I have no delusions that I'm a saint. I'm flawed just like everybody else. Everyone knows that. Rush needs to suck it up, be a man and admit that he's no better than anyone else and that he fu cked up. But, no, it's time to play the victim. I'm sorry, it's this kind of passive aggressive stuff that people pull that bugs. Don't pick on me while I pick on others. Oy.

I heard the shows when he talked about his upcoming leave of absense and his discussions of the five weeks at the drug treatment clinic upon his return. He most certainly did suck it up and say he screwed up. Not in terms of criminal activity - he completely denies doctor shopping - but in terms of his own personal weakness in becoming addicted to pain killers.

While I despise Limbaugh, I think he's to be pitied. He has lost his hearing, probably due to the drug abuse, and I'm sure he's suffered more than public embarassment- we have a few addicts in our family and I know how much pain they go through. His behavior post-treatment shows he's just a weasel, though. If he gets out of this without charges it will be because of his celebrity- saying he didn't doc shop is ridiculous. Every addict doc shops, and if he's desperate enough to hit up his housekeeper and others for meds, chances are he did the same with the docs. I'd have a hell of a lot more respect for him if he owned up to what he's done, but he hasn't the cajones to do so.

Do tell? WOW! Knowing Rush's commitment to truth and fairness as I do, I'll just take whatever Rush says at face value.;)

It's too bad he feel that way about drugies and addicts since he is one himself. His self esteme and self respect must be very low. I feel sorry for him and I hope he can stay in recovery. He mght just learn something.

well, I'll say one thing. You all never disappoint me.

We aim to please.

And do it JUST for you!

He has been in recovery programs for over 2 years now.

I feel so special...and dirty all at the same time. ;)

That's good- the trick is to realize it's a life-long commitment. I imagine his counselors have told him of the importance of taking responsibility for his addiction and owning up to past transgressions. I still don't know how he managed to go to at least four different docs and obtain over 2000 pills in a six month period of time and not fall into the 'doc shopping' category. I wonder why he didn't just fight this all the way through, if he were truly innocent. He's supposed to be such a tough guy, after all.:rolleyes:

That's something that only he can know. Personally, I wonder how a prosecutor can devote 2 years to this and make a deal where Limbaugh, as incredibly wealthy as he is, only has to pay around a $30,000 fine to cover the cost of the investigation against him.

Cheaper than continuing to pay his lawyer, I'm sure.

That is your view- he has never claimed to be a tough guy at all. Harmless loveable fuzzball, but not a tough guy.

I have to say that I doubt you have spent any real time listening to him, or you are unable to listen with an open mind. You claim he spreads hate- and that is so far from the truth as to be laughable....you want right wing hate speech- find Michael Savage. Not Rush.

It's funny to see anyone rolling their eyes about something that has no bearing on the person they are talking about-because it screams that you don't actually listen or hear anything he says if that is your impression.

I had forgotten all of this - how tough the prosecutors talked when they first started going after LImbaugh.

Source is Drudge -

That's quite a jump from 10 felonies and any plea deal including 3 to 5 years prison time to basically a 30K fine.

Now....I do fully agree that Rush had always talked about drug users in a very, very negative light. Certainly he did call them "human debris" as GC quoted. I have not heard him use any such term to describe drug users since he has returned from his stint in rehab. So perhaps he did learn something.

ditto, I heard it too-

Rush is a harmless fuzzball?

I'm so sorry- I was judging him based on his past speeches, radio shows and the various sound-bites I've been subjected to over the past decade or so. I must have missed the 'loveable fuzzball' show.

Do I really need to go through and post examples of his cuddliness? And is this guy worthy of any more of my time?

Nope.

That's a happy thought. Let's go with that.

Thanks for proving my point. I now return you to your regularly scheduled mis-informed assumptions.

ditto;)

While studying for my Doctorate in Audiology I followed Rush's struggle with sudden/progressive hearing loss with intense interest. The doctor's at the House Ear Institute in Los Angeles put Rush thru many tests to determine the etiology of his loss in order to determine whether or not a cochlear implant was indicated. They determined that he lost his hearing from a systemic viral infection that attacked the unique tissues and structures of the ear as if they were a foreign body. This is how Rush went from essentially normal hearing to a profound hearing impairment within six months. I am currently the audiologist for a patient who is suffering from the same ailment and, luckily, her hearing has stabilized at about a 60% impairment.

I know I don't post here much but I just wanted to add my .02 since I do specialize in ears.

As my final comment I will say that I think many are missing the true outrage of this investigation of Rush. How many times have we heard on the news lately how people are afraid that the president is illegally wiretapping and we have no privacy, blah blah. And yet when Rush's medical records were seized illegally no one in the media expressed outrage about that invasion of privacy? Hmm, pot, kettle, black?

When he first lost his hearing it was assumed that it was probably due to auto-immune disease, but I am unaware that any definitive proof was made that established it for a fact. Since the news of his drug abuse was released, there have been many reports linking his drug of choice to sudden hearing loss: Palm Beach Post
Salon
Rx List
TalkRadio
USA Today
Miller Med Uni

....and there are about a zillion more, but these cover it pretty well. No article, including the most recent in Newsweek, states that his diagnosis was definitive. My daughter lost her hearing to an infection, and it took three years to establish that was the cause, largely because no biopsies could be obtained without destroying residual hearing. (And we had excellent documentation). She is friends with several children who lost their hearing, none of which have a specific diagnosis- just the usual 'probably viral or autoimmune'.

From the Salon article:

"Three days later, doctors at House told reporters that they were treating Limbaugh for "hearing loss resulting from autoimmune inner ear disease," or AIED. The doctors said that they based their diagnosis on Limbaugh's "medical history and hearing tests." However, they noted at the time that "Mr. Limbaugh does not display most of the symptoms associated with AIED."
House physicians issued a statement late last week in which they stuck with their diagnosis of AIED, despite the surfacing of allegations that Limbaugh had abused one of the drugs House previously identified as causing hearing loss. "The AIED diagnosis has not changed, and the House Ear Clinic continues to consult Mr. Limbaugh regarding his treatment for this disorder, and to follow up with him regarding his cochlear implant," they said.
In the statement, the House doctors said that hearing loss caused by an overdose of Vicodin-type drugs "usually occurs over a period of days," while hearing loss caused by AIED typically occurs "over a period of several weeks to months." Limbaugh's hearing loss reportedly took several months, from May through September 2001.
But Dr. Gail Ishiyama, a UCLA neurotologist studying the mechanism that triggers hearing loss in Vicodin users, said that there is no real way to tell the difference between AIED and Vicodin-induced hearing loss -- unless the patient confesses to drug abuse. "It can present very similarly," she told Salon Monday, "and unless the patient tells you that they're abusing the Vicodin or other pain medication, you wouldn't know the difference."

Mr. Limbaugh's records were siezed legally after the prosecuters followed Florida law by obtaining a search warrant and getting the approval of a judge. This only after allegations came to light of just what Mr. Limbaugh was up to. The ACLU contested that action and the whole affair was covered quite extensively in the media; so much for your "no one in the media" comment.

Surely you don't mean to equate Rush's troubles with our President's NSA records trolling adventures which are in VIOLATION of federal law and done WITHOUT judicial approval, none of which we were ever supposed to know about?

I watched a CNN special last night about AIDS and President Clinton was on. He spoke and took questions from the audience. I think he speaks very well. Very eloquent. I miss him a great deal.

People are saying his new portrait looks like Ted Koppel. Did anyone else hear this? I thought that was funny.
:D

Nice try :) But privacy doesn't matter if it's a conservative. Also, you can't bring reason and reality into a situation where the mold is set, but kudos for trying.

Hi Earkid. Hope to see more of you around here.

True. Does this mean you believe in the infallability of the judicial system? That the ruling was proper?

Just curious. I disagree with judicial rulings ALL the time, but we have to live with them. Just because the Supreme Court ruled that it was OK to take the private property of one private entity and give it to another private entity doesn't make it right (or even Consitutional, really).

Hey, he was just refuting the allegation that the seizure was illegal.

It's ok to explore things further, but I hope you are not implying that SMcS has to then justify his refutation of an obvious falsehood that was posted by someone else.

No - not at all. I am really just curious as to what he thinks of that particular ruling. That's why I started my response to Scrooge with "True", acknowledging that, yes, indeed, that was the ruling.

But Limbaugh himself is saying that the wiretapping without warrants didn't happen. So following his logic, what's there to get up in arms about?

If by infallible you mean "incapable of error or failure", then no. No system devised by man is infallible.

I do believe the ruling was proper. There was evidence to suggest Rush was involved in illegal activity.

Wow. That's a dangerous precedent, IMO. I can think of lots of tangents that can go down. Should a first time drug offender have his medical records searched to see if he had sought treatment in the past? If the guy has been using drugs, clearly there is justification to seek his medical records too see if he is really a first time offender or if it is just the first time he got caught. If they have the guy on drug charges, that's evidence of a crime that needs more investigation to see just how far it goes.

I call BS- I guarantee you that should someone they approve of come under this kind of fire, and someone tries to sieze their private records they will be screaming bloody murder.

Funny... I was just thinking that Rush is being vigorously defended by the same people who would be calling for the head of any left-wing pundant who did what he did.

You may have a point....but something tells me that after a two year investigation (that included the apprehension of his medical records) that should there have been anything they could have gotten Rush on (particularly the felonies that were mentioned by the prosecutors), there would have been no plea deal basically letting him off with nothing.

However, I will say that I find it sad whenever a Charlie Sheen (not a pundit, mind you, but in the public eye) or a Whitney Houston has repeated problems and can't seem to get over them. I believe dealers should get time, but the process of putting users in prison is pointless. Fines? OK. Rehab? Certainly. Jail time? Probably not doing anyone any good.

Plus, looking at and listening to James Carville, something tells me he's on speed.:) I don't think jail time is required.

