted against the Mexicans. But you want racism? Here we go."

I don't get that upset about racial profiling. It either makes sense, or it doesn't depending on the magnitude of the problem. It didn't make sense with internment camps. It doesn't make sense to be randomly strip searching white grandmothers at airports. It doesn't make sense to be randomly hassling middle eastern passengers either given the rarity of terrorist incidents. Whether it makes sense in Arizona depends on the ratio of illegal brown skinned people to legal ones measured against the perceived harm caused by illegal presence, which, apparently, is not much since the crime has been declared a misdemeanor.

wendybeth

05-10-2010, 04:31 PM

http://troubletown.com/uploaded_images/ttown1008.jpg

BarTopDancer

05-10-2010, 05:32 PM

And as far as polls and anger, reading this (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/05/new-fox-news-poll-democrats-wants-arizona-immigration-law-to-stay-put-.html) very recent polling data would seem to suggest that there isn't as much outright anger as you might believe.

So you formed an opinion based upon an LA times blog written about a Fox News poll?

Real reliable.

scaeagles

05-10-2010, 05:39 PM

Well, BTD, if you would take the time to actually research it, you would find very similar polling data. Very similar numbers are all over if you would take the time to look.

Gemini Cricket

05-10-2010, 05:48 PM

Speaking of polling and the news outlets in general, I have a huge distrust of the news media right now. It's been growing and growing in me. And that goes for Fox News and MSNBC. Big businesses deciding what is newsworthy... Sounds fishy to me. I find myself relying on the BBC more. (Not saying that they don't have biases as well, it just seems more credible to me.)

alphabassettgrrl

05-10-2010, 06:37 PM

I like the BBC, too. I especially like how calm they are- just reporting the news, not putting color into it, not dramatizing it.

And I feel I'm getting actual news, not just what seems trendy to report. Not just what other stations are reporting on.

scaeagles

05-10-2010, 07:56 PM

In terms of newspapers (onlne anyway), I prefer the British press as well.

Betty

05-11-2010, 07:50 AM

The news has become little more than a combination of what I'm supposed to be afraid of today and entertainment tonight.

scaeagles

05-11-2010, 08:06 AM

Indeed.

Ghoulish Delight

05-12-2010, 06:06 PM

Boycotts are not going to work. Seriously. The people are not smart enough to make it happen, honestly.

Whether it's going to work remains to be seen, but at least some people seem to be smart enough to make it happen.

LA council votes to boycott AZ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37113818/ns/us_news-life/)

$7.7 million isn't a crippling amount, but it's not insignificant either.

wendybeth

05-12-2010, 06:51 PM

Whether it's going to work remains to be seen, but at least some people seem to be smart enough to make it happen.

LA council votes to boycott AZ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37113818/ns/us_news-life/)

$7.7 million isn't a crippling amount, but it's not insignificant either.

It's not, and it's just starting. Arizona likes to see itself as the maverick state, but business is business and it's all about the bottom line.

scaeagles

05-13-2010, 05:46 PM

Apparently the boycott is spreading (http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/05/highland-park-basketball-team-trip-to-arizona-scrapped.html)- to girls basketball teams.

That's a great way to gain support and protest the AZ law. :rolleyes:

Gemini Cricket

05-14-2010, 12:26 PM

In terms of newspapers (onlne anyway), I prefer the British press as well.
What I like especially about the BBC online news is that they have sections in their articles that explain things. Like if it's a story about Arizona's new law, there will sometimes be a box in the article titled "What is the new Arizona law?" and they'll give you 101 intro to it. I like that.

Ghoulish Delight

05-19-2010, 10:04 AM

Reason #263 that the phrase "Texas State Board of Education" is an oxymoron: Texas school board member Dunbar, who home-schools her children and says sending them to local schools would be like “throwing them in the enemy’s flames"...

source (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37220562/ns/us_news-life/)

Cadaverous Pallor

05-19-2010, 11:35 AM

Shouldn't it be mandatory that a board member have a child in the public system?

There's some awful stuff in that article, but this jumped out at me.

...and rename the slave trade to the "Atlantic triangular trade.” Wow.

katiesue

05-19-2010, 11:41 AM

Shouldn't it be mandatory that a board member have a child in the public system?

