My new word of the day....homophones.....

Are those gay telecommunications devices?

Saayyyy, are you looking for this thread?

Colon, capital "d"

Alex, I thought this was a homophone:

lol

Homophone! It'ss your dime misster, sstart talkin'!

Congress and SCOTUS got their collective asses handed to them on a platter tonight!

Yes! It was a beautiful thing. Where has this dynamic guy been for the last six months?

Really? Were we watching the same thing? Did we look into Obama's eyes and get mesmerized by his twinkly twinkle again? *throws cold water on flippyshark and JWBear*

Congress and the Supreme Court didn't get crap handed to them because our dear darling President is all talk -- he can't do diddly squat about the Supremes lousy decisions and he can't get diddly squat done in Congress either. All he can do well is talk talk talk talk talk talk talk.

Hope change change hope hope change change hope hope change. *yawn*

And don't get me started on how he's repeating his campaign promises of "working with Congress" about repealing DADT when he knows damn well he can issue an Executive Order like Truman did in 1948 to end racial segregation in the military. There's plenty of pushback on that from the Republicans, who are saying that the issue needs to be studied further (oh jeez, they were saying that in 1993 when DADT was implemented! Are ya done studying yet?). But with that pushback, is diddly squat going to be done on that? I'll believe it when I see it. But more talk talk talk talk talk talk talk hope change change hope hope change change hope hope change -- with no deadlines, no plan, just a nebulous "oh jeez, yeah, someday we'll get around to that even thought I'm losing all my goodwill" statement is, to put it mildly, disappointing.

Fvucking DO something already Mr. President, and I'll support you. But today, I really don't believe anything that crosses your lips.

I admit, I have no rational reason to think anything will change, but damned if he can't get me all tingly. *sigh*

That's exactly why I read speeches and don't watch them. I'm not interested in the least in how some politician delivers his speech, I want to know what was said. I don't care about the applause lines that the Congress gives the ovations for, I want to see what I would applaud for (not that I pretend I would applaud Obama for anything).

I haven't had the chance to read the speech nor the response yet, just snippets from various news stories last night and this morning. Everything I've read, though, seems to say it was pretty much a campaign speech.

ETA: What the hell does it mean when Chris Matthews says "For an hour I forgot he was black"? I can't think of anything that makes that a good thing to say. If some conservative commentator said that I believe there would be hell to pay.

Rush says crap like that all the time, actually much worse in my opinion, but he still remains on the air.

And there is typically hell to pay.

While one may disagree with his point, or with its significance, what he was trying to say seems perfectly obvious to me when I watch the video with that sentence in the context of what he was saying.

I don't know if you saw the context or just the eight word link on Drudge (I know you prefer to react and then let us provide he context) but what he was saying is that to him (Matthews) it is remarkable how after the history surrounding race in this country that the fact that Obama is black is essentially irrelevant to the conversation is amazing.

"For an hour I forgot he was black" = "The fact that he's black was completing unimportant to the tone, content, and nature of his speech tonight, and after all the tension over race who would have thought that was possible so quickly."

I imagine he's going to be forced to grovel but it strikes me as unwarranted. And if a conservative commentator said the same thing, I also wouldn't have a problem with it. But by same thing I mean same meaning, not same words, those same six words could obviously be used and have a very different meaning. "Since he gave such a long speech without once slipping into jive talk, for an hour I forgot he was black tonight" for example.

Actually, I hadn't read it on Drudge, I heard a whole clip of it on the radio this morning on the way into work.

Here's the entire section of what he said.....

I just wonder why he still thinks of him in terms of race. I didn't think we were supposed to do that, and frankly, I don't. I see him for his politics, not his race. I don't think of him as a black President, I think of him as a liberal President.

And that is exactly what Matthews was saying: Isn't it amazing, considering the history of this country, that his race is irrelevant to all of this. It isn't a comment on Obama so much as a pat on the back for the progress we've all made.

It is a handy rhetorical tool though to turn "isn't it amazing how irrelevant race is" into "all you're seeing is race, how racist."

I would prefer that Matthews slobber less when blowing Obama, but this specific comment doesn't bother me at all, and the response strikes me as another example of manufactured outrage.

But WOW! Maybe I should go to Drudge more often , and thanks for inspiring me to this morning. Such fun stuff -

Reid and Napolitano yawning and sleeping during the speech.
Calling his comments on Supreme Court decisions Intimidation.
Scientists involved in the stolen email scandal hid climate data.
UK telegraph givin g Obama an F for world leadership.
Ford, who didn't take stimulus money, turned a huge profit.
Obama Treasury Secretay Geithner getting slammed for his involvement in some way with AIG.
Consipiracy of Hillary not at the SOTU.

Good stuff and so much fun! I've got a lot of articles to read now.

I'll take you at your word that you don't KNOWINGLY read Drudge, but it is no coincidence that 80% of the time you raise an "interesting" political issue it is a story that he posted within the last few hours.

But by all means read the articles. Obviously I do. What would be nice is seeing some form of healthy skepticism rather than relying on us to provide the easy counter arguments.

For example, the Hilary missing SOTU link is a complete misrepresentaion trying to make it sound more significant than there is any reason to.

I didn't say I accepted your counter argument as to what Matthews meant. I didn't view it on a comment on Obama at all, nor a comment on how the rest of us view Obama, but that to Matthews, except for an hour tonight, he views Obama as a black President. It tells me that race is a primary defining factor to Matthews, if not the primary defining factor.

That's funny. I would never consider him a liberal. On many things, I think he's to the right of me. And I consider myself a moderate.

You don't have to accept my count argument. You can believe whatever you want regardless of how based in reality or not it may be.

What I was primarily responding to "I can't think of anything that makes that a good thing to say." Since it took all of 5 seconds of thought to come up with one (whether you accept its correctness or not), and since you're not stupid my assumption is either that you're being lazy, you lack curiosity about the views of other people, or you're being disingenuous. Being kind, I'll assume it is the first. It is just coincidence that the laziness happens to coincide with the worst possible way to read the comments that most supports a pre-existing condition of disliking Matthews. I dislike Matthews for pretty much the same reasons Jon Stewart ripped into him when his last book was released (essentially his view of the political game as perhaps more important than the political results).

But yes, I imagine that Matthews is pretty much in a constant state of amazement that a black man has become president and it has been mostly a non-issue. I'm in amazement at the same thing. If being amazed that race is a non-issue means I'm only viewing Obama through his race then I can live with that.

And so does pretty much everybody else. Thus political gridlock.

Oh, I fully admit to having a predisposition of disliking Matthews. That should certainly be obvious without my ever even mentioning his name.

Yes. My point is not that you hide such a dislike (nobody doubts your political view; the only thing I doubt is the frequency with which you claim to have come up with your "concering issues" all on your own), but that because of your dislike you allow yourself to just latch onto whatever reading of things lets you think worst of him and the assume that it is the only reasonable interpretation that can possibly exist (and two years ago I was constantly arguing against people doing the same thing to Bush & Co.). If you're not being lazy but instead disingenuous I'd prefer you just say "since it is politically advantageous to assume this meaning, that is what I'll be doing."

Dislike is not, so far as I view things, a justification of lazy thinking.

Ummm....I think I mentioned that I heard this on the radio. Didn't come up with it all on my own. Didn't claim to.

Even as I think more about it, I still don't see your interpretation, and if disagreeing with you makes me intellectually lazy, then so be it. The fact of the matter is that his statement shows that he thinks of Obama in terms of his race as something primary in his definition of the man. I don't understand the importance of it, personally, beyond the historical aspect that he is black and was elected. Why is he still viewed in that way? Is it like Reid, who views him as a black man with no discernable negro dialect Or like VP Biden, who saw him as a "clean" black man?

The fact that he's black should not be an issue one way or the other.

But it's ignorance to imagine that in 2010 that that's the case. YOU may be color-blind. But to deny that there is still an issue of race in this country is to be far more blind than that. And to deny that the fact that he's black is often part of the subtext of what Obama says and how people react to him is equally blind.

You brought up Ried and Biden's comments. That's exactly the point. Between those, the beer summit, constant questions about his birth, etc., it sometimes seems literally impossible to go an hour without his race being brought up as an issue. So yes, when such an a hour does happen and it suddenly occurs to you, "Holy crap, between his speech, the reaction of the people in the crowd, and the Republican rebuttal afterwards, there was nothing that was wrapped up in the fact that he's black," it's noteworthy. It's not the norm. It's refreshing and surprising.