Maybe- maybe not. Frankly I am not sure I would be calling for the head of anyone who has a drug problem due to pain. It's called sympathy and empathy- no matter the person. Especially since I don't listen to left wing commentators much- I doubt I would know enough to want to condemn them. Other people have proven that they don't need to actually know anything accurate in order to condemn Rush.

I wouldn't call for anybody's head because I support the legalization of all drugs and consider anybody using them as engaged in an appopriate act of civil disobedience.

Is Limbaugh a hypocrite? Yes, but then we all are and there is nothing inconsistent in the idea of preaching against sin even if you are yourself a sinner. There is also nothing inconsistent in feeling that people should be punished to the fullest extent of the law possible and that the accused should still engage in the strongest defense available. Hypocrisy does not affect the validity of an argument.

Most of my problems with the story is with the D.A. who apparently was trying the case in the media and making claims that he had no support for (not even sufficient to bring an indictment which is a low threshhold). That is an abuse of the power of his office.

I don't have any problem with the examination of medical records because I disagree with the doctor-patient privilege and would like to see it abolished anyway.

"Compassion is no substitute for justice."
Rush Limbaugh


I am glad to see the compassionate conservatives coming out on this subject, though.;)

There has been justice- the problem is that most people on your side wanted him arrested, humiliated and silenced. It doesn't matter that at this point that justice has been served and is done.

Compassion and consequences are not mutually exclusive-

-and as to you tossing a Rush quote at me- given your prior comments- it means nothing, because I don't have context- and I am well aware that context matters. So you'll excuse me if I pretty much ignore it.

wendybeth, you missed a few:
And these, I guess, are about himself...
Yeah, I feel really sorry for this guy.
:D

'Ditto.'

Here is the context you require- none really provided, just Rush spouting off his proclamations:


Rush: The 35 Undeniable Truths

As read by Rush Limbaugh on his radio show, Friday, February 18, 1994:

(All equally truthful: number 1 is not more or less important than 35.)

1. There is a distinct singular American culture - rugged individualism and self-reliance - which made America great.
2. The vast majority of the rich in this country did not inherit their wealth; they earned it. They are the country's achievers, producers, and job creators.
3. No nation has ever taxed itself into prosperity.
4. Evidence refutes liberalism.
5. There is no such thing as a New Democrat.
6. The Earth's eco-system is not fragile.
7. Character matters; leadership decends from character.
8. The most beautiful thing about a tree is what you do with it after you cut it down.
9. Ronald Reagan was the greatest president of the twentieth century.
10. The 1980s was not a decade of greed but a decade of prosperity; it was the longest period of peacetime growth in American history.
11. Abstinence prevents sexually transmitted disease and pregnancy -every time it's tried.
12. Condoms only work during the school year.
13. Poverty is not the root ("rut") cause of crime.
14. There's a simple way to solve the crime problem: obey the law; punish those who do not.
15. If you commit a crime, you are guilty.
16. Women should not be allowed on juries where the accused is a stud.
17. The way to improve our schools is not more money, but the reintroduction of moral and spiritual values, as well as the four "R's": reading, 'riting, 'rithmatic, and Rush.
18. I am not arrogant.
19. My first 35 Undeniable Truths are still undeniably true.
20. There is a God.
21. There is something wrong when critics say the problem with America is too much religion.
22. Morality is not defined by individual choice.
23. The only way liberals win national elections is by pretending they're not liberals.
24. Feminism was established as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society.
25. Follow the money. When somebody says, "It's not the money," it's always the money.
26. Liberals attempt through judicial activism what they cannot win at the ballot box.
27. Using federal dollars as a measure, our cities have not been neglected, but poisoned with welfare dependency funds.
28. Progress is not striving for economic justice or fairness, but economic growth.
29. Liberals measure compassion by how many people are given welfare. Conservatives measure compassion by how many people no longer need it.
30. Compassion is no substitute for justice.
31. The culture war is between the winners and those who think they're losers who want to become winners. The losers think the only way they can become winners is by banding together all the losers and then empowering a leader of the losers to make things right for them.
32. The Los Angeles riots were not caused by the Rodney King verdict. The Los Angeles riots were caused by rioters.
33. You could afford your house without your government - if it weren't for your government.
34. Words mean things.
35. Too many Americans can't laugh at themselves anymore.

Well, wendybeth, my information about the nature of Rush's hearing loss comes directly from the mouth of one of the Dr.'s House. I don't need to read it in magazines when I can speak with the doctor who actually treated Mr. Limbaugh. And since you don't know me I don't expect you to take my word as law. I just wanted to add my perspective since I am closer to the story than most.

And another judge ruled:

That's interesting, Earkid. So one judge rules that his medical records can be used, and another rules that medical professionals cannot testify? Hmmmm.....

From Salon:

"When asked about the AIED diagnosis late last week, House spokeswoman Christa Spieth Nuber initially told Salon that Limbaugh underwent blood tests during his diagnosis and treatment at House, and that the tests did not reveal any signs of drug abuse. Minutes later, however, Spieth Nuber called back to say that she had discussed Limbaugh's case with Dr. Jennifer Derebery, one of the physicians who had treated Limbaugh, and that Derebery told her that Limbaugh had not, in fact, been tested for "toxicity" related to drug use. She said her earlier statement to the contrary had been an error based on her own mistaken assumption about the way Limbaugh's case would have been handled."

When my daughter lost her hearing, one of the first things they checked was whether or not she was on any ototoxic meds. Did the docs perform a Western Blot test on Rush? I haven't seen any evidence online of a sustantial workup, just the docs saying that they based the diagnoisis on his statements to them and their observations, plus the usual process of elimination- although they neglected the drug screening....:rolleyes:

40 pills

Quick- someone get a torch.

His scrips showed around 2000 pills prescribed over a six month period, which averages to around 11 pills a day. That's a hell of a lot of pills. Maybe he got the prescrips and gave the pills to the needy.

And maybe there ended up being much less to it than what flitted through the dreams of liberals.

I don't know about oxycontin - I really don't - but when I was on percocet after my surgery I was told to take 1-2 every four hours as needed for pain. If I took two every four hours, that would be 12/day.

Granted, I never took that much and did my absolute best to get off the stuff as quickly as I possibly could.

No, the scrips are documented.

Every prescription of legend drugs, especially tightly controlled ones like that, are tracked by computer. Then, there are the drugs his housekeeper scored for him.....

He's admitted he's a drug addict- are you saying he isn't?

Your posts while on Percs were hilarious!:D

Just as long as I don't have to type the word "discussing"......

No- I am saying that clearly there was a reason they scaled back the charges. So maybe there was less to it than thought-

One wonders why he didn't just fight this all the way to the courts, then?

Couldn't possibly be that he made a fantastic plea-bargain? He also has to pay $30,000 do defray the costs of the investigation. It must be galling to have to do so when one is so very innocent.

Nice way to twist it to your satisfaction. You'll see the boogey men you want to see no matter how little information you have.

I'm just going on info that I've provided- can you back up your assertions?

Source

Anna can sue for her millions now. Damn activist Supreme Court Justices.
:D

Or you can look at it practically, being that $30K is probably less than he paid his lawyers in a month. Of course it is a great plea bargin. Nothing on his record, and 30K to him is probably like 30 cents to me. After 2.5 years, I'd just want it to be over. It is.

And that would be your spin on it, Scaeagles. I'm merely going by his past statements and his feisty character- it just seems that if this were such a travesty of justice, he'd be fighting it until he bumped into Anna Nicole at the SC. It really doesn't matter to me if he got off on these charges, as I think our drug laws are ridiculous, but I'm just amused by the responses being posted here and the fact that one day I'm branded a bleeding heart liberal, and the next I am lacking compassion.

Here - try this - You "brutal no compassion selectively bleeding heart liberal".

No, you are going off of your assumptions based on your bias filtered through some articles. You have no supporting evidence for your remarks on the plea bargain- nor do I.

You weren't there- you have no idea what transpired. What have I "asserted" outside of the fact that liberals wanted him arrested tried and silenced- are you going to tell me that's not true?

Did someone call my name?

:D

I'm also a part of the vast Left-Wing conspiracy to slience Mr. Limbaugh.:D

I think Rush and Ann Coulter should breed and raise acid spitting demon spawn together.

:evil:

If I up my rhetoric will you say the I should breed with Ann? Ahhh....Ann.....

Good Lord! Someone pass me the glue for my eyelids! :D

No one deserves such a fate than to bed that! But if you must, start a thread about it after. We'll discuss.

Personally, I think you're too smart to speak with the hate rhetoric that Rush Limbaugh uses. How's that for a "sort of" compliment?
:D

I still disagree that it is "hate" rhetoric. Is saying that someone is a worthless piece of human debris anymore spiteful than some of the things said around here about Bush?

I think we discussed once that probably hate speech comes into play when you discuss actually bringing harm to someone.

I'll say you should... only because of the hell that would then be visited on you by your wife ;)

Dream of Ann all you like... I'll be dreaming of Stephen Colbert and his evisceration of Bush and the entire DC Press Corps. I don't think I've ever laughed so hard in my entire laugh.

Piece on Limbaugh and his addiction from Newsweek

This does a good job, I think, of describing the whole ordeal, including the medical problems that led Limbaugh to take painkillers in the first place, and Limbaugh's words upon returning to the airwaves -

I heard clips of this today that were brilliant. Do you know of a link to either an audio or video clip, per chance?

scaeagles, next time you post a pic like that, please put it in a spoiler box. I'm trying to eat here.

The Ann Coulter Diet Plan.

Why, sugar, I thought you'd never ask!!!

Huffpo article with complete transcript included

www.crooksandliars.com article with video links

The crooksandliars vid is only the last half of Colbert's portion, but has most of the good stuff. There are complete vid links kicking around on kos but I'm having trouble finding those right now.

Thanks for the links. That was damn funny.

That was hilarious! I loved the interaction with Scalia.:D

Office politics are worse then actual politics. :(

Complete verions of Colbert:
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3

And Bush's response:
Aaah! 2 Bushes!!!!