They're usually a position that's voted on so if the public wants someone in who's kid isn't in the school that's up to them.

My hometown I think two of the school board members had kids who went to a private christian school. They voted to segregate sex ed - because you know what'll happen if you teach boys and girls about sex in the same room? They had to hire more teachers it was lame.

Ghoulish Delight

05-19-2010, 11:41 AM

Shouldn't it be mandatory that a board member have a child in the public system?Mandatory? No. But as a general qualification for who I might prefer people vote into the office I'd put, "Not a self-professed enemy of the very institution they are campaigning to lead," high on my list. I can certainly understand someone who homeschools their kid, but would want to improve the public system. But that is clearly not board member Dunbar's goal.

Alex

05-19-2010, 12:57 PM

From her point of view it seems to be. She's keeping her kids out of it until it has been changed into an institution more to here approval.

And no, being a parent of a child in a district should not be a requirement. Being a parent does not grant magic insight into the task of education. In fact, I could see it being viewed as a conflict of interest. Kind of like saying you have to own an oil well before you can be on a mineral resources board.

Cadaverous Pallor

05-19-2010, 01:20 PM

I see it more as having a stake in the success of the schools.

Alex

05-19-2010, 01:34 PM

Sure, it creates that. But so does owning an oil well. Having a more personal stake does not inherently make your intentions (or capabilities) better. Why not require principals to have a child in the same school?

What is unique about education that having a personal stake in policy making would be a good thing where we consider it, at best, a neutral thing and frequently a bad thing in pretty much all other areas of policy making.

I'd be much happier if Texas elected E.O. Wilson to establish a biology curriculum than the local pastor who has 14 kids in the various public schools.

scaeagles

05-19-2010, 01:36 PM

The private school my kids go to have teachers and board members with kids that go to public school. I have often thought that strange, more so for the board members than the teachers. This kind of feels the same way, except for the fact that everyone pays taxes that contribute to public education and should therefore be allowed to be involved in the process with or without their own kids involved.

Ghoulish Delight

05-19-2010, 01:40 PM

From her point of view it seems to be. She's keeping her kids out of it until it has been changed into an institution more to here approval.Certainly. But I draw a distinction between wanting reform and being openly hostile.

It's not that fact that she homeschools that bothered me, it's the fact that she homeschools and considers public school "the enemy".

scaeagles

05-19-2010, 02:02 PM

Alex

05-19-2010, 02:34 PM

Certainly. But I draw a distinction between wanting reform and being openly hostile.

While I disagree with why she's openly hostile, I don't think there's necessarily a conflict for being so. If she were to get her way and the entire curriculum were changed to one that was no longer at odds with her Christian faith, I'd certainly hope that any reform minded people who made it onto the board would be openly hostile to the school system and if I had any I'd keep my kids out of it until that change were achieved.

Though I'm curious how she views her reforms as eliminating the unconstitutional nature of public schools. There's an argument there to be made (though it ignores 150 years of civil reality; though if Clarence Thomas can hold the view that the 8th Amendment should be frozen in 1787, rolling back views of government role in education back a 100+ years isn't so odd) but tinkering with the specifics of curriculum does nothing to address it.

Alex

05-19-2010, 02:35 PM

Being that this is Texas, and she used the terms "enemy" and "flames", I thinki it is possible that she was making a comparison between public school and hell. As sad as that is, I would suspect it is what she meant.

Yes, I'm sure that's what it meant. And more specifically that the public schools are a tool of Satan.

scaeagles

05-19-2010, 02:51 PM

On a completely different subject....ding dong, Arlen Specter is dead. Could not have happened to a more deserving person.

Meaning so politically of course, clarifying lest I be accused of supporting some form of death threat against him.

Hopefully Charlie Christ will be next.

innerSpaceman

05-19-2010, 04:47 PM

I've hated Arlen Spector ever since her proposed the Magic Bullet Theory. That's a long time to hate someone.

Alex

05-19-2010, 05:03 PM

Meaning so politically of course, clarifying lest I be accused of supporting some form of death threat against him.

Of course not, you're just rooting for the cancer (I'm not serious).