You know, that makes sense, GD.

?? I pretty much restated exactly what Alex has been saying.

I can't think of a good political reason he had to piss off 5 of the Supremes in the SOTU.... maybe in hopes that Congress will pass a law getting around that stupid decision? But why do it at the state of the union address with the Supremes in attendance? Just seems like a needless "slap in the face" to me.

Seems like a pretty neefull slap in the face to me.

I agree.

It is never my intent to be closed minded. I suppose I should have more properly said -

After reading what you guys have written and thinking about it, yeah, it makes sense to me and I can certainly see it that way, and my dislike of Matthews made me read something into his statement that wasn't there. Also, as i mentioned I heard the statement on the radio on my way to work, the local radio guy here certainly injected an opinion into it that I picked up. I now believe, as you and Alex have said, that there was nothing in what Matthews said that should be interpretted as him having primarily a racial view of Obama above anything else.

It was not my intent to say what you said made sense but what Alex had said didn't.

I agree that there's little to be gained by implying that judges are biased--which, of course, they are-- or corrupt--which they generally aren't.

Obama could have said that he would not comment on the merits of the decision but that the enforcement of constitutional rights does not always lead to socially positive outcomes, and we now live in a world where corporations, etc.

Was anybody else watching and thinking, "He didn't say the state of our union is strong. Please tell us it's strong."

My long term question about attendance by the justices (I don't really care about telling them to their faces that you disagree, though I haven't yet seen the exact language used and it could be a political bad thing regardless though no judge would ever admit such a thing) is why they attend wearing their robes. They're not presiding over anything. It's not like it is their normal all the time uniform. It's just silly looking.

I think it is because the Illuminati sew the robes into their skin when they become Justices. Or is it the Cenobites? I forget.

"Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests – including foreign corporations – to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that’s why I’m urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong."

Ok, that seems relatively moderate way of saying the Supreme Court was wrong and to advocate for a legislative solution (though I know the majority opinion explicitly disagrees that foreign involvement is an outcome of the decision). Probably would have been best to use another word than "wrong" at the end as it isn't clear where that is referring to corporate involvement being wrong (which would not necessarily say the court incorrectly decided) or whether the decision itself was unreasonably decided (though he doubtless thinks so).

He could have lashed out at activist judges. He could have gone the FDR route and asked that Congress increase the size of the bench so that he could stack it with right thinking judges to reverse things. (Though he never called out one decision Bush wasn't shy about criticizing aspects of the judiciary in his SOTUs; even outright calling out certain state Supreme Courts)

I do think that expanding the court to, say, 15 judges would be a good thing but it would never be politically viable in a time when the court is closely split ideologically and it would not be viewed as politically necessary when it isn't.

It seemed to me that he was actively trying to get the Republicans to applaud things he said. I think the injecting the "including foreign corporations" was one of those attempts.

On the whole, I liked his speech. The last 15 minutes or so had me riveted to the screen. The whole "America is cynical because we are all idiots who can't get beyond our egos to do sh!t" theme was right on the money. Him mentioning DADT was a bone for the LGBT community, I want action not more words, Mr. O.

Yeah people are pretty insulted by the "send me some money" e-mail that was sent post-speech, like that bone he threw was supposed to inspire us to actually believe he's gonna do jack.

Hopehopechangechangehopehopechangehopechangehope.

I mean, the SOTU IS a speech, after all, so it's gonna be "more words" by definition. But those words were so nebulous, so repetitive of what was said last year, so hollow.....

Don't get me wrong though. I'm not a closet Republican, despite what BJ tells me. McCain would have been much worse on the gay issues.

Yeah, he mentioned DADT, but not DOMA. Some bone...

What I enjoyed about the speech was that he came across as "one of us". I think his advisers are very perceptive. I think the tone of his speech was right on the money: people are pissed off at you and the Senate and the House do-nothings.
The line about Democrats doing something and not heading for the hills was right on the money. F*cking cowards. The line about Republicans joining in and not insisting on 60 votes to get things done was right on the money as well. F*cking bullies.
All in all, I am still cynical about our government. But what a good jerk off session it was.
:D

ETA:
Agreed. Imho, the Democrats are scared of the religious right in our country. It's sad.

Well, since a repeal of DOMA probably has an essentially zero chance of passing it would be a meaningless bone anyway and bundling it together would just make a repeal of DODT harder as it would be viewed even more as a first front down the slippery slope.

I'll buy that.
I wish there were politicians out there that would just stand up to the religious right openly. I'm not seeing that as much. I think the last time I saw that was when Martin Sheen told those religious lobbyists to get their fat asses out of his office during the pilot of The West Wing.

:D

Jobs, jobs, jobs.

LOL that's one way of doing it. If he pulls an FDR (?) on that one I'd totally love to kick back with some popcorn and watch the sparks fly.

Is the question mark after FDR that you're not sure you got it right or that you don't know what I was referring to.

Just in case (or for anybody else), this is what I was referring to.

Yeah, it was a, I couldn't remember if it was FDR who did the court-packing thing.

When Obama called out the Supreme Court I giggled. That was a great moment. Hehe.

Extremely relieved that Scott Roeder's justification defense was so thoroughly dismissed by his jury with about the minimal possible amount of deliberation.

werd

Whoops, I'd missed that yesterday the judge had decided to not give the jury the possibility of returning a manslaughter verdict meaning the option was just guilty of murder or not guilty.

So I don't know if they would have soundly rejected the justification argument.

But does that mean that the judge did?

Yes, which is good but I wouldn't might having seen it come from jurors as a better side of societal sense.

Though I'm a bit confused about things. The judge ruled yesterday, after Roeder's testimony that he would not give the manslaughter instruction to the jury.

Isn't that a bit of a trap? To make that decision after means that first he got up on that stand and said essentially "I did it, I'm not sorry I did it, and here is why you should go easy on me for doing it." Not that I have any sympathy for him or thing the verdict unjust, but I assume the defense would have been different with the

But I'm sure there's some element I'm not getting in a five paragraph AP wire article.

Yeah, I'm a little confused too since I seem to recall there being a big deal made out of the fact that just a couple of weeks ago, the judge said he would allow the defense to use the justification defense. Why would he do that, then rule out the successful conclusion of said defense?

But that seems to be exactly what happened, I can't find any account that says otherwise. "Yes, you can argue for manslaughter...no the jury can't rule manslaughter." Weird.

It sort of depends on what happened a few weeks ago. If the judge said, "Yes, there is a recognized justification defense, and he is welcome to try to establish it," that would be one thing. Then, his decision that the evidence introduced did not merit an instruction would not be puzzliing. If, prior to trial, the judge said, "I don't want the trial to bog down in nonsense. Give me an offer of proof about your defense," then the decision not to send it to the jury could mean that the defense didn't present its entire theory prior to trial and then didn't flesh it out at trial. Or it could mean that the judge never had any intention of sending the issue to the jury but wanted to let the guy have his say.

As far as the jury goes, I assume everybody knew that an abortion doctor had been killed, so regardless of the instructions, if someone wanted to hang the jury, they could have so long as they kept uttering the magic words that they were not refusing to deliberate.

Heh, nice.

Wow. Somehow I had remained blissfully ignorant of the term "anchor baby" until today.

I'll never understand the masochistic impulse that drives me to read the comments at ocregister.com.

While I can imagine the comments being made and how awful they are, I would not necessarily be opposed to changing things so that citizenship is not granted simply for having been born in this country unless to a citizen or permanent legal resident.

I'm not super bothered by the way it is now, but it also doesn't make sense (and it is a bit of an oddity in the world) to me to continue operating in this way. There's a reason that pure "jus soli" (citizenship by where you are at birth) rather than "jus sanguini" (citizenship by blood) is pretty much a western hemisphere thing and those reasons don't really extend into the 21st century.

But it would probably take a constitutional amendment to change it (though there is a little bit of wiggle room for the Supreme Court to do it through slightly different interpretation of the 14th Amendment) so it will never happen. And it isn't such a horrible thing that I'll be bothered by that.

Believe me, the people making the comments I read weren't bothered that they were given citizenship by birth, they were bothered that they were brown and given citizenship by birth.