Mr. Colbert is my hero.

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_lis...8ACF4A5B57CD89

On the U.S. Department of State website...

http://usinfo.state.gov/esp/home/top...m_spanish.html

Four, yes FOUR, sanctioned translations of the national anthem in Spanish. People need to get a grip.

Perhaps you would prefer, sacre bleu!, French?

http://www.amb-usa.fr/az/h/hymne.htm

Looks like man made global warming has spread all the way to Jupiter. What else could explain it?

Global warming on Jupiter

Of course Martian weather changes must have something to do with man too............http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/newsroom/20050920a.html

and..........http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/new...eases/1997/15/

Must be all those suvs we keep landing on this very fragile world;)

Well, men are from Mars...

:D

Source

"And I think to myself... what a wonderful world..."
:(

In the fight for control between John Negroponte and Porter Goss, the wrong one won.

Unemployment is at 4.7%. The Dow is at a 6 year high, and only about 200 points away from it's all time high. The economy is growing between 3-4 percent. Job creation, though a bit weaker this past month at 138,000, has been strong over the last year.

All of this in spite of oil still at $70 barrel.

I'm thinking that it might just be a good idea to revoke any license currently held by a Kennedy to operate a vehicle, be it car, plane, tricycle, whatever.

You gotta know Father Ted is just wanting to run and hide.

I do hope the rehab does this guy some good. TO be honest, though, from what I've been reading and hearing, he may not be ready for rehab. The story has changed many times and I feel because of this he isn't being very honest about what's going on. It could be the natural reaction to hide what is embarrassing to you and your family.

Don't forget skiis;)

That one needs to be extended to the Bonos as well.

Oh, I feel so much better now! I guess it won't be necessary after all to raise my rates at work due to the across the board increases in op costs.

Several of my clients operate trucking firms. Look for major disruptions in deliveries, and huge increases in shipping fees as well, within the next week or so. One of them is pretty convinced he'll go under on this one- they barely survived the last gas spike. It's a nationwide crisis, and one that is not being reported on. If prices are still as high during harvest time, which ranges from early summer to late fall, agriculture is going to take a huge hit as well. Between the labor difficulties and operating costs, the farmers up here are hurting.

They are hurting everywhere.....especially in places where George Bush has no influence--- http://www.autoblog.com/2006/05/01/h...ropean-growth/

??????????????????????????

I can't turn on the news without hearing stories about delivery rates are increasing or how truckers are barely breaking even or any number of other stories. Not being reported on? Hardly.

Yet the one thing we could have been doing for decades to allieviate this problem - increasing our own oil production - isn't permitted.

The fact of the matter is that the economy is doing well - incredibly well. This does not mean everyone within the economy is doing well. It has never worked that way.

Our economy is floating on a bs money. Outrageous debt from interest-only mortgages. The US is the only industrialized nation to have a negative savings rate (i.e., as a country we spend more than we earn). The average credit card debt is over $8000, and the percentage of that credit card debt that is food and other basic necessities is on the rise. And people like me, who actually save money and carry no debt, are punished by this economy. It's a recipe for disaster.

Yay, people like me who have no savings and owe tens of thousands are riding on the backs of the fools who won't particpate in our bs economy!!


Eh, the exchange of "money" is all an illusory practice anyway.

There's a big scandal going on right now in Boston over the Big Dig. Apparently, someone supplied the project with low-grade, poor quality cement/concrete. So the safety of the tunnels that were made under the Charles River is in question now. There are fines and charges being thrown about. Yaddah yaddah...

I was thinking about this, though. It seems to me that there are lots of people in high places (MA govt, CA govt, FEMA, Bush Admin) who are making big decisions about vital things and seem not to be qualified at all to do their job. Who hired these idiots for the Big Dig? The freakin thing leaks and is made with shoddy material. Sheesh!

I'm horrible with money and I'm about to give advice about it. Hold on to your hats, people.

Everytime I get a tax refund it goes automatically to savings and I don't use it unless an emergency arises. Often, I'll overpay my taxes by 20 bucks or so each month to insure a refund. Then when it goes in, Ralphie and I aren't allowed to touch it. If we must, we do... but we have to replace it over the course of a couple of paychecks.

Also, we do a sweep every month. At the end of the month, we see how much is left in checking. Even if it's a few bucks, we sweep it into the Savings of No Return. Then we live off of the paychecks for that month. Whatever is left at the end of the next month gets swept.

I also have a savings account in Hawai'i still. I can automatically send deposits to it over the internet. To get it out is quite an ordeal. They can only withdraw it for me with a cashier's check that takes a couple days to process and a week to be mailed to me. The ordeal deters me from using it. So, I send money there often. (I'm saving up for a DL trip and a large freshwater aquarium.)
:)

My 2 cents...

Right On Brother! Money only has value when it is spent
:cheers:

That's easy to say for someone who already owns a house. But unspent money has very real value to me when how much I have in the bank is the difference between owning a home and continuing to live in an apartment.

And for the record, I'm fine with the economic "punishment" I take. I've waited a little longer to own than I'd like, and I forgo the occasional luxury. But that's because I prefer the long term benefits over the short term gratification. I'm not saying that a less long-term monetary plan is "wrong" for an individual, I just think that having an economy that rewards high debt and no savings, making it the majority strategy by far, is an economy that's destined to crash.

Wasn't that supposed to be done about 15 years ago????

There's give and take in everything, though. I am certain you could afford a home right now on the outskirts of Phoenix. I am also certain that you are unwilling to move - due to job, attachments, whatever - in order to purchase a home in Phoenix.

So your home purchasing money is devalued by where you wish to purchase.

Why give the government a free loan? If you are disciplined enough to replace the money you have taken out of your savings, surely you are discplined enough to put the money in that you would get later for a refund.

Oh ho! If I see money, I spend it. Poof, gone. I have little discipline in that regard.
:D

It's done, it took way too long and now all this garbage is floating to the surface about the way it was handled.
Bleh.

I look at interest only mortgages a bit differently. I do not have an interest only, but not a lot of what I pay monthly goes to principle.

If you live in a market with appreciating real estate values, it makes much more sense to have an interest only mortgage than to rent. Your real estate investment continues to grow regardless of whether you are paying down the principle, and you have massive tax benefits.

Hang on....you said you are disciplined enough to use your paycheck to replace whatever you have taken out of savings. What's the difference between that and putting the $20 in that you would have otherwise had withheld in taxes?

That's a good question, but it makes more sense to me doing it this way. I like seeing the $20 add up at the end of the year to one big amount that I can deposit. I know, it makes little sense, but I did confess to being really bad with money.
:)

A big problem (at least here) is the people who took out interest only loans they could barely afford. Now the interest rates are going up and people are behind on their mortgages. Yes, it was their fault for buying a home they could barely afford but the untraditional methods banks are using to get people into homes are messing with the economey as well.

People bad with finances unite!

I recommend two books. If anything they aren't boring reads. You may learn something. I learned a lot, but I have yet to apply it.

Young, Fabulous and Broke by Suze Ormand
and
The Complete Idiots Guide to Personal Finance in your 20s and 30s

Two different theories but good books.

Sometimes I'm glad I rent. But sometimes I'll watch a home fix it show and wish we could have a place of our own to do stuff like that...

Hey, I'm all three of those! :D

Thanks, BTD.

You can come over and fix ours. ;)

I need a handyman, baby!:D

Sometimes its a matter of scope - if you owe 10,000 and can't pay - you're in trouble. If you owe a million and can't pay - the bank is in trouble.

Let's say we both watch some hunk do it? Lawn chairs, fans, hats, sunglasses and sparkling water? How about it, NA?
:D

;) Anytime.

I'm so THERE!

Or, rather, YOU'RE so HERE!

Shows you what I know - I didn't realize that interest only loans were adjustable, not fixed.

I also fault the banks, though. They shouldn't give an adjustable rate mortgage to people who can't handle the variances in rates. That's just poor business practice.

Condoleeza is going to speak at the upcoming graduation ceremony at Boston College. The Jesuit priests at the college are not happy about it. The Catholic Church is officially anti-war. There are protests planned.

http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/rvp/pubaf/06/rice.html

I kinda like Condoleeza - she's got moxie

Why is it that colleges and/or university populations, at supposed bastions of education where the exchange of differing thought and ideas must take place, find the need to protest speakers like a Condi or a Michael Moore or an Ann Coulter or whomever? Does political disagreement mean someone is unworthy to present their ideas when invited to do so?

This really is a pet peeve of mine - if the message is so bad let it fall flat on it's own accord - protesting speach means you are incapable of countering it through means outside suppression.

I agree.

Um, no .... protesting a speaker is a way of offering the alternate point of view. It's a dialogue. It's extremely rare that a protest is going to prevent the speech, or even attempt to do so. Rather it is way for throngs of people to potentially muster enough bully pulpit that a famous (or infamous) speaker has au naturale.

If Condi is speaking, I find it behooves those who are anti-imperialist-war-machine to ride the media popularity and present an opposing viewpoint to the public. No one is being squelched, but neither is a monologue allowed to go unchallenged.

Speech is best answered with speech - monologue with dialogue - shouting down speakers is censorpship. You cannot respond intelligently to something you refuse to listen too - that is my obejction to these sorts of portests - there are censorship by the masses.

While I agree in theory with Euro...where is the forum for a person like me to GET that dialogue with a person like Condi other than on the streets? She and her ilk are completely shielded from actual dialogue with normal Americans. We shout to gain a whisper in the modern world.

Who said anything about shouting her down? I'm not approving heckling. Protesting is different.



(And double plus ditto on what lizziebith said)

You have the internet, you have this message board, the ability to express your opinions is unprecidented. I think the characterization that these speakers occure in a vacuum is a rather inaccurate notion in todays commnication revolution. Perhaps you get no one on one dialogue, but it's not like your message cannot be heard.

The I appologize for jumping to the conclusion - but I find most "protests" of late have been more heckling than anything else which does nothing to advance the cause.