Out of curiosity, do you hold Parker Griffith in similar disdain? Or is there something more specific to Specter?

scaeagles

05-19-2010, 05:24 PM

Arlen Specter .... I have despised him a long time because of his RINO status. It honestly didn't bother me that much when he switched parties because I think he was closer to a democrat all along. I want anyone who is such a misrepresentation of what I believe the republican party should be to be gone. And anyone who switches parties after election should be suspect....that being said, I know nothing of Parker Griffith except that he switched from parties the other way. Because of that, though, I don't trust the guy. It is typically done for the sake of political expedience and preserving your own hyde.

As far as Crist, while I don't like what he's doing, at least he isn't switching parties mid stream to try to preserve himself politically. He's just doing it pre primary.

BarTopDancer

05-19-2010, 05:28 PM

Well this is mature:

AZ Official threatens to cut Los Angeles power supply as payback for boycott. (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/19/arizona-official-threatens-cut-los-angeles-power-payback-boycott/)

scaeagles

05-19-2010, 05:33 PM

I actually think that's fine. If LA is so committed to this break off all contracts with AZ thing, they should at least be consistent. Unless it isn't a matter of principle at all. It goes both ways. LA makes and effort to hurt AZ in protest, why shouldn't AZ make an effort to do the same to LA to protest their protest? Why is one OK but the other isn't?

Alex

05-19-2010, 05:35 PM

He has a point, if LA wants to boycott, only doing the more symbolic stuff is kind of a pussy way out.

Apparently LA is not actually boycotting Arizona, they're just getting rid of some of the fluff.

But if they go ahead and cut off the power (they won't) it would make for a great new PR angle for the AZ immigration law. They could then call it an energy reform law. By trimming LA's electricity use by 25% they'll have done more for the environment than the Audobon Society.

Ghoulish Delight

05-19-2010, 06:39 PM

He has a point, if LA wants to boycott, only doing the more symbolic stuff is kind of a pussy way out.
This may have been spin, but from what I understood there wasn't much more that the council had the legal authority to do.

Alex

05-19-2010, 06:52 PM

That may be, but then the appropriate response (it seems to me) would now be "we'd like to thank the kind gentleman from Arizona for helping us out of a commitment we didn't have the actual authority to end. Now, about the water..."

Ghoulish Delight

05-28-2010, 05:41 PM

I've read over the details of the Sestak thing a half dozen times and I can't for the life of me parse out what's supposed to be so wrong about what was offered.

alphabassettgrrl

05-28-2010, 06:10 PM

The only thing I can figure is that it was the White House seeming to interfere in an election.

I figure he was free to turn down the post, and nothing changes. It's not like they threatened him, just gave him an offer of a job.

Ghoulish Delight

05-28-2010, 08:01 PM

BarTopDancer

05-28-2010, 08:04 PM

There's nothing on LoT about the House voting to repeal DADT?

Ghoulish Delight

05-28-2010, 08:08 PM

Gay thread.

Ghoulish Delight

05-28-2010, 08:10 PM

Keep in mind, even if this makes it all the way through, it still doesn't actually repeal anything. It remains in limbo until the President and military say they're ready.

BarTopDancer

05-28-2010, 08:14 PM

I'll check there.

And it's a start. Though I read they want to attach some spending bill no one wants to it so it will be rejected.

scaeagles

05-28-2010, 09:45 PM

Not even a job. An unpaid position on an advisory panel. It was, "Hey, we think the party would be better served with you in this position over here rather than in the Senate. Take it or leave it." Big effing deal.

So you accept that this is the case because they say this is the case? Hearing previous interviews with him he certainly made it sound as if it was a high level position.

Ghoulish Delight

05-28-2010, 09:46 PM

I haven't seen anyone with evidence to the contrary.

But even if it was high level, I still don't care.

scaeagles

05-28-2010, 10:02 PM

Ghoulish Delight

05-28-2010, 10:10 PM

I don't consider asking someone not to run is "influencing a federal election".

If that's the case, wouldn't a President never be able to offer any member of congress a high level position? Because if I say, "Hey, do you want to be Secretary of State," it follows that I'm also saying, "Hey, don't run for reelection, or another federal office."