Yeah, I know. That's why this is one view that I generally don't talk about much since it really sucks that so many of the people who would agree with me do so for such thoroughly abhorrent reasons.

So the whole abandoning the moon thing find me rather disappointed in Obama.I know the program was underfunded to begin with, we'd been there before, etc. But it just makes me think there is nothing visionary about this presidency. I mean health care was a dud, nothing's changed in the Middle East, the economy still sucks. I mean if we're not going to do anything cool like go to the Moon,or to Mars, what's the point?

My boyhood Astronaut dreams die hard.

It may not be quite as bad as you think. The Constellation Program was a disaster we are better off without and NASA is still in the space business. In fact they are getting a budget increase with a renewed focus on what NASA was supposed to do in the first place. Research. Add in support for private spaced based ventures and we could all be sipping Mojitos in low earth orbit sooner than you think.

I don't know - if these really was "better" then tell us what the "wow" is, what are all these extra "science funds" going to buy us? Pragmatic sure, inspiring? not a bit.

I'm much more wowed by science than men in space so I'll take it.

Tangeting to this for a moment, my dad had an interesting thought on the subject. We have massive unemployment right now. If we were to pull most of the troops out of the Middle East, tens of thousands of which are not full time military (National Guard) who would then be entering the workforce. Not to mention the massive number of civilian jobs that exist to support a couple hundred thousand troops deployed over seas.

Not the most feel-good justification for continuing operations, but he's got a point. Could definitely have been a not-insignificant blip in whatever hope for recovery there is.

The term alone does nothing for me - tell me what cool science you plan to do - Transporter beams? Wayback machines? At least Reagen had Star Wars

I want a machine that can launch a fish from the bottom of the ocean, to the top of Mt. Everest - that would be an AWESOME X-prize contest. Thank you, and goodnight.

I admit to be genuinely torn by this.

Being that the private man spaced flight stuff is picking up, I can envision that manned space flight doesn't stop. I suppose I view this as something akin to the public education system....not constitutionally mandated in the least, but everyone agrees that it is better that we have it.

How many thousands of inventions and discoveries came from the push to put men on the moon, or even into orbit? I couldn't even begin to quantify them.

This will undoubtedly lead to tens of thousands of lost jobs (some reports says hundreds of thousands), so it seems strange to me that this is cut leading to job loss, but Obama wants 100 billion for job programs. Why not keep those people employed where they are? Have our scientists and engineers laid off, but pay for them to be retrained as a burger flipper (hyperbole intended).

We encourage kids through scholarships and grants and whatever to learn math and science and go to university to pursue such fields, but then cut what the government spends on those things.

Innovation will still happen, and I hope that private funding is big enough to make significant scientific advancements. I wonder, though, if those who make investments and expect a return on them will then be treated as pharmaceutical companies when trying to make profits off of their investment in research.

How would the world be different if the Soviets had landed on the moon first? Maybe not much. I don't really know. There is certainly an issue of national pride involved for me. Some things have to be cut, certainly (and the so called spending freeze is laughable, but that's a different subject), and whatever is cut will have the detractors en masse making their objections known.

In terms of a cost-benefit analysis, though, I would have to figure that what has been spent on space exploration, specifically manned space flight, would weigh heavily on the benefit side.

On a different subject, with Iran saber rattling and proclaiming a blow to the west on Feb 11, any predictions? I've read some theorizing about an attack on Israel, but I doubt that, as that would result in war since Ahmadenijad is talking it up.

Personally, and I'm probably way off, I believe that this will be the date that Iran declares it has successfully manufactured a nuclear weapon.

Lots, but that is one of the points in cutting the program to return to the moon. Those inventions and advancements have already been made and going to the moon essentially just repeats them.

That's attributing to this spending a huge efficiency in creating employment that would be amazing. However, overall the NASA budget is being increased and with more cheaper programs I would expect that science and engineer employment likely would increase. Though specific jobs that have been strategically distributed throughout congressional districts may be at risk.

Again, the NASA budget request is an increase. And a refocus towards hard science (manned space flight may be cool, but it accomplishes very little actual science).


Interestingly, Senator Richard Shelby seems to have the opposite reaction to you. You feel this is a move away from inspiration to boring pragmatism. He sees it in the other direction, an abandonment of science in favor of inspiration:

I'd be curious to know what hard science he things putting humans into low earth orbit has uniquely accomplished over the last 30 years. I suspect it is really the hard science of constructing booster rockets in his state.

If you want government to heavily fund private development in outer space, it's clear what you have to build.

A prison.

A better one than that one.

Plus the prison guards would squawk.

Maybe they want a cracker.

Would any of out Republican friends like to comment on Senator Shelby's blanket hold?

Portable Cordless Vacuums

and many others

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off

More Orly Taitz stupidity :)

Still waiting for some hard science. I in no way question the engineering achievements that have spun off from NASA in recent decades through the manned-spaceflight programs. Though most of them I'd question whether they're development was uniquely dependent on manned spaceflight or if that just provided one of many possible development platforms.

And I'm sure plenty of hard science has been done but most of does not actually requires humans to be present. It is always a challenge for NASA to find actual scientific-type things for them to do. That's why now that we've pretty much finished the ISS they need to either now redo it towards more scientific goals or just let the program expire, it has no inherent purpose other than PR.

But still, I'm all in favor of manned spaceflight in private hands, and manned-spaceflight by the government if they can show an actual strong benefit beyond PR. But since they haven't accomplished that after 50 years of having a space program I doubt they'll come up with something soon.

I have a theory the moon landing was filmed in a TV studio, on the moon!

Ok, I see what you're saying.

At this point I've just decided to pretend that I intentionally go through each of my posts and intentionally use the incorrect option for they're, there, their. It's the only way to explain that when typing quickly I never, ever get the right one to come out of my fingers.

Oddly enough, you don't seem to have the same problem with you're, your, and yore.

Apparently not...

Sorry - missed that post. And honestly I've been so disconnected from anything in the news lately I had no idea what you were even talking about when I read the post above - my first impression was he was getting involved in some sort of trade war to protect Alabama blanket factories from imported Argentinian blankets or some such thing. But after reading a bit.....

It's wrong. Nominees should be allowed an up or down vote.

However, for the dems to be outraged by such actions make me think they forget the Bush years.

You really don't see a difference between trying to prevent the nomination of an individual that you don't think is right for the position (putting aside for a moment what one might consider valid reasons to think such) vs. preventing all nominations regardless of any individual's qualifications as ransom for earmarked funding for your constituents?

I'm not a Republican but as a practical matter I don't really have a problem with Shelby doing this. Other senators have had blanket hold policies for various reasons over the years (one famously automatically put holds on all tax legislation).What I object to is Senate leadership actually allowing a hold to slow down business.

Holds do not have to be observed. All a hold is, is a claim that if brought to the floor a senator will not vote for a unanimous consent agreement to move the bill along. Essentially a promised attempt to filibuster. So go ahead and call the potential bluff instead of saying "oh noes, we can't go ahead." Force a vote on the consent agreement and see if other Republican senators are willing to help out and if not, then onward with debate.

GD, it is all political. An up or down vote is an up or down vote, and whatever the reason state all it comes down to is trying to block the nominees from getting the up or down vote. I would suppose that there isn't a dem who really thinks a republican nominee is best for the job nor is there a republican who thinks a dem nominee is best for the job. The issue is who the President thinks is best for the job and giving the up or down vote.

As GD said... There is a VAST difference between holding a single nomination because you do not agree with it, and putting a hold on EVERY nomination before the Senate just to extort pork for your state.

Politics is politics. No different than agreeing to vote for a health care bill because you get 300 million in pork for your state.

That being said, I wish to reiterate that I think what Shelby is doing is wrong. I just don't see any huge moral difference in the reasons. It's wrong regardless to disallow an up or down vote. If you think someone is wrong for a job, convince 50 of your colleagues.

Is filibuster wrong (should the health care bills be allowed to pass on a straight majority vote), or did you mean 40 of your colleagues?

I don't agree. It's a matter of motives. I may not agree with the reasons a Senator may object to a person being nominated, but I can respect his or her right to do if the objection is policy based. But we are talking about a Senator who has put a hold on ALL nominations; not because he has a policy disagreement with them, but because he is using it to extort pork for his state. THAT is an abuse of office, imo.