But express them to whom? I happen to prefer expressing them here, but not if I want to have an effect on the world.

I'm told that if I want Disney to hear my complaints about the new Haunted Mansion bride, I'd best post them on micechat. Well, I'd rather be dunked in skunk ... but I'd have to change my communicating mode if I want to change Disneyland ... and even moreso if I want to change the world. My rantings on message boards won't quite cut it.

3 seconds of airtime on ABC of a 50,000 person march will get me more change-the-worldness than every post I've ever made on every message board I've ever posted on. The best use of the internet to foster change-the-world communication is enabling people to arrange a mass in-person protest with ease.

Don't sell short your rantings.....seriously.

I know someone who is graduating and is going to be at that ceremony. He's Catholic and feels that his views of anti-war (that are Pope blessed) gives him the right to protest at his Jesuit Catholic school. More power to him. Contributing factors to this is that no one asked the students who they wanted at their own commencement and that Bono was initially supposed to be booked for the speech but prior committments took him out of the running.

Despite that, students are not allowed signs, shirts or any kind of visible words of protest to be displayed anywhere. (Even words on the top of their caps are not allowed.) Talk about not being able to present another point of view...

I disagree with Euromeinke. Moxie is defined as skill and 'know how'. Rice was our National Security Advisor when we were attacked. Her 'historical document' comment is legendary. She pushed for the failed war in Iraq. I have never trusted her abilities and have been proven right time and time again with her buffoonery and participation in the worst administration of our country's history.

My advice to the student, who asked me about what to do at his commencement as a protest, was to turn his back on Rice. It's not a boo, it's not heckling, it's not a written protest sign, but it is a definite statement. I don't know if they'll do it. But I feel they should plan something and have every right to do so.

There are two degrees of separation between Rice and myself. She's an idiot.

I find it interesting that in a world where tolerance and openness to ideas is supposed to be a sign of enlightenment that people are unwilling to listen to those who think differently.

GC, we share differing opinions. Would you turn your back on me should I be speaking because of that?

Let's say (purely hypothetically, of course) that BC invited an openly homosexual speaker. As the position of the Catholic Church is not a pro homossexual position, would you find it acceptable or offensive for students to turn their backs?

That seems to be something that's learned isn't it? I mean, this is one of the most secretive and stealthy administrations in US history. I'm sure they can recognize their own tactics of not paying attention...
It would depend upon what you were speaking about.
Yes. If that's what they believed. I don't agree, but I understand it.

I have come to learn that there are grey areas in the CC. Not everyone agrees on everything. I'd cling to hoping that not everyone in the CC agrees with the CC on homosexuality and marriage equality. Our intern, for example, is Catholic and is pro-marriage equality. So is my dad. Good for them! :)

ie. I don't know where I stand as far as this immigration fight goes. But as I posted somewhere else here, it is nice to see people expressing themselves. I saw the Boston Common protests live. I didn't agree with everyone, but I would fight for their right to speak out as they were.

Alright. That's cool. While I wouldn't go out of my way to listen to someone speak that I disagree with, should I find myself at an event where the person speaking was someone with opinions I am completely opposed to, I would be polite and listen.

In terms of expressing that they don't want someone to speak, I can see where that's not a problem. But the right to express themselves certainly ends when they enter the venue in which the speaker will be speaking, as now the house rules apply or they can be expelled.

Politics makes for strange bedfellows....Rupert Murdoch is hosting a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton.

That seems so odd to me. I'm wondering who is becoming more like who?
:D

Congress has been moved to Lake Wobegon.

I was browsing through the details of the latest NYT/CBS poll that is all over the news and found this:

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Congress is handling its job? 23% approve

How about the Representative in Congress from your district? Do you approve or disapprove of the way your Representative is handling his or her job? 53% approve.

In Lake Wobegon all of the Congressman are above average. Not that this is new, according to the historical numbers in June 1978 the same two numbers were 30% and 60%. It also shows that no matter how much people are unhappy with the president they are pretty much equally or more unhappy with Congress (in 30 years the approval rating for Congress has rarely tipped over 50%).

Question #13 is also interesting ("Do you think the economy is getting better, getting worse, or staying about the same?") in that it shows that public opinion of how the economy is doing doesn't correlate very well with what the economy is actually doing.

Question #33 also reinforces that the general public isn't necessarily the smartest group of people. 63% think the president can do a lot to control the price of gas. Though it does shed a light on a political problem when you are held responsible for something over which you have little control.

The historical numbers on party approval are interesting since it shows that the party out of power in congress tends to have higher approval numbers (the grass is always greener).

In the "Sometimes we lie to the pollster" category there is Question 54 in which 63% say they are driving less because of high gas prices. This doesn't conform at all the fact that demand for gasoline has not dropped and other polls indicate that driving plans for this summer are up slightly over last year.

Very interesting info there Alex.

The problem I have is that even if there is a huge shift of power to the Dems, I feel like we'll be having the same story in the media about corruption in about 6 or 7 years from now. Only this time the color will be blue instead of red.
:shurg:

If you're looking for an end to political corruption you may have a very long wait........it has been around since before the cave man.

The general public is stupid. I really mean that. Uninformed, under educated.

I don't mean that about anyone here. I don't regard anyone here as stupid.

This is why I pay little attention to polls. I don't care what the general public thinks, to be frank. Most of that general public can't find Mississippi on a map (according to a recent study.....the reaction to the study was "we need a special program to deal with this lack of knowledge". Seriously. How about school to deal with this lack of knowledge? Anyway, I digress....).

The "gas price" question doesn't surprise me in the least, because our society has been led by politicians to believe (sadly, my republican party is now counted among those) that government is there to solve all of our problems. Gas prices too high? The President should be able to fix it!

Bleh.

You're right. But what's the use of rooting for either party then?

The recognition that most of them aren't corrupt, even if it is simply the case that the party in power will have more corruption simply because those inclined to be corrupt can offer more bang for the buck.

Isn't Lake Wobegon where Garfield met the panther in Garfield in the Rough?

Source

Holy crap! Almost a billion dollars?! Isn't that a lot? Who the hell's building this thing? Halliburton?
:D

My co-worker sent this to me and I've spent a bit of time trying to de-bunk it to no avail. So it's either true or my searching skills suck.

It sounds like a spurious attempt at racist humor to me.

Why is it racist? It strikes me as nationalist.

And as a follow-up...

I just called the LA County Sheriff's Dept, and spoke to a public relations person. She assured me that no such information has been released in any form by the department. All statistical information on crime in the department's jurisdiction is released on a yearly basis.

Because of the implication that Hispanic = criminal. That is racist.

The numbers are relatively easy to debunk as obviously silly. Somehow I doubt the LA County Sherrif keeps detailed stats on the day in which tagging occurs. I seriously doubt they have details tagging statistics at all.

Also the murder number is assinine on its face. You can't really measure that on a day by day basis. In 2005 LA County had 433 murders. Which works out to 1.19 murders per day. A 28% reduction would mean that 0.85 people were murdered on that day.

The only place on the intenret I can find this posted is on an NRO message board where it was posted and labeled an urban legend.

Except that is not necessarily the implication (and Hispanic is also not a race). There are many non-racist bases on which that data model would manifest itself. Why assume a racist one (especially a racist one that makes no mention of race).

Thanks Alex. I'd love to send back URBAN LEGEND to the person who sent it to me. This guy is *righter* than Nephy and Sca (not insulting either of you, just trying to describe him). Sometimes I'd like to send him here and watch him start debating Alex and iSm. That would be fun.

The implication is obvious. Who were the majority of the protesters? Hispanics. It implies that crime was down because a lot of Hispanics were too busy protesting to be out committing crimes. Ergo, that Hispanics are criminals.

And since when has immigration ever been so much a nationalist thing as opposed to a racist thing? I guess it's hard to separate the two, but look at all the passionate, violent bouts of immigration resistance and take a look at the races involved.



Oh sure, Alex is going to come in with some petty fact about Irish not being a "race," nor is Italian. Pfhh, tell it to the Marines.

I am opposed to illegal immigration but it has nothing to do with race. It just so happens that the illegals coming in are largely hispanic because of our borders. Granted, this may not have always been the case, but being anti-illegal immigration does not make one a racist.

But it certainly makes for a convenient modern cover for same. Don't think we haven't noticed the hiding behind the term "illegal." This is one of the things that has bothered me the most in the modern debate. Frame something ugly in an innocuous term and you've got the argument skewed. The right has been scarily good at this for some time and I find it profoundly disturbing.

If thousands of people from Canada were here illegally that would make them illegal Canadians.

People from Mexico are Mexican and people from Canada are Canadian and people from America are American.

Am I being racist against the Canadians for not wanting them here illegally?

What about all the Mexicans who are here legally and want the illegal Mexicans to be kicked out? Are they racist?

In all honesty, Lizziebith- we have a very small hispanic population up here, so I really don't equate illegal aliens with hispanics. To me, the term illegal says it all, and I really don't think I apply any sort of racial agenda to it. Damn it, if a person is not here legally, then they are illegal-plain and simple. If the laws are unfair or skewed to a certain demographic, then let's work to fix it- I'm definitely on board for that. Until then, we either declare a free-for-all run across the boarders to attain citizenship, or we actually start enforcing our laws. Otherwise, wtf have them to begin with?

Okay...are *illegal* Canadians the problem being talked about? I don't think any honest person would say so. I think the term "illegal" is code. Code for a group that is currently being scapegoated: Mexicans.

EDIT: wendybeth's post alarms me most: they have won the terminology war and now have everyone paranoid about a person's "status." Consider me freaked.

Isn't the complaint that the laws are unfair to the people who are here illegally?

If the laws are unfair, then convince the citizenry to change them- don't frikken try to blackmail them into it, because that will never work. Echoes of the Third Estate, and we all know what they did.