Unless there was some under-the-table payments or threats, all I see is a job offer.

JWBear

05-29-2010, 07:53 AM

Would you not consider offering a high level position something of value to influence a federal election? If you think it is not, OK. If you think it is but there is not problem, that's different, as that is against the law.

But it was perfectly fine when Reagan did it (http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1454&dat=19811126&id=ibcsAAAAIBAJ&sjid=HhQEAAAAIBAJ&pg=5060,5317656)?

Ghoulish Delight

05-29-2010, 12:08 PM

JWBear

05-29-2010, 12:55 PM

Speaking of things that Regan (and Bush and Bush Jr.) did, anyone besides Glenn Beck* care that Obama will be looking at soldiers' graves in Chicago instead of Washington, D.C. on Monday?

*Hell, I can't imagine even Glenn Beck doesn't care, he just pretends to care to make himself seem superior

No, not at all.

Guess which President in the last 30 years was the only one to attend the Memorial Day activities in Washington DC every year he was in office?

William J Clinton.

Guess which President in the last 30 years was the only one who never attend the Memorial Day activities in Washington DC in any year he was in office?

George H W Bush.

Fun little trivia, no?

scaeagles

05-29-2010, 02:02 PM

As far as the Reagan link, I think it distasteful, yes, but I suppose it depends on when that happened compared to when the law was passed that prohibits offering something of value in influence a federal election. Unlike GD, I do think being offered a level fed job to drop out of an election is being offered something of value. I do not regard it the same as an appointment of someone currently serving in office to a position in the fed government unless it happens in such a way theat is intended to influence the election. If someone hasn't filed papers yet to run, they aren't running yet.

It does seem clear, based on what I would suspect were promises made to Specter by the White House (or someone on the staff of the white house) that it was clearly an effort to influence and get Specter in the general, knowing the Specter was indeed trailing in the polls by a large margin.

Personally, I wish Specter had won (even though I have made it clear I'm glad he's gone forever) because polls showed him trailing any republican by double digits, but Sestak is basically even. I could have waited a few more months for Specters demise.

One thing though - I will cry "foul" on the Reagan link. I get chatised whenever i dare mention something that has happened before and it is viewed as justification by saying "see, your side did it too".

Ghoulish Delight

05-29-2010, 02:26 PM

As far as I can tell the relevant law's been on the books since the 40s.

And I didn't say that being offered a high level job isn't something of value. I said that what they were offering it in exchange for doesn't amount to tampering with an election. Asking someone not to run is not, in my eyes, influencing an election. Especially when we're talking about a primary. That's party politics, not federal politics. A billion different considerations and offers come into play when a candidate is deciding to run, or continue to run in a primary, other job opportunities I'm sure being high on that list. I can't imagine how one would begin to parse which forms of, "If I run in this primary A will happen, but if I don't, B will happen," constitute illegal influence. In my opinion that law was written to prevent illegal influence on who people vote for in the election and what the candidate might due if elected, not to prevent a party from trying to convince one of its members that the party would be better served if someone else ran.

Alex

05-29-2010, 04:44 PM

To the extent I have a problem with the offer it is not on the election side of the equation. Hell, I don't have a problem with it if you can convince someone not to run by writing them a check for $1 million and offering the sexual services of your wife for the weekend.

If there's an issue is on the job side where presumably we'd like there to be some balance between political considerations in awarding it and actual qualifications. That said, in this case, if the job under consideration was Secretary of the Navy, offering it to a retired admiral doesn't seem a horrible lapse in propriety.

But political jobs will be doled for political reasons (Hillary Clinton was not given Secretary of State because she was considered the best person for the job) and if we don't like it then cabinet positions should be put under the civil service umbrella. If what was done is technically illegal then I'd argue it is a flawed law and an example of the criminalization of politics that I often hear Republicans talking about. But still, if a technical violation did occur I'd rather it just be admitted and move on than play the Bush game of "it didn't happen, if it did it wasn't illegal, and if it was illegal well we'll wait until the news cycle moves on before admitting it." Of course, another big issue is that with the hypercynicism of current politics it is impossible to simply say "oops" without the consequences being outsized to the mistake.