Filibustering is not wrong whatsoever and it is quite constitutional.

The "filibuster" of nominees, however, is typically done in committee by refusing to allow them to be voted on in committee, which prevents them from coming to the Senate floor for a vote. That is what I believe to be wrong. That being said, though, how is it that Shelby has the power to do that...I would suspect he isn't the committee chair nor do the republicans have the majority on that committee? I suppose I haven't read enough up on it.

Is it any more an abuse of office than voting for health care because your state gets certain exemptions or 300 million in pork? That would be said to be a senator looking out for the interests of their constitutents. I don't see a different iexcept that it's a new level of blocking nominees, and I don't support blocking nominees from a floor vote. If the nominee is so offensive, one would hope they couldn't get a simple majority.

edited to add:
OK, so I understand a bit more.....from a story I read -

This definitely raises the stakes and is stupid. I don't know what "time consuming" means, but I would suppose even a couple hours per nominee would indeed result in a lot of consumption of time. I would suspect the unanimous consent vote can be overcome by a rules change, but I have no idea what that would entail. Shelby needs to grow up, but I would again state that this is no different than any other hostage holding or vote buying with district bribes that take place in any bill. It does indeed come at it from a different and dangerous angle, though, basically allowing one senator to control the process. I would bet a rules change can and should prevent this in the future.

That's incorrect. You can't filibuster in committee. All a hold is, is an announcement that should the Senate leadership attempt to bring a nominee (or anything else, holds aren't unique to nominations) to a floor for debate the person placing the hold will object to the unanimous consent decree which establishes the terms and duration of debate. In other words, the person placing the hold will filibuster creating a need for a vote on cloture which will require 60 votes to pass and add several days to the process for each nominee even if that happens.

As an example, Joseph Greenaway. Nominated by Obama to the Third Circuit on June 18, 2009. Passed out of committee unanimously on October 1, 2009. Still waiting to be brought to the floor of the full Senate due to an anonymous hold.

As another example, Jane Stranch. Nominated by Obama on October 21, 2009. Passed out of committee 15-4 on November 19, 2009. Still waiting to be brought to the floor of the full Senate due to an anonymous hold.

The rules change would be to get rid of the filibuster. All a hold is, is an announcement (public or not) of intent to filibuster. When faced with a hold the majority leader can do two things:

1. Try to wait until the hold is removed.
2. Bring forth the unanimous consent decree and hope the hold was a bluff. If it was not things go into a whole new limbo which is why they try to avoid starting the process if there's a hold on things.

Also, by generally accepted interpretations of Senate rules, changing the rule would require 60 votes. How likely is the minority (either minority) to give up that power willingly?

Right - I got the hold thing down after I read something and edited a post. However, it is also possible for a committee - such as the judicial committee - to hold up a vote with only a simple majority of the committee and not release the nominee for a vote. A committee chair can also refuse to schedule the nominee for a committee vote. This practice has been somewhat common. That's why I put the filibuster in the earlier post in quote. It's not a real filibuster, but is often more effective and allows a smaller group of senators, or even the committee chair, to stop a nominee from going to the floor.

I suppose I might need a government 101 class (maybe this is 200 level), but that's how I think it works frequently.

Quick correction, a rules change requires 67 votes (though some parliamentarians think there are ways around that).

May I assume you are referring to Ben Nelson? I find his actions just as reprehensible. I don't give someone a pass just because they have a "D" after their name.

So do the Republicans really think Sarah Palin is a contender? Or is that just a way to cover up the fact they already think Obama will be a 2-termer?

I don't think Sarah Palin thinks Sarah Palin's a contender at this point. That's why she's courting the Teabaggers, so she can claim that the reason she's not taken seriously in 2012 is because of the good-old-boy mentality of the two party system.

Ben Nelson, and also Mary Landreu (or however you spell her name) in Louisiana.

I don't doubt that you do, just as I think the Senator in question is being a dork. i'm simply trying to point out this sadly, practices like this are nothing new. This tactic specifically is, but it's all politics as usual.

There was great controversy over the Tim Tebow Focus on the Family pro-life ad prior to it airing on during the SuperBowl. Whatever one thinks of the organization or the ad, I'm finding the response of the leadership of NOW to be absolutely hysterical. (by the way, I'm so paranoid now that I had to go check the Drudge Report to make sure there wasn't anything on his page about this.)

From this article -

Granted, this is not a common reaction, but come on....violence against women? Because a football player playfully tackles his mother????? How about something reasonable, like -

"I am so happy that the story of Tim Tebow turned out the way it did, as he is truly a remarkable young man. What I am concerned about, though, is that the full story involves a woman ignoring the advice of her doctor, and while it turned out this way, it's very possible that it might not have. I would encourage women to take the advice of their physicians for their own safety."

Even though I am prolife, I would hear that and say "that's a reasonable response". I don't know much about O'Neill, but if this common to her, those concerned about NOW might want to consider removing her.

I'd agree it is a stupid response.

It is also probably the first time since Pee Wee that Tim Tebow has tackled someone.

Yeah, the response from O'Neill is pretty silly - it strikes me as opportunistic, as well. ("Oh look, we can make this issue about US!")

I didn't see the actual ad until just now, though I know the backstory well enough. But by itself, the ad seems to me to accomplish almost nothing. If I didn't know who Focus on the Family was, I would have had no idea what to make of that ad whatsoever. And the tackling gag was unfunny (because it was lame), though I would never have perceived it as in any way promoting or glorifying domestic violence. (yeesh)

From what I've read CBS requested they make the ad as non-controversial as possible.

A non-controversial ad from a very controversial group - end result, something incredibly pointless. I wonder if they thought their money was well spent?

No matter where you're coming from politically, religiously, morally - the Super Bowl is the wrong time to try to get people to re-think their core values. I hope this doesn't become a trend of vague ads from hot-button organizations. Not that I will be watching anyway. I remain blissfully TV-less!

I would gather they got their money's worth before the ad even ran with all the publicity it received before hand.

If we as a society did not condone violence against men, there would have been no Super Bowl with which to sponsor an ad condoning violence against women.

And don't get me started on the conspiracy of silence regarding violence against Abe Vigoda.

That was one of the best two commercials (the Betty White/Abe Vigoda/Snickers one). That and the underwear casual Friday commercial for career builder.com

Abe Vigoda: uniting force.

Okay, it's passed.

Speaking of condoning violence against women, will you be endorsing Linda McMahon's run for Senate in Connecticut?

I honestly have no idea who she is.

ETA: McMahon of the WWE McMahons? Interesting. I know nothing about her except that now. I would figure at very least she can't be as corrupt as Dodd, so that's a step up.

I know I should be ignoring Sarah Palin entirely...but I can't help it.

I've enjoyed watching her squirm, trying to maintain her conservative credentials while being an activist for the first thing I agree with her on.

Then there's the teabagger speech, where she made fun of Obama for his reliance on teleprompters while A) reading her speech off a piece of paper, B) having been given the soft ball questions for the post speech press conference beforehand to review, and C) even having been given the soft ball questions beforehand to review, still needing to refer to notes written on her hand to answer.

You know, if the end result of Sarah Palin being put on the national stage is that the nutbags that idolize her are siphoned into some impotent independent party of nutjobs, maybe it's a good thing.

I'm not a Palin disciple, but mocking Obama for his reliance on teleprompters is open to anyone who writes notes on their hand or not. The man sets up teleprompters when he speaks to elementary school kids.

I used to wince a bit when Obama would speak off the cuff and use a LOT of "umm" and "uh" pauses. But the teleprompter talking point? Sorry, but that boat isn't gonna float anymore.

1) Every president since the invention of the teleprompter has used them at nearly every one of their televised speeches.
2) He doesn't set them up himself, though that's an amusing image.
3) The school incident was a little silly, and I doubt it has happened again, though you are welcome to prove me wrong on this one. It's still a pretty big "so what," but I'll give you partial credit. However ...
4) Did you SEE him when he had the open question session with Republicans, live, a few weeks ago? No teleprompter. No script. You may have disagreed with him and found his every answer evil, but you can't claim he was helpless and floundering. He was on fire. And FOX News made themselves look like scared ninnies by cutting off before it was done. Anyway, whatever the political import or content of that encounter, it proved decisively that Obama is not somehow pathetically dependent on teleprompters. Game over.