Irish isn't a race. Calling anti-Irish sentiment racism does a real disservice to actual racism. But since use of English words to mean specific things has been specifically precluded by iSm, I guess I haven't a leg to stand on.

The two populations of illegal immigrants I have had the most direct exposure to are Southeast Asians and the not insignifant illegal Irish population in San Francisco. I'm just as opposed to them as I am other illegal immigrants. And yet I have no problem with every member of the Hispanic, Irish, or Laotian "races" coming here legally. I'm guessing I support a more liberal legal immigration process than just about anybody that might post here. But it is good to know that since the majority of America's illegal immigrants are of the Hispanic "race" then such opposition is racist. I'm also opposed to illegal immigration in France where it is mostly Angolans and Turks. I'm opposed to it Germany where a significant portion is white Eastern Europeans. I'm opposed to it in South Korea where it is Malay, Thai, and Indonesian. I'm opposed to it when it is Canadians (and yes, there are lots of Canadians illegally in this country). I'm opposed to it when it is Americans in Canada (and yes, there are a fair amount of those as well). I'm opposed to it when it is Nicaraguans into Mexico and Haitians into the Dominican Republic. I'm just the most racisist person in the world.

To correlate crime with illegal immigration is a mostly baseless assumption (except insofar as certain crimes correlate well with the segment of the socioeconomic class in which most illegal immigrants find themselves) but it is not an inherently racist one.

I suppose there are some people who are using illegal as code. I'm sure there are some people out there that think that way. If that's the sentiment in your community, it is unfortunate. But please don't assume that we are all living that same experience.

Up here, "illegal" is just as likely to mean Chinese as Mexican, if not more so. There are regular news reports of illegal Chinese immigrants coming in through the Ports of Seattle and Tacoma in shipping containers. Or, smugglers take them over the Canadian border, just as happens with the Mexican border. I don't think I've ever heard a local news report about rounding up illegal Mexican immigrants, and I've heard dozens upon dozens about Chinese immigrants.

Maybe the bias is more pronounced on the east side of the state (wendybeth? any comment?) but honestly I wasn't aware that Hispanics were considered a minority until I started having to fill out affirmative action forms when applying for work after college graduation. Maybe I'm horribly naive, but where I lived growing up, I didn't notice the kind of bias you describe. Whenever we talked about minorities we meant African Americans exclusively, because they were the rarity.

Ugyl and innocuous? How about descriptive? They are here....illegally.

This may be the most offensive thing I have ever read on this board, lizziebith. You think this is a right vs. left thing?:rolleyes:

I don't suppose there are 11 million illegal Canadians in the country. The problem is the flow through the southern border.

Who is they? "They have won the terminology war...." Let me guess what you mean....right wing racists. Open your eyes LB....it isn't just the right side of the political spectrum!

I think if they gov't is going to use the whole 'protecting our borders' mantra, that they should focus on both borders. Sometimes it feels like their focus is saying, 'protecting our country from brown people'. I mean, how many Latinos do you see sitting on the Mexican border in their Texas-shaped lawnchairs trying to protect our border? None.
;)



(oooh... I'm post 666. :D )

That's the result, IMHO.

The problem is not enforcing the laws we already have.

Don't make me get drunk and kick your ass.

I was meaning that there aren't 500,000 Canadians entering the US illegally every year. It makes more sense to focus on where the problem of a massive flow of people coming across is.

I think it is too tough to define exactly what the problem is. It is many things. Not enforcing laws, catch and release, complete lack of control of the border.....but the biggest problem is the immensely corrupt Mexican government.

Don't think I don't hear you. I do.

I'm just restricting my comment to things we can actually control, if we choose to.

Source
Not surprising. :rolleyes:

He should be nicer to people. I mean, nice people go to heaven, right? Tick tock, tick tock... :D

Prudence, while there are a small amount of hispanics* who work in the orchards and farms over here in Eastern Washington, I would have to say if any bias exists it would be against the russian immigrants. (Which I don't happen to agree with).

Lizzibith, I am not sure I follow what your edit means....do you think I am racist, or I am being manipulated by 'the other side'? I'm not turning into a pod person, am I?:eek:


*Illegals; I'm not sure how many people of hispanic descent there are who are here legally, but I think the population isn't very large compared to the southern US.

You can kick my ass all the way to Dublin (wait, I'm already there), but Irish still won't be a race.


I think all points of entry should be firmly enforced but it sounds like some people here are saying that the firement shouldn't put out any of the fire unless they can simultaneously put out the entire fire.

Border control isn't even the only issue. Many illegal immigrants enter the country legally, they just stay in the country illegally. There are an estimated 60,000-75,000 Irish in the country Illegally (mostly in the New York City area, Chicago, and San Francisco) and most of them enter the country on valid tourist visas and just don't leave when they're supposed to.

I know it is racist, but I think they should be deported when found. I also think quotas on legal immigration should be removed so that anybody who can show self-support once they get here can come legally (regardless of their "race").

I do not see how it's racist to expect our laws to be upheld. I don't care where you come from- hispanic, blonde european.....here illegally? You should be deported.

Lots of Russian immigrants over there? I did not know that. There was a small cluster around where I used to live in Kent, but I didn't notice any bias. Maybe I was just too busy patronizing the "european deli" and buying all of their chocolate bars. I can't remember which brand, but one of those bars was the best chocolate bar I've eaten in my life, and I've sampled plenty.

"Go fvck yourself", Mary?

I guess the neocon lesbian fruit doesn't fall far from the asshole tree.

I guess I missed something.......to what does this refer?

Mary Cheney claims that during the debate when John Edwards brought up Cheney's lesbo daughter, she looked Edwards in the eye and mouthed her dad's infamous words at him.

Mary Cheney. What a complete and utter turd she is. Can't go up on stage with the rest of her family during the RNC, completely silent while this administration goes anti-marriage equality... Who the heck wants to read her book now? Complete sell out. When we're both put into the same concentration camp, I'm gonna totally hit her with my purse.

You must spread some Mojo around before giving it to Gemini Cricket again.

Yeah, we have a fairly large Russian population. The only problems I've heard of is with the Russian gangs stealing cars, but that's about it.

There are a couple large Russians communities in Seattle (or at least there were a decade ago. I assume they're still there. And down in the Portland/Vancouver area their numbers swelled following the fall of the Soviet Union. By the end of the '90s my mom's employees were all almost entirely Russian immigrants.

In San Francisco about 200 out of the 1,500 people in my division at Wells Fargo were Russian immigrants (almost all worked in QA, there is a QA school in San Francisco that caters to Russians).

My experience is that most are legal, though, as the quota restrictions on Russians were pretty lax following the end of the cold war. I don't know if they've been tightened since.

Where do the smaller Russians live?
:D




I apologize, I'm in a silly mood. Aren't you glad you don't work in my office with me?

There are no small Russians in the United States. Tha бабушки all get left at home.

For the record, I never said that opposing illegal immigration was racist. I said that implying all (or most) Hispanics are criminals is racist. Different issue.

JW, I completely understand what you were saying. I'm irritated by people who think that opposition to illegal immigration is de facto racism.

And I'm all for putting an end to illegal immigration. What angers me is those who seek to demonize, not only the illegals themselves, but legal immigrants and Hispanics in general. These are human beings who want a better life for themselves and their families, not monsters out to destroy our country.

To an extent, I agree. However, there is a portion (how large I do not know) that believes that the Southwestern US actually belongs to Mexico.

As far as demonizing legal immigrants, the only place I see a blurring of the lines is by these protesters themselves. Most refuse to talk about the problem for what it is, being illegal immigration. Most always refer to it as an immigration protest, leaving the word illegal out of it.

This is not a debate about legal immigration. Protesters are trying to equate what is legal and what is not.

Yes, it is this intentional blurring of the issue that drives me crazy. I always hear "Hey, we are all immigrants", and this is true for the most part. We are not all illegal immigrants though. We didn't all break the law to get here. My great-granparents waited in line at Ellis Island and followed the proper channels.

And that is the problem that I have. Becoming a legal immigrant is not an easy process. It is a slap in the face to the millions of people, including Mexicans, Canadians, Russians, etc. who had enough respect for our laws to go through the proper process to become citizens. I would not be happy at all if I waited literally years to become a citizen, only to find that that those who just walk over the border are not punished or deported. How is that fair?

I'd give mojo if I could, MBC, so a loud and proud "AMEN, BROTHA!" is coming your way and will have to suffice.

Of course, the blurring of the line goes both directions, and that's the objection to the "facts" that btd posted. It's a clear attempt to equate "Hispanics are criminals" to the illegal immigration issue.

Tangentially, the Equal Employment Opportunity Comission lists "Hispanic" as a race.

I hear what you are saying. But we were weak in the past about enforcing the rules. How then can we suddenly get all up in arms about the people who got through? Well, how did they get through? Shoddy border security. You can have a tougher presence now and make it harder for people to get in illegally now. However, it's hard to say 'Okay, now that we're paying attention, everyone who we didn't see get in is a felon.' ???

Personally, I find someone who floated here on a raft to be pretty courageous. That's moxie. We should include those people who would do that to get here. My friend goes to Harvard. Her family floated here from Cuba when she was 6 or so on a freakin' raft. What are we supposed to say? 'Darling, you didn't fill out the right forms. You must take your raft and go back?' My friend is an undergrad at Harvard now. She's going to be a brilliant professor in biochemistry someday. Her family busts their butts to pay her tuition... They are legally American now, but initially they weren't. But they were so unhappy with their country that they came here to make a change and they did. To me, it's patrotic to say, 'If you would risk your life to be here, then you should be here.'

Aren't Cubans automatically given legal status because it is assumed they need political assylum for escaping a communist country?

I'm not sure. You're the brains around here...

:D

As did mine. And my mother went through the proper channels to come here from Canada. My Aunt, who has been here for close to 60 years was facing some immigration issues recently and there was concern she'd have to go back to Canada (she lived her entire adult life here. She has nothing and no one in Canada). Thankfully they were straightened out.