Y'know, Sarah Palin used a teleprompter when she gave her much-praised speech as she accepted her nomination. She used it all the time on the campaign trail, as did McCain. Nobody cares, because this is standard practice. The first time I heard the McCain campaign using this as a talking point, I thought they had to be joking. It made them sound desperate, as if they knew they didn't have anything of substance to use against their opponent. (And SURELY they did, yes?) I suppose they keep on tossing this out because their base laps it up, but you aren't going to get any mileage out of it around anyone who has been paying any attention.

It would sure be entertaining. (Unless they actually won!)

Did you see her interview with Glenn Beck where she seemed to have a hard time coming up with a name when asked who her favorite "founding father" was?

I loved this bit they did on Jimmy Kimmel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAPWD-PR_FA

Oh, I don't care about using it on every major speech. Doesn't bother me a bit. Of course he needs it and every President does on such addresses.

I didn't mean he actually sets them up himself. Would figure that would have been evident, but I suppose I didn't word that well.

I did not see the question and answer session with Republicans.

I think the whole thing is silly to focus on, but so is a lot in politics, and both sides do it when it is in their interest to do so. I've never posted about it and only did in response to a post which addressed the subject.

The part that irks me is the hypocrisy. Palin criticized Obama for relying on teleprompters then uses crib notes on her hand during her speech. And the last Republican president really, really needed a teleprompter and whether he used them or not he still sounded like a dunce when he spoke. So this whole "Ha ha, Obama needs a teleprompter" taunting from the right is silly and hypocritical.

'Family Guy' Actress Responds to Sarah Palin Criticism.
Palin just got served!
:D

I think it's cool that McFarlane got an actress with Down Syndrome to play a character with DS.

I'm not a huge fan of the show, but does Palin need to respond to every little thing? I watched the episode because it ticked the Palins off. She's just helping Family Guy get viewers.

I'm gonna have to take the Eric Cartman approach and side with Sarah Palin on this one.

I'm just annoyed that the Levi Johnston pics weren't all that great.

There. Fixed it for you. :evil:

I'm too angry to compose a coherent post about my reaction to this story.

They've arrested the wrong couple.

That's disgusting and sickening. I hope additional charges are brought on the 'leadership' that encourages this.

To be clear, I absolutely think this is horrid, that the parents should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, and that to teach this is sickening.

However, to go down the road of prosecuting those who advocate such behavior is dangerous.

We would have to areest and prosecute leaders on the Church of Scientology and the Jehovah's witnesses for telling their followers not to take their children to doctors.

We would have to arrest and prosecute Islamic leaders who have taught the concept of honor killings that have led to a recent story in Phoenix where a man ran over his daughter and killed her because she was too westernized.

I'm sure there are all sorts of examples.

I think those teachings are ridiculous and dangerous and harmful. But are they prosecutable? Do we want such laws? I don't know if I want the government telling anyone what they cannot teach no matter how reprehensible what they are teaching is.

If during a church service the preacher called the family up to the pulpit, listened to the tale of misbehavior, handed the parents a rod and encouraged a deadly beating that immediately happened, he certainly could be prosecuted. On the facts from the article, he probably only gets prosecuted on Law and Order.

Charles Manson.

If there were a pediatrician who advised all of his patients to whip their children...

If there were a lawyer that advised all his clients to kill anyone who might testify against them...

I would have no problem saying those people should be arrested. Why should religious leaders get a pass when advocating, encouraging, teaching felonious behavior?

The pediatrician would lose his license to practice medicine. The lawyer would be disbarred (and their might be a conspiracy to commit murder charge in there, but I would suspect that it would be difficult to make stick). So you are suggesting that any authority figure, whether that person has real or perceived power over the decision making process of the individual, should be prosecuted if their teachings or suggestions lead to felonious behavior.

It would take a far more knowledgeable person than I to figure out what the law says, or ought to say, about the border between free speech and criminal misuse of authority. I certainly place a greater share of the blame on the idiots who receive such "wisdom" and put it into merciless practice. It is also alarming to learn that this couple had plenty of supporters at their hearing, people who, on hearing about this tragic event, jumped to the defense of the abusers, all the while citing a bronze-age text that they have been told they must believe on pain of eternal torment.

Whenever faith-based behavior takes the lives of young children, it's time to loudly and publicly decry irrationality, and pointedly question the value of adhering to ancient texts, no matter how venerable and dearly loved. (I'm glad that many religious people cherry pick the nice parts out of their religious texts, but I hope they will start to see the value of bravely decrying the horrible parts in equal measure.)

In terms as black and white as that? No. But I do suggest that there is a line, ill-defined as it may be, and in my view creating a ministry focusing specifically on advocating felonious behavior (even if there were no death involved, the things advocated by these monsters are criminal) crosses that line.

To tie it closely to this example:

What would you say about an Islamic leader who created books and websites that said, "You should kill enemies of Islam. Here are specific techniques to do so most effectively. Here are the materials you need to carry out the killing as I've described, and here's the best places to buy those materials at the best prices. And you should do it. Do it or Allah will punish you. Do it or you are an evil person."?

That is what we're dealing with here. A couple that has created a step-by-step blueprint for child abuse, have created a platform to sell this blueprint, and say in no uncertain terms, "Do it. Whip your child. Hit your child with hard rubber tubing. Do it you're an evil person. Do it or they will be evil people. Do it or God will punish you. Do it." This is leaps and bounds beyond "suggesting" and "advocating". It leaps and bounds, in my opinion, straight to "incitement".

Of course, you don't have to be at the murder to be guilty of murder. Manson was guilty of murder as a conspirator in the specific killings that he ordered. Convicting him of murder for uttering vehement, violent generalities would have been a much tougher sell.

I would agree, though, that depending on the level of control involved, a religious leader could be viewed as ordering a hit on some little kid. Why the hell not?

If we were talking about generalities I'd agree. But I make no exaggeration when I say that Michael and Debi Pearl literally detail what materials to purchase, where to purchase them, and how to use them, and who to use them on (your children). Their book, their website, their preaching is chock full of specifics.

Would I advocate the arrest of the author of Anarchist's Cookbook? No. However, if it, along with instructions on how to build explosives, also contained instructions on the best way to use those explosives to murder politicians, and the author were to regularly speak to people saying, "Use the techniques in my book against any politician that voted to invade Iraq. They are evil and should die!" yes I most certainly would advocate his arrest.

Hmmm.....I suppose I have to think about this more. Valid points, it is just difficult to determine where lines should be drawn.

As an aside, I noted with some interest that when our school district spent several thousand hiring a "positive discipline" consultant to work with teachers and parents, hundreds of parents apparently showed up. Much less interest in attending meetings to address the budget shortfalls that will result in firing teachers that will result in more kids ending up as discipline problems.

So lets see, facts that Lower Merion school district is not disputing:

1) They put software on the laptop that could be remotely activated to record images
2) They did so with zero notice to parnts
3) There exists an image that was remotely captured
4) They viewed that image and used it as evidence to discipline a student.

Their only defense so far is that they claim to only activate the camera if the laptop is reported stolen. As if A) that explains why this camera was activated since the laptop was clearly not stolen and B) having activated it and seen that it was obviously not stolen, used the image against the student.

And now it seems that one of the security people charged with setting it all up had been running his mouth online about all the effort he put in to make it as hidden and un-disableable as possible.

Me thinks the school district is royally b-o-n-e-d on this one.



link for those that haven't seen this story

Regarding Michael and Debi Pearl
 

This story dates back to 2006:
Source

ETA: Not sure why it's in bold. Couldn't un-bold it.

Yes, the Schatz's are not the first to have killed their child based on the Pearl's teachings, and sadly are unlikely to be the last. But even if not one child died, they are still responsible for countless cases of what should be prosecuted as child abuse.

While I worked out in our company gym today, one of the TV's was tuned to coverage of Toyota execs being questioned by a House committee. I learned something very interesting, of which I was not previously aware:

Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) is a blithering idiot.

She's hysterical whenever Colbert gets ahold of her.

That may be, but she was demanding a 100% guarantee from Toyoda that her car will never be recalled.

Blithering idiot.

I have only seen bits and pieces of the 6+ hour health care summit, so I can't form a full picture of how valuable it was. However this moment alone makes me happy it happened (would rather have not linked to the Daily Show as the source, but I can't find the video anywhere else)

Legitimate point

Interesting. It's been ruled that the secretly recorded ACORN tapes, supposedly proving they gave illegal advice to fake prostitutes, were actually edited to fit the story and that the unedited tapes don't show any illegal activity. The DA has closed the investigation with no criminal charges.

I bet you won't see that little detail on Fox News.

Nowhere in that article does it report that the footage was edited to make it falsely appear that the ACORN staff was doing something illegal. My point still stands.

I'll be waiting for Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, et al to apologize on camera to ACORN for demonizing them over of the lies perpetrated by these filmmakers. But I won't be holding my breath.

The Fox News article has been conveniently edited to exclude mention of convenient editing.

That's great. Go Ron Howard!

Wow- the sad thing is ACORN has been tainted anyway. They ought to sue the shyt out of those so-called news organizations.

Yep. Another win for the Big Lie. Another loss for the common people.

Still - I'd be curious to see the unedited ACORN tapes. What they did might not be illegal ... and the stuff I heard wasn't even something I personally wouldn't have similarly advised a pimp/prostitute pair. But the stuff I heard, edited or not, seemed entirely unethical - no matter how compassionate - to advise.

It may have been edited, and the stuff I heard taken out of context. But they said what they said, and it was very damning. I cannot imagine what context would make it innocent.

So if you don't support ACORN you are not a common person?

If news organizations could be sued for taking things out of context there would be no news organizations left.

Just read this and thought it was funny. YMMV.

Actually, I think only the first item is purely humorous - and only descriptive of a a certain subset of Republicans or Conservatives.

But I daresay the remaining items accurately describe 96% of Conservatives. And that's not very funny.

Funny you should say that... :D

Yeah, the innuendo in this incident disturbs me. I have straight friends who go to gar bars once in a while. So just because he's an anti-gay crusader who we just know must be a closet case, we take licence to assume he's queer because of where he got drunk and because he had a 50/50 chance of the passenger in his car being a man.


I think it's bad enough he's a state senator who was caught driving drunk. I wish the press would leave it at that. The gay innuendo is dangerous.


Not the least because I completely believe it. :D

Yeah, I've been to Faces a few times. But then again, I don't have a history of opposing gay rights.

Exactly!

Link from Fox news because it makes reading it all the more ironic.

He could have gone to Faces to buy everyone there a drink.

After all ... he owes every gay in California a round of drinks ... and he's gotta start somewhere! :D

And I seriously doubt it was a La Cage kinda thing.

Fact finding mission?

It's one thing to take something out of context- it's quite another to edit something out of context.

Is this a good thread to talk about the Vatican Male Prostitution Ring scandal ... or should we start a fresh one specifically for the homo hypocrisy scandals of the Catholic Church?

What did those whacky butt-pirate Catholics do now?

Oh, you can't make this stuff up. These scandals just write themselves!

Apparently you could call the Vatican for gay-prostitute delivery. Of course, why no one was suspicious of an exclusive, secretive club of men called "Gentleman of His Holiness" is beyond me. I'm pretty sure I saw a bar with that name in Castro.

Stiff dick in twenty minutes or it's free?

Is it juvenile that I giggled at the terms, "papal gentleman" and "lay attendant"?

Not at all.

He admitted it?! I have to give him credit for not denying it. But his political career (in Bakersfield, at least) is over.

Supreme Court to decide if Westboro Baptist Church has to pay damages for picketing the funeral of a fallen Marine. Story here

I have a serious question here....

Is any gay/lesbian considered to be self loathing if they disagree with the gay/lesbian agenda? I am wondering if it is possbile for a gay/lebian individual to oppose gay marriage, for example, without being considered self loathing. Is it possible he isn't self loathing at all?

I agree that "self loathing" isn't the correct term. But what would you call someone that works to deny equal rights to the same minority group that he belongs to? What would you call a black who fought to prevent civil rights legislation in the 60's, for instance?

This would be my serious question...
What, pray tell, is the gay/lesbian agenda? Can you name the points, in order? Do you know who drew up the original document? Is it available as a pamphlet or online? Are there meetings I may attend to learn more?

Any politician who fights vehemently against the civil rights of the people he likes to fvck should be tarred and feathered. Self-loathing is too forgiving a term, a$$hole hypocrite is more like it. If he's not self-loathing, then he's just a good old-fashioned psychopath and should be removed to a place where he can stop hurting people.

I know (of) some gays who think marriage is just an attempt to co-opt queer culture, and are against it on those grounds. That's not necessarily self-loathing.

But Ashburn's claims that he was only voting the way his constituents would have on any particular (cough*cough anti-gay) issue rings hollow to me. Sure, he probably would not have kept his elected position if he didn't betray his group of people with his actions, but it's hard for me to believe he could commit that betrayal on an ongoing basis without some sick kind of hatred of da gay ... and da gay part of himself.

Didn't Cheney's lesbian daughter campaign against gay rights too?

No. She remained silent about the issue during the '04 campaign and has since said she supports legalizing gay marriage.

Of course, one could quibble with her silence, however she never actively campaigned against it.

IIRC, Dick Cheney also came out in support of gay marrage.

ETA: I was correct.

Dick Cheney called it a state-level issue, but still indirectly supported DOMA under the heading of "supporting W".

"It would be wrong for us to get married, Frank. Wrong, perverted, and immoral. Now let's make sweet, sweet love."

I certainly was not attempting to be offensive or controversial in the least and apologize if you took offense at my wording. I suppose it would have been better stated to ask if a gay man opposes a gay related social issue supported by most of gay men does that mean he is self loathing?

Even Ken Starr is saying Liz Cheney's attack on DOJ lawyer's defense of terror suspects is "shameful".

Best reason so far to pass health care reform!!

Oh please oh please oh please.

Hey Rush, umm, you realize Costa Rica has tax-payer supported universal health care, right? Right? As a matter of fact, I dare you to find a country in which you'd be willing to live that DOESN'T have some form of socialized health care.

You beat me to it! I just came on LoT to post it.

There are plenty of countries without universal healthcare that he can choose from.... in Africa, Southeast Asia, the Middle East.... I'm sure he'll be welcomed with open arms there... :evil:

I believe he wasn't saying he would move there, but that he'd go there for health care. I surmise this because of the connection to Cuba and how the same clip had him talking about how Cuba is going to require health insurance for visitors, and how he said he would never go there.

I found this info very quickly, as well as many other links (it would seem as if private medical options in Costa Rica attract many foreigners) -

Riiiiight.... Is that how Fox is spinning it?

That wasn't off of Fox....that was off of a google search of "costa rica health care" and was one of many links that described the health care options in Costa Rica.

Contextually, he was saying he will leave the country to get his healthcare.

That is the part that I was talking about. Listen to the video. He wasn't talking about leaving to get health care. :rolleyes:

He had already decided to retire.

Actually he still has a good deal of support from the non-fundie Republicans. He voted for his constituents, not his feelings.

The thing that bugs me is that now all of the focus is on his coming out, not on the fact that he was driving a state car while drunk.

I don't think we're going to agree, so I'll leave it at that.

I remember a more innocent time when Limbaugh only left the country with his healthcare.

Denial much?

(deleted text because of GD's post immediately below)

Boys. Settle.

Seattle?

Thanks, scaeagles for the response. I hate the pejorative nature of the phrase, "The Gay Agenda." What most people want, is simply equal rights. When terms like, "The Gay Agenda" are used, it implies that there are special rights being sought, and that there's a check list somewhere. "The Gay Agenda" sounds somehow sinister. It's as if the word, "Secret," is there between, "The," and "Gay," only silent. There is no secret gay agenda, just a desire to have the same rights as non-gay people, and have those rights protected by law.

Meg Whitman's attack ads against Steve Poisner had me wanting to check Poisner out. Sadly he's now running ads saying the claims are untrue. Too bad, she made him out to be a great candidate.

Moonbeam me up, Scotty.

What bugs me is he was plain driving while drunk, period. As far as the 'voting for his constituents' drivel he is passing out- bullshyt. (This is directed at him, MG- not you!) What, he's a political mercenary? Is that it? He couldn't run on an honest platform, so he had to lie and sell himself out to the people who could get him into office? He's a hypocrite, a liar, and he's harmed people with his actions. In other words, a perfect political model.

Not only that, he was driving a state vehicle!

I think her point was that it's irrelevant that it was a state vehicle. Who cares who owned the car?