Or perhaps it is just implying that illegal immigrants are criminals. If the numbers were to turn out to be true, would they be racist? Is it not possible to hold the opinion that illegal immigrants are more likely to engage in criminal activities without it being an indictment based on race? I think the poor and marginalized are more likely to be involved in criminal activities regardless of the race category of the poor marginalized people. It just so happens that in illegal immigrants tend to be poor and marginalized and tend to be overwhelmingly Latino.

I don't see that as racist.


Also the EEOC only considers "Hispanic" a race by first excluding from the meaning of "hispanic" all the non-Latino Hispanics. So, yes, by defining "hispanic" to mean "latino" then you do get closer to something like a "race." But since there are millions of Asian Hispanics the EEOC is using a non-standard meaning of the word.

The U.S. Census does not consider Hispanic a race which is why the EEOC has to provide detailed instructions on how they convert an Ethnicity (Hispanic) into a race (Hispanic).

scaeagles is right. Your friend never had illegal status. All Cubans who reach shore are automatically granted political sanctuary. That's what pisses off the Haitians so much.

Yes, we have been weak on this issue but if I rob someone and don't get caught, haven't I still committed a crime? If they find out about it years later, they surely aren't going to say "Well, we were a little lax when you committed the crime so, even though we now know you committed it, you are free to go". A crime was commited and there should be a penalty, even if the person isn't caught immediately.

You know what? I see the courage in these acts as well, and I am well aware that these aren't necessarily bad people who are doing this. I sympathize with them and were I in the same situation, I very well might take the same course of action. I don't fault them, I fault the mexican government and I fault ours for letting this situation get so out of hand. Still, replace the kind family you mention above with a rapist and tell me it's no big deal that they didn't go through the proper channels (which might have prevented it). Most people that come into this country are good, hard working people. Some are absolutely not though and we have no way of determining whether a person who snuck across the border wants to work, or detonate a dirty bomb at Disneyland. The legal process can determine if someone that wants to move here has a prior record and they can be prevented. Illegally crossing the border means that we have no idea what your background is. That is a major problem.

Well that's cool! :)
I'm wondering why there would be such a distinction in the rules for people who come here from Cuba vs Mexico (and Haiti for that matter). I mean, we think Communism is wrong but we also think the way Mexico is run is wrong. We draw the line because one is a Communist country? (I'm being more inquisitive and not snarky here... in this post at least.)

Essentially is a hangover from the Cold War. Nobody really supports it (or the embargo of Cuba) any longer but it can't be changed without appearing soft on Communism.

It is easy to oppose such measures against new countries, harder to actually stand up and say they should be abolished against existing dictators.

Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laotians also had a period where, if they could get here, they were pretty much summarily granted asylum. East Europeans and Russians who managed to defect were also summarily granted asylum. The hook on which these asylum claims is made is that merely the act of trying to leave your home country is grounds for execution if you're returned.

If Vicente Fox started firing squads for any nationals returned by the United States then things might change.

Yes, but outside of being here illegally, don't these people also do us a lot of good? ie. These people are working the fields in Salinas. I don't see any kids right out of high school picking artichokes...
I don't put illegal aliens and thieves and rapists in the same boat. I don't think it's a black and white issue like that. I think some good comes from them being here.
I don't see what you're saying here. Someone who comes here legally could rape someone. Someone who was born here could do the same. The legal processes fail us all the time. Your statement, MBC, illustrates to me that the fear tactics that have been used about this issue are working.

The real issue at hand is that Americans are in this weird space right now where people are rising up in fear of people who are different. Post 9/11, America is a tough place to be if you're Muslim, Jewish, black, Latino, gay... Everything is a threat to our country or a threat to our moral fiber. Well, are those things really a threat to us? ie. People have been coming over illegally for many many decades now. Have we crumbled? People need to have more faith in their country's ability to survive than that. If every person who comes here illegally has the potential to topple us, then something's wrong with us (the U.S.).

Well, let's hope he doesn't...


I just thought of another thing to add to my post above. During WWII, we put Japanese Americans into camps. Did that make us any safer? No. Was it a knee jerk reaction to Pearl Harbor? Yes. Did people feel safer after we did that? Probably. Was it right of us to do? Absolutely not.

I guess it depends on your definition of good.

Here is something I found and hate to admit it's from FAIR:

"Between 40 and 50 percent of wage-loss among low-skilled Americans is due
to the in-migration of low-skilled workers. Many American workers lose their
jobs through unfair competition. An estimated 1,880,000 American workers are
displaced from their jobs every year by immigration and the cost for
providing welfare and assistance to these Americans is over $15 billion a
year - FAIR research.

Immigration is a net drain on the economy; corporate interests reap the
benefits of cheap labor, while taxpayers pay the infrastructural cost. FAIR
research shows "the net annual cost of illegal immigration has been estimated
at between $67 and $87 billion a year. Even studies claiming some modest
overall gain for the economy from immigration ($1 to $10 billion a year) have
found that it is outweighed by the fiscal cost ($15 to $20 billion a year)
to native taxpayers."

In AZ Cesar Chavez is big. He was the man who organized farm labor. He was adamantly opposed to illegal immigration because illegals flooded the work market and drove wages down. He reported anyone of questionable status he found to INS.

Sure, someone who comes here legally could rape someone. If they have no prior record, we would have no way of knowing that. But some (maybe only a few) of the people who sneak over here DO have a previous history of crime that might raise a red flag. Without them going through the proper channels, we have absolutely no way of knowing this.

If it is ok for a company in the US to require a background check before someone can work for them, it should also be ok to require a background check before we allow someone to become a citizen. That's not fear. That is common sense.

But if they weren't here you would. Or you'd see machines picking the artichokes. If there wasn't a large supply of people willing to work under the table for very low wages either the farmers would pay more to attract workers (and we'd pay more for artichokes) or the farmers would find ways to pick the artichokes with the labor available (through efficiencies and automation).

So, instead of "these people are working the jobs that Americans don't want" maybe it is "these people are supressing wages to the point that they become jobs Americans don't want." Is it really amazing that in parts of the country without a large number of illegal immigrant these jobs that "no American wants" still get done. Why is it mildly shocking to eat in a restaurant in Minnesota and see the tables bussed by white people?

The issue of the people who have been in this country illegally for a long time is the part that really screws up this debate. I think most people agree that strong border enforcement is a reasonable governmental function. What do we do with the people already here? Is it fair to deport a 22 year old who came to the country with her parents when she was 3 and has known no other home? No, not really. But is it fair to give her citizenship and jump her ahead of the millions of people trying to do it through proper channels? No, not really.

I don't really have a problem with amnesty of those already here. Not as a general concept. The problem is that it creates an incentive for people to come here illegally in increasing numbers. All they have to do is get here and hide long enough and eventually they'll be made legal. It happened in the aftermath of the last amnesty and reports are that illegal crossings are up since the recent talk of new amnesty has begun. There isn't an easy answer and no matter what policy is enacted it is going to be unfair to a large number of people.

The reason why it was wrong to do was because these people had not broken any laws and were here legally. During the war, would it have been wise to let a million Japanese cross our border without any checking whatsoever? Would we have been wrong not to do so?

I lived in Monterey, CA for 3 years or so. My commute took me through a artichoke field every day. Anytime there was something to harvest, there were illegal immigrants out there picking these crops. I'm thinking that these guys did the markets some good by picking these crops. No one else would do it. I think they're doing a good thing.

(Tangent: In fact, I spoke with a school teacher in Carmel about this. I told her that if I were running her school, I'd make it a requirement for the kids to do one day of labor in one of these fields to see how hard it actually is. She thought it was a good idea.)

Yes, they take the job of someone American and legal who could do it. But I find it hard to believe that there are stacks of applications that were overlooked at the foreman's desk. If these guys didn't pick these crops, the business would take itself to South America and veggies would have to be shipped over here. I think that's worse for our country.

Can you continue on this thought to help explain its relevance to the illegal immigration debate? Not being snarky, just not getting what you mean.

I think it would have been completely appropriate to view illegal Japanese immigration as a threat during WWII. I don't see anybody advocating any kind of poor treatment for legal immigrants in the current debate.

I haven't really spoken a lot about this topic here. I'm going to divulge a bit further in to my thoughts on this.

If someone snuck across the border, got a job (whatever job it is as long as it's legal), is supporting him/herself, and their family (if they have one) and not sucking the life out of our social programs (welfare, food stamps, wic) then I don't have a huge problem with them being here. Yes, they are illegal, yes, they should have gone through the proper channels, but at this stage in the situation they are making a living, support themselves, being productive and probably doing work that no one who is here legally would want to do anyways. They may not be paying taxes but they are making an effort to truly make a better life for themselves.

If someone snuck across the border, is not making any effort to support him/herself, and their family (if they have one) and has signed up for our social programs (welfare, food stamps, wic) then they need to leave. They are not contributing to our tax dollars and are taking advantage of our programs.

These opnions go for anyone who is here illegally. Our social programs are strained enough without people who are here illegally taking advantage of them.

Am I really going to trust border security to properly screen someone when they can't even keep people out?
The sudden emphasis on this now is fear. Common sense should have been used for decades now and wasn't.

As Alex pointed out, innovation and invention can take the place of field workers when economically feasable.

I wish I could remember the details of this.....about 40 years ago there was a strike in California of tomato pickers. At that point in time no one had yet developed a machine that could pick them and it was not practical to spend the money to do so. During a threatened strike by tomato pickers, a farmer worked with existing fruit picking machines and developed one that could pick tomatos without crushing them.

Since the labor was going to cost more, the machine was developed, and there was no longer a need for tomato pickers.

I would suspect that automation is possible for a lot of these job when wage demands escalate.

Growing up in Southwest Washington strawberries were the big crop and they came to harvest just as school got out for the summer. Pretty much every kid I knew put in time at the fields getting their $.50 per flat and finding out just how hard the work was. I think I was 13 the first time my mom woke me up at 6 a.m. and dragged me out the strawberry fields.