So what is on the Gay Agenda for to-day? I hope grocery shopping, because we need milk.

I just read this online.

That's very cute, but I suspect if you changed the terms Democrat and Republican around and told the thusly modified joke to a conservative, he or she would chuckle and say,"How true."

I'm posting some things a friend of mine posted in response to someone on Facebook linking to a letter writing campaign against he health care bill. This is probably the most cogent summary of what's going on I've read on the subject:

------------------------------------------------------------------

"Government-run health care?" The bill on hand doesn't even have a public option. It stops the practice of refusing coverage due to pre-existing conditions (and making up pre-existing conditions to deny coverage once a person is sick). It removes the barrier for private health insurance companies to operate across state lines. It creates an open exchange for health care plans. It extends availability of medicare back a few years to the late 50's, and for some people below the poverty line.

And as for the democratic process... the democratic process says that if 50% of senators are willing to vote for a bill, it should pass. What has happened here is that 59% of senators are willing to vote for a bill, but the others are willing to block them by using a filibuster... a technicality that requires 60% of congressmen to vote to end a discussion, so that the other side will have had their say. Not only that, this is FOR A BILL THAT ALREADY PASSED THE HOUSE AND SENATE. It's a technicality process to combine the two passed bills... a technicality that is being blocked on a technicality. How is that democracy?

Quite frankly, countries with ACTUAL government-run health care are looking at this like a casual regulatory bill. Who has actual government-run health care? Canada. Japan. The UK. Germany... well, take a look here. http://www.blogcdn.com/www.gadling.c...reworldbig.jpg It's most of them, really. All of the industrialized ones, and a lot of the barely modern ones. It's not some big scary thing to fear, especially when the extent of socialization appears to be A: an expansion of medicare, which we already accept is a good idea, and B: a public exchange to help drive costs down, which fits perfectly with free-market ideals.

I might add that we're spending 20% of our GDP on healthcare, whereas most other industrialized nations spend 10%. Clearly, what we have has failed. Let's make this a competitive market, with a floor for the extremely poor.



[response full of the usual "The can't force me to buy health coverage!" And it's 2800 pages, it must be bad!]


You definitely have good points. The bills are bloated and huge, and not nearly enough people have read them.

However, there is definitely a few things wrong. For one, the government does mandate universal healthcare to a degree already: Emergency Rooms are not allowed to deny treatment to any patient regardless of inability to pay. As a side effect of this system, for the people who can't afford it the best strategy is to wait until a problem is bad enough for emergency care, then argue the bill down in court to pennies on the dollar. I've seen friends argue 20k dollar treatments down to 500, payable over a year. Guess who pays the difference? For another, the government already mandates fire, police, military, school, and other coverages. They just do it the sane way, universally, the way that a lot of other countries handle health care. And finally, my state already mandates that everyone has coverage, and provided a low-cost option for those who couldn't otherwise afford it. Amusingly enough, this was spearheaded by Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, and has more than a passing resemblance to the current under-discussion healthcare bills.

For the pre-existing conditions clause: this is one that the insurance companies themselves have asked for. If any one of them individually strikes the pre-existing conditions clause, they will be outcompeted by people who don't. But if everyone strikes together, they all bear equal costs, which means competition can continue under these other banners.

Setting aside the abuses of pre-existing clauses (famous cases include declaring that going to a doctor twice for coughs years ago was a pre-existing condition for cancer, and considering rape a pre-existing condition), there are great reasons not to base health care on job, locked behind a pre-existing condition wall. The classic case is simple: Get Seriously Ill. When you get sick, you lose your job. When you lose your job, you lose your healthcare. When you lose your healthcare with a Serious Illness, you now have a pre-existing condition that will prevent any insurer from covering you in the future. This is not the basis for a sound care system.

A bill HAS passed the house and senate. Reconciliation is a routine matter, where even big things like "abortions aren't covered" are generally fudged between spending bills. Hell, entirely new clauses get inserted during reconciliation (which is not to say that they should, but they do routinely). More than 50% of the House and more than 50% of the Senate voted for what is essentially a capitalist, market competition solution with a couple of protections thrown in. What should happen now is a genuine merging of the bills into one, with differences earnestly hammered out. What is happening is one last chance to block any of it from being implemented, despite previous votes.

Personally, I think the bill is pretty lame. A universal baseline system (like the rest of the western world) would go a long way to cutting down administrative overhead and insurance profittaking, estimated at %40 of premiums. And it would untie people's health coverage from their jobs, a major problem currently. The "market will solve all problems" solution presented in the bill is lame and does suck, but it is an improvement over the travesty that we have right now. And none of these adequately address the cost issue in more than a cursory fashion. The improvement seems incremental rather than the real reform that is needed, with some dumb setbacks thrown in there. But it is an improvement, and that's all we're likely to get for a long time. I'm fine with taking the existing system that we have and fixing it, rather than trashing it. From everything I've seen, this bill essentially bolts on checks and balances to the existing system, including a floor for the extremely poor and some protective walls for workers. From everything I've read of the bill, this is not even close to throwing out everything we have.

Realistically, if we don't get some sort of movement on this here and now, we're going to lose our chance at any reform for the next 8 - 12 years. The entrenched political opinion will be that health care is a form of career suicide, the public won't challenge their internal fears about health care reform equaling death panels, and the cost will creep ever skyward. By the time the next opportunity rolls around the rhetoric will be even thicker, based less firmly in reality, and covering an even more disproportionate portion of our gross expenditures.

Also, I know you're a die-hard Conservative. Please, please reclaim the Republicans, or start a competing party that removes them. Please. I have a lot of respect for what pre-Regan / pre Christian Fundamentalist Republicanism stood for. It wasn't about lockstep following orders, invading countries, and finding convenient scapegoats. It was about reducing government expenditures, encouraging civic duty and participation by all citizens, enshrining individual freedoms, and generally being an uncorruptable Jimmy Stewart do-gooder.

I remember those people. They would have laughed someone like Sarah Palin the fvck out of town. Today, well...she's a gosh dang American hero and conservative icon and not some vacuous sh*t-for-brains politician.

Yeah, i'm waiting for the person this was directed at to respond that the Tea Party represents that return to conservatism. I may just vomit.

I'm laughing my ass off at the comments I'm seeing from frothing ditto-heads, Glenn Beck nutjobs, and the like saying Kucinich has "sold out". Laughing. My. Ass. Off.

How about a little domestic terrorism by tea baggers pissed off about the health care bill.

From thrown bricks through windows, posting of home addresses (even if it was the address of the guys brother) and broken gas lines, things are getting out of hand.


On a seperate note, have you noticed at all that newscasters refer to the president as "Mr. Obama" instead of "President Obama"? My husband first pointed it out and I wondered if they referred to Bush that way or not.

Odds are they did. Some version of this is a pretty common house style that the first reference to the president they say "President Obama" or "President Barack Obama" and then after that say "Mr. Obama" or just "Obama."

NPR got slammed for this last year by people certain that it was a sign of disrespect, something they'd never have done to a previous president and they did a demonstration of them using the same style through many administrations.

So can't say it is true of everybody who is saying Mr. Obama that they did the same to Mr. Bush but it isn't at all unlikely.

As another example, it is the house style of the San Francisco Chronicle that on first reference they say "President X" but then on subsequent references they just say "X". Here they do it to Bill Clinton. Here they do it it George Bush. Here they do it to Obama.

The problem with it on TV is that over the course of a story you'll hear "President X" just once but "X" or "Mr. X" many times and forget you heard the first one.

(And also, of course, opinion shows probably don't have to meet house style to the same degree so it's probably laxer there with people talking in a more natural way; and opinion shows are more common than they used to be.)

Why is it, in the last 24 hours only, every time I click on any Parking LoT thread, I get a red warning screen that my computer may be harmed? I got this at work today, and just now at home. Admins? Any ideas?

Yeah. It's Wendy's fault.

Her the website that hosts her sigline ticker image has been flagged as having malware on it. So if your browser is sensitive to that, it sees the url in the image source and flags it.

The good news is, there's nothing to worry about. The image can't do anything to the LoT or your computer, so you can ignore that warning. Of course having to tell it to ignore the warning every time is annoying, so you can turn sig lines off. And then bombard Wendy with PMs until she removes her sig line.

The political climate is indeed horrid.

However abhorrent, though, it is certainly far from new.

In my opinion, it's quite a bit worse then it has been. I don't recall congresspeople getting death threats or being spit on after votes regularly happening in the past as one example.

The clips that I've been hearing on the radio that have been submitted aren't threats, they are calling the dems names. No one has played anything - again, that I've heard - that included threats of harm.

If someone spits on someone, arrest them by all means. But saying someone is worthless garbage (in whatever colorful language they choose to use) is not a threat.

People have thrown bricks through office windows of House members in Western NY. Someone cut a gas line at another's home after a blogger posted his address. News article.

Absolutely wrong. No doubt. However, please let me know when they catch the perps. I am reminded of this story, in which it was falsely claimed that anti health care refrom forces were responsible.

Don't get me wrong - anyone who does anything violent or commits vandalism should be prosecuted. Absolutely.

In addition, threatening phone calls to Democratic representatives has risen dramatically enough for the Congressional Police to increase security.

I using profanity and calling someone an idiot a threatening phone call? I don't mean that rhetorically - I'm serious. If I call and say " you are a f***ink idiot", have I threatened that person? Tastelss, sure. Much better way to leave a disagreement. But unless someone says something "I know where you love and I'm going to kill you and your family", I'm just not seeing it as a threat.

I have to ask... At what point will moderate republicans stop excusing the actions of the extreme right - a fringe that is becoming more and more violent? At what point will they say "enough" and condemn their hateful rhetoric? Are they so caught up in "party loyalty" that they just can't bring themselves to criticize another Republican, no matter what they do?

What about using hunting terminology and crosshair imagery in political speeches?

They are getting threatening calls.

Here is a link to several news stories concerning this.

Well, as a member of the right, I didn't support McCain, and very verbally so did not. I am clearly renouncing violence and vandalism regardless of whom is doing it (and can see that it comes frmo both sides of the extremes). I was very vocal about the things I didn't like that Bush was doing (primarily in terms of fiscal resonsibility).

Do you support Earth First or various environmental extremists? Did you support those carrying signs at antiwar rallies calling for Bush to be killed?

Extremism is extremism regardless of where it comes from. Violence and threatening behavior is violence and threatening behavior no matter which side is comes from.

Apparently I am not making myself clear, but don't see how thaty is possible. Threats of direct violence - wrong. Investigate the hell out of it. Vandalism/violence - wrong. I do appreciate the links that have specific info about threats, as what I had seen and heard was more about vandalism and tasteless profanity laced name calling.

I do notice that Republican leaders, in the stories you linked to, are condemning this, which seems to answer your question above about condemning extremists who resort to violence and threats.

I do not, never have.

The problem I have is that (at least, from what I have observed) most Republicans won't even acknowledge that there is extremism on the right.

Tea party protesters that carry signs with racist and violent messages? "Oh... You're misinterpreting them."

Someone throws a brick through a democrat's window? "It's probably another Democrat trying to frame the Republicans."

Reports of threatening phone calls to Democratic members of Congress? "Just because someone leaves a threatening message doesn't mean it's really threatening."

No one here would defend or dismiss these actions if they came from someone on the left. So I ask the question again... Why is there not more condemnation from the right when there is behavior like this coming from the right?

For the same reason, I suppose, that people aren't up in arms over James Cameron recently saying that global warming deniers should be shot.

I can't answer why people don't respond the way you would like them to.

As far as the political affiliation of the person who threw a brink through the window - whomever, regardless of political affiliation, should be responsible for their actions. All I did was point out that a widely publicized right wing threat and intimidation in CO that was touted all over as being right wing extremism on parade was, in fact, a liberal democrat trying to frame republicans. Do you condemn the actions of that person? I'm sure you would....just as I have condemned the actions and the republican leaders in your links have condemned them. It may not go as far as you'd like, but there is the condemnation.

To be accurate, he challenged them to a duel.

Well, I suppose I'm making the extrapolation the Cameron doesn't want to die. :)

Perhaps. But I do think there's a difference between, "Let's battle" vs. "I'm going to kill you."

So it's OK to choose the honorable way of killing someone?

To the extent that either side couches their political disagreements in terms of violence and killing it is wrong and a needless escalation.

That said, there is a difference between using imagery of violence as a metaphor as both Cameron and Palin both clearly have, nobody seriously thinks either wants to literally shoot the people with whom they are disagreeing and simply expressing a desire for violence as sometimes happens.

So, my preference would be that everybody say to the people offering the violence metaphors "tsk, tsk, don't be an ass" and to those pretending to be offended by obvious metaphors "tsk, tsk, don't be an ass."

And everybody should condemn in the strongest terms threats or exhortations to violence that are not metaphors, regardless of whether the person uttering them is likely or even capable of carrying them out.

I thought it was a debate.

I hadn't heard that (or about him wanting to duel with deniers) - but Cameron isn't a political leader. I agree with his position re: global warming, but I also find him silly. (He sure can direct action sequences, though!)

This game of "why didn't you object when this or that happened?" is one of the most tiresome, predictable and potentially endless gambits in any political discussion. Alex had it pretty right on when he said that most of us can recognize metaphor in rhetoric, as opposed to outright incitement, or actual criminal acts. So, Palin's crosshair map doesn't bother me in the least, nor does the "Fire Nancy Pelosi" with fiery flames in the background on the RNC website. I can easily see that these mean "Hey, get these people out of office in November."

In case anyone missed it, here is what incitement looks like, courtesy of Mike Vanderboegh, as reported on a Fox site. No question about it - a militia man who relishes the thought of violent overthrow, actively telling people to break windows as a warning for the gunshots that are to follow if the government continues on its present course. And he's practically giddy at the thought of being arrested and charged with sedition because of the platform it will give him. Chilling. Okay, this isn't a political leader, but I would sleep a little more soundly if I heard Republicans call this guy out by name and say no, that's not the way things are going to happen.

(By the way, for what it's worth, I thought Boehner's public response to all of this was reasonable, if predictably politicized, but I'm not expecting anything any politician says to be otherwise.)

Okay, rambling as usual. I'm going to pop extra popcorn this November.

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.

And now Anthony Weiner's Office Receives Threatening Letter Containing White Powder

classy.

New? No. Louder, more of it, and afforded a new level of legitimacy in the mainstream? Arguably.

On Tuesday, Republican Representative Cantor had his office shot at.

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.

That is disturbing, and wrong.

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.

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.

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

On the other hand, here is something rather encouraging. Did any of you see the horrible video 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, 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.

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

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.

Yeah... and after he first denied having anything to do with it, and then the video went viral and he started fearing for his safety, he "sincerely apologized".

I hope he moves next door. What a swell guy.

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.

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

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

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.

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. (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.

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

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

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.

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.

Not anymore, but they certainly did at one time.

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:

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

"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.

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."

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.

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.

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?!

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.

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."

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

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!"

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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".

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."

Violent threats from both sides are wrong.

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.

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

How much clearer indeed.

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.

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.

Yes, thank you. BDT gets it.

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.

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.

Fvcking Socialist.

I think I'm leaning situationist lately

Fvcking moral relativist.

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.

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).

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.

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

I sh*t you not.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

: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...migration-laws

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

SB1070

Fact Sheet prepared for the legislators.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

That's cool, and i admire your consistency.

On a completely unrelated note, I found this amusing and worthy of linking to on tax day.

I consider them racist because of the racist signs many of them carry.

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?

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

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

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!

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).

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Hey look. Some of the Tea Party's best friends are black

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2010/04/...une-500-cover/

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Or just make it much easier to come here legally.

That too.

I am amused by Mexico officials upset by this.

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.

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.

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.

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

Once upon a time, when they lived in Florida.

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.

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.

And that's all I need to know.

Thanks!

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".

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.

Wow, way to miss my point.

I sure hope I did.

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.

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.

VSLM!

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.

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.

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?

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

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 explains it reasonably well.

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.

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.

“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.

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.

The bill

Senate fact sheet.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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 ?

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.

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?

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

Excellent post, Alex- VAM.

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

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.)

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 . . .

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

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

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.

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).

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.

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:

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.

And, this is coming from someone who lives in CA, with a much higher concentration of illegals than AZ can even imagine.

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 story -

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 very recent polling data would seem to suggest that there isn't as much outright anger as you might believe.

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.

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 (pdf), CNN.

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?