GC, at what point do you think our minimum wage laws, workplace protection laws, and employee right laws should be discarded to prevent an industry from leaving the country? Where we will then protest the corporations use of underpaid foreign labor without the basic protections we grant in the United States? And did you ever think you'd end up on the same side of an issue as evil corporations?

Not necessarily. These businesses would just do what Wal*Mart is doing. Go to where they can find cheap labor.
I think if it is made clear that this is amnesty for people here already, but after a certain time they could be held as felons would be ideal. However, how do you prove who got here when? That's the tough part.. I think it won't be seen as an incentive if the rules are strictly enforced after that.

Maybe you wouldn't see wage increases or automation and the industry would move elsewhere. But so? I don't see how low-wage unprotected workers is worth the tradeoff for cheaper local artichokes.

The point you raise about amnesty is one that a lot of people raise. And that is why they want to see an period of strong enforcement before amnesty is discussed. When Reagan did his big amnesty back in the '80s the promise was the it would mark a new age of strict border enforcement. Obviously that didn't happen and a lot of people came in (post amnesty illegal immigration is much higher than pre-amnesty) hoping for another amnesty at some point down the road. That amnesty was also supposed to be one-time thing for the ones already here.

Obviously, since we're discussing it again, "one time thing" is hard to enforce on the future.

I agree with the points you've made here. But I am not seeing the whole story get discussed

I hope you reserve as much criticism for the businessmen who hire "these people", in violation of our laws, as you do for the illegal immigrants themselves.

I think you probably do, but that doesn't seem to get discussed NEARLY as much.

Part of what needs to be fixed is more funding and more agents. The system is obviously completely overwhelmed at the moment and has been for some time. But that isn't really the issue here. The issue is, should we just allow anyone into this country with no safeguards whatsoever? Why even have a legal process if there is no penalty whatsoever for sidestepping that process?

The only "sudden" part of this is that politicians are now seeing that people are pissed off about this and the media sees a story that people are interested in. But this didn't become important to me because CNN started covering it. It has been one of my many gripes with this and former administrations for a long time. You are absolutely right, things should have never come to this point. We should have been taking this seriously for a long time and we didn't and we are paying a price now.

If there are fear tactics being used, they are the "nobody would ever do these jobs but illegal immigrants." There is no truth to that statement. An accurate statement would be "nobody is willing to do this work at the wage being offerred to illegal immigrants." Offer someone 10 bucks an hour to do this work and you would see that pile of applications materialize in a heartbeat.

Years ago, when I lived on Long Island, we had two family friends that were both landscapers. They supported their family by doing this and they did the work themselves. I'm sure that they were paid more than $4 an hour but they had plenty of work and didn't go out of business. People were willing to pay whatever they charged or they didn't use their services. I'm having a hard time understanding why it worked then but could never possibly work now.

I think that's cool.
I don't think those things should be compromised to prevent someone from leaving. I think it would be up to the consumer to see if they'd put up with that kind of thing. They don't seem to mind going to Wal*Mart to buy their cheap clothes and lawn furniture, they probably wouldn't mind if Earthbound Farms moved their crops to South America...
I don't know if I'm on the side of big corporations. But I do see your point. I keep thinking that these people have to work somewhere. Ideally, if they got here the right way things would be perfect. However, we enabled them to be here by being shoddy with our border security. So what happens next? They work nowhere and starve. Then you'd have the thieves and rapists. There needs to be some inbetween place for these people. There isn't.

I reserve more criticism for the employers than for the illegal immigrants. I understand why the illegal immigrants are here and didn't wait in line to do things properly. There is an underlying nobility in motive for why most of them do it.

Penalties for employers should be swift and severe. I'll be happy to talk about that too, but this has been about what to do with the people already here and the people crossing over.

I wonder, how would turning illegal immigration into a felony hold up to ex post facto scrutiny?

I agree with all of this as well. Certainly, the demand is the main issue. Make strictly enforced penalties for the corporations that hire illegals and it will go a long way towards fixing this problem.

Believe it or not, I didn't see cheap artichokes in Monterey. They're the same price here. The only way to get cheap prices is to go to a veggie stand somewhere by Moss Landing or something. The Ralph's artichokes were just as expensive as here.
I think the problem is when to start it and how. I think giving people a deadline to become citizens or else is an idea, but it seems brutal. I mean, deporting people by the truckloads is scary to me.

I would think it would hold up pretty well. "Illegal Immigration" is an ongoing criminal act. It isn't something you did once in the past and that's it. I would think this also precludes statute of limitation type arguments as well.

No, the discussion is good and I don't want to derail it.

Just call it a pet peeve of mine. So many times I see the immigrants roundly criticized and the lawlessness of the employers ignored.

We haven't had huge penalties in the past. It's a little late to start it now. Especially when people have been here for ages. I mean, some people are here and don't know of any other place that is home. Kids that come here when they're small, grow up here and are illegal. What are you supposed to do, kick out someone to Mexico when all they know about life is in Southern California? That doesn't seem fair either.

Saying that you want this to happen because of accountability is different from saying you want this to happen because one of these people might be a terrorist.

But why is there a focus on it? Fear.
I see your point on this.

But, isn't the idea that many health care facilities are closing because they are completely overwhelmed by illegal immigrants also scary? What about the strains on the educational system when schools are so strained by the influx of illegals that they can't provide an education to those who have a legal right to be there? Ask any teacher in southern Ca. if illegals are hurting their ability to teach and you will get a resounding yes. These teachers are on the front line and I believe what the ones I know have told me.

It's a criminal act that nobody focused on for awhile. Now that we realize it's a problem and it's a little too late.

But again, I don't see our nation crumbling because of the illegal immigration problem. And I just drove across country, there's a lot of land for these people so saying there isn't room isn't correct either.

I think corporations should pay people more to pick crops. They should give them the benefits and retirement opportunities that they deserve. They should be accountable for hiring illegal aliens. But what happens to these illegal workers once the work is gone for them? They go nowhere.

These facilities should be further funded by our government. It's the government's fault that they are here. The concern for these people should be there now, because the concern wasn't there while they were crossing.
Health care, poor education, our country's security... are the illegal aliens to blame for all of these things? Maybe in part, but not totally. Our health care system sucks, our schools suck, if illegal aliens are our explanation for all of these things then that explanation is a cop out.

Our government and our leaders didn't want to focus on affordable health care, they didn't want to focus on education, they didn't want to spend the money on border control and security... Now it's biting them in the butt. They don't pay attention to things until it's too late. Now they have a huge problem to fix. So what's the answer? I don't know. All I know is that I can very easily put myself in an illegal alien's shoes. If I were an illegal alien, I would want someone like a Gemini Cricket to have a little bit of sympathy for my plight.

I don't know what ex post facto scrutiny is, but when I find out, I'll respond.
:)

I don't think illegal immigrants will topple the United States. But that doesn't mean I don't think it is an issue to be addressed. A lot of people have been focusing on it for a very long time, I don't see their efforts as invalid just because it took a decade to get press attention.

If I use a flimsy lock on my garage and some teenager moves in there, at what point am I obligated to call him son?

And I too have driven across the United States many times. I suppose we could ship all of the illegal immigrants to Wyoming but what exactly would they do there? There's a reason they mostly end up in our big cities. Saying that they don't cause a crowding problem in LA because there is a lot of room in North Dakota isn't addressing the issue.

This is a situation that I am faced with regularly. I own my own business and over the last couple of years have seen many of my clients turn to China to get the work done that I used to do. I have contemplated closing down many times because the work that was once plentiful is now practically non-existant. And if that happens, I am on my own. It is my responsibility to come up with a back-up plan and if I don't, I'm screwed. Life isn't always fair.

I feel very bad for these poor people but if by fixing the system, they have to find another way to support themselves, then that is what they have to do. There are no easy solutions to any of this. All we can do is try to determine what is best for our country. And no matter how I try to wrap my brain around it, allowing 12 million people to overwhelm our social services, with no repercussions whatsoever for breaking the law is not the solution.

I don't think ex post facto is a problem here. If the crime was only crossing the border illegally, then you couldn't change that one act to a felony. They have already committed it, it is a misdemeanor, and it can't be changed to a felony. However, residing in the country illegally is ongoing. So while living here illegally yesterday may not have been a felony, there is no reason why living here illegally tomorrow can not be one regardless of when someone came in.

Oh, well I feel bad for their plight. I understand their life is hard and frequently unpleasant.

I also feel that way about the local homeless guy but I'm still going to kick him out of my garage (if I had one) if he tries to move in. I'm even going to kick him out if it turns out he's been living there for a while and it was all my fault for using a flimsy lock on the door.

I never said they were the sole explanation. I know you know me better than that. Still, the burden that illegal immigration causes is real and it increases daily. It cannot be overlooked.

Which implies that I don't have sympathy. To be fair, I don't think you are really suggesting that but the fact is, I can very easily put myself in their shoes. Like I've said repeatedly, I don't blame them. I completely understand why they do what they do and I feel very sorry that they are in the position they are in due the fact that they live in an amazingly corrupt country that frankly doesn't give a damn about them.

But the United States cannot afford to fix every problem that is created by another country. The best we can do is allow a process for those who want to come into our country legally have a way to do so. We have always done this and I suspect, always will. The problem is that our government has been doing what is best for the corporations and not what is best for its citizenry. Both political parties are beholden to the corporations and that is why this problem is as bad as it is.

I'm really trying to put myself in the shoes of the immigrant but am having a difficult time with it because, a) my family immigrated a LONG time ago and b) my inlaws immigrated post WW2 from Deutscland when things were just a bit different. I wish I knew more about what my inlaws went through. I know there was a bit of flying by the seat of their pants and they went to Canada first before coming to the US. But, both became citizens and a part of the human economy.

The other illegals I have personally know are my Mexican BIL and a friend who is Irish and a chef for Patina trying to stay in the US on an expired green card. I don't begrudge either one of them for wanting to live here. But, both contribute to out economy in varying degrees. I guess that's what becomes the division for me - contribute or leave.

Anyways, I'm babbling about something I know very little about. blah blah blah.

heh-no worries. I'm on the right on some things- left on others, and middle on some. So no offense taken-

(though I am to the RIGHT of GWB on many things ;) )

It does seem that many Americans forget that these illegals are here by corporate invitation, doesn't it?

That's a myth.

I was just recently doing some research on this as it affects LA County, but I don't have the data here at work. I'll post the actual numbers (and their sources) tonight when I get home, but here is what I remember of the top of my head:

About 2 million uninsured persons in LA County (out of a population of 10 million).

There are aproximately 800,000 illegal aliens in LA County, of these, about 50,000 are on Medi-Cal (receiving emergancy room and pregnancy related services only).

So, out of the 2 million uninsured in LA county, only about 750,000 - or 37.5% - are illegal. And that is assuming that none of those 750,000 have some other type of coverage.

So, are we going to persecute the 1.25 million legal aliens and citizens who are uninsured and clogging-up the health care system, as well?

Um, how does what you said contradict what what you quoted?

Decrease it by the 37.5% and I bet they aren't as overwhelmed.

The legal aliens and citizens are breaking no laws by accessing those services. Those who are here illegally are breaking laws to access those services. Big difference.

If I am having dinner with my family of five and two uninvited people come in (an increase of 40%, so close to what you've posted), they may not be eating as much as my family as a whole, but it sure puts a drain on the food budget.

That illegals aren't the boggeyman. You can't blame all of society's woes in illegals. You might as well claim that the high gas prices are the fault of the illegals. Or earthquakes, or sunspots.

No, it's more like you have 7 uninvited guests, but you only like 5 of them, so you blame running out of food on just the 2 you don't like and ignore the 5 you do.

Not blaming illegals for all of society's woes does not change the fact that illegals due contribute to the woes of our society when in fact they should not be a part of our society.

That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever read in my life. Seriously.

I'd like to clarify that I didn't mean you. At all.
:)

If I have 7 uninvited guests it doesn't matter how many of them I like. They all have to get out because I'm not running a *&!!$^# restaurant.

I bet you meant me. You hate me, don't you? You think I'm right wing scum.:)

My point, which everyone either doesn't get, or chooses to ignore, is that people are demonizing illegal aliens, making them scapegoats for all of society's problems. Illegals are not to blame for all of our problems. Things are never that simplistic.

Honestly, I don't think I can go on debating this subject. Whenever I do, I get so angry and frustrated. People are making monsters out of these people. What's next? Concentration camps? History has told us that the next step after de-humanizing a people is genocide.

I just can't understand the hate, veiled and blatant, that I see in society right now; hate directed towards illegal aliens, legal aliens, and Hispanics alike. These are human beings we're talking about!

I appreciate the clarification, GC. :)

To add some more fuel to the debate fire, I came across this...

Actually, if you reread this thread, you'll see that people who hire illegals, the corrupt Mexican government, and our own government for a lack of border control, are at the top of the list with the illegals themselves coming in after that.

It isn't an issue of hate. I don't get why you don't see that.

No, I barely think about you at all. :D

I'm joking. I don't think you're scum and I don't hate anyone. You know that. Although, I think I hate that girl that won that lifetime pass to all the Disney parks...

I didn't mean anyone was being insensitive. I was feeling like people don't think about how crappy it would be to be working hard in those fields and then to come home and hear that people want to classify you as a felon.

Once I took a shuttle from Monterey to San Francisco. The shuttle was filled with people. This lady next to me looked out into a field filled with workers from the shuttle window and said to her husband, 'Oh look at that. Just like a Steinbeck book. People working the fields. How romantic.' I just about crapped myself. I thought, 'Romantic? Lady, do you have any idea what it's like doing what they're doing?' I of course bit my tongue. How I wished I could have grabbed that Filet-o-Fish out of her hands and pushed her into an artichoke field and made her pick veggies for a day.

Who here has ever said that illegals are monsters or that they can't sympathize with their plight. I fear you are reading far more into what people are saying than what they are actually saying.

What hate has been expressed towards anyone here? Seriously. Nor has there been one criticism of legal immigrants, regardless of which country they are from.

You are trying to stereotype anyone with immigrations concerns as a racist and a supporter of concentration camps and genocide. At that point, I can't take your arguments seriously and that saddens me.

Where is the hate towards legal aliens and hispanics in general?

You offer only two reasons people don't get your point. Either we're too simple-minded to get it or we're willfully ignoring it. Perhaps you just aren't very successful at making your points? You're seven uninvited guests example, for example, wasn't very good.

The correct analogy would be you planned a dinner for five invited guests. Two uninvited people showed up and insisted on eating with us. Yes, I'm going to blame those two uninvited people if there isn't enough food to go around. I'm also going to blame you for not insisting that they leave the table. That isn't hate. That also isn't racism.

I don't hate illegal immigrants. I also don't hold them responsible for all of societies ills. But that doesn't mean that they don't contribute in part or in entirety to some of societies ills. And even if they contributed not at all to any problems and lived quietly in quaint little enclaves where they made attractive shoes and invited me to all of their birthday parties, I would still be opposed to illegal immigration.

From Dictionary.com
True - There is a large population of people in SoCal, AZ and TX who are here illegally from Mexico.
True - There is a large population of people in NY who are here illegally from S.E. Asian countries.

If being anti-illegal aliens makes someone racist against Mexicans then it also makes them racist against Asians.

But my original question was never answered: Are all the Mexicans who are against illegal immigration from Mexico racist? So now Mexicans are racist against Mexicans?

I curious what the alternative would be. If deportation is the wrong policy, what is the right policy? No immigration limits at all? No immigration limits for people from countries where the average income is less than here? A policy that says you should apply through official channels but if you can get here without that you can stay? Something I haven't thought of?

Not enough mojo to go around.

I keep reading "If decapitation is the....".

Don't make me start referencing snowcone concessions in this thread, too!

You know every year tre population in California grows from people moving here from other states - why do we let this happen unchecked? I bet many of the homeless were born in other places, they just came here to get out of the cold. Maybe we should deport people back to the dust bowl?

Conversly, imagine the dent we could possibly make in helping the homeless, who are our citizens, if the illegal immigration process did not strain every social service we have.

Now granted, I'm not saying that if we didn't have an illegal immigration problem, we wouldn't have a homeless problem, but it seems logical that we could improve their situation.

You must spread some Mojo around before giving it to Prudence again.


:D

Unfortunately, that isn't true. Every year since 1990 or so has seen a net domestic migration out of California (here are the numbers; you can get them from the source at the U.S. Census web site but it requires more poking around and search queries as near as I can tell).

Since 1990 the entire population growth of California has been from internal reproduction, legal foreign immigration, and illegal foreign immigration.

So Condoms must be our first line of defense

I was thinking more along the lines of "kill the breeders" or at least forced sterilization. Just think how much better Disneyland would be if they stopped filling the place up with kids.

Actually, one thing that is interesting in those numbers is that even though the total population of California is about 50% higher than in 1981 the total number of births and deaths isn't all that much higher. That has nothing to do with immigration. Just found it interesting.

Best (i.e., worst) line of the day yesterday. In response to the report in USA Today that the government has been collecting entire databases of phone call data, Senator Jeff Sessions from Alabama had this to day:

"Let's talk about this in a rational way. We are in a war with terrorism."

Am I the only one who sees how absolutely ridiculous that statement is?

The 'war on' slogans bug.

'The War on Terrorism'
'The War on Drugs'
'The War on Christmas'
'The War on Illiteracy'

Bleh. These are labels for events without end.

But to say we are at war with terrorism and then call it rational sounds funny.

To call for rationality, and the immediately play the "fear" card is...well...irrational.

Not to respond to the comment, but to the story.

Very deep in the USA today article, it is noted that no names or content of the calls - in other words, this database includes no recording of the conversation - are kept.

My point isn't that this is good or bad....only that I believe the story and headlines are intended to make it seem as if every call is being recorded and monitored. This is not the case.

I heard and read dozens of reports about it yesterday...every one of them mentioned that it was just phone numbers. I don't think there was an attempt to bury that.

And now, the White House is trying to block civil liberty cases from even reaching the courts under the guise of "national security" and "confidential information". What a GREAT way to erode civil liberties...just do it and then say imply that anyone who questions it is a traitor. I mean, it's not like the judicial system was set up as a part of a system of checks and balances or anything.

The reason this is going to be an even bigger problem for Bush than the warrentlesss wiretapping is that Joe America never made a phone call to al Queda, but he does make phone calls.

It doesn't matter so much that the conversations weren't tapped, but that they are invading what Americans perceive to be their privacy rights - on MILLIONS of Americans. That spells Trouble with a capital "T."






And with five years since the last foreign terrorist attack on American soil, 8 years before that, and um, never before that ... this is looking to most Americans - I daresay - less lilke a "war" and more like the individual criminal acts they truly are.

Yeah, it was reported. Probably the conspiracy theorist coming out in me.

I just think that the vast majority of news readers read the headline and perhaps the first paragraph. When I see the headlline "NSA keeping a huge database of phone calls", I don't think just the number, I think the entire conversation.

You may consider this to be probelmatic, and I don't care much about polls, really, but I don't think there will be much of a problem, as a very recent poll based on this story showed 65% of people don't care.

I don't. Really. Because phone records are up for sale. You can go to any number of websites and buy cell phone logs. It's legal. Phone call data is far from private.

I need to know why the NSA wanted the information and how they use(d) it before I decide if I'm upset that they have it (though my assumption is that I'm not going to like it).

I am, however, upset that AT&T, Verizon, and the other one would just hand it over without forcing a subpoena or warrant.

I'm also firmly behind the idea that the construction "The War on X" should only apply where values of X are country names. Or at least specific political organizations.

So you would be fine with the "War on Terror" if it was redefined in several terms such as "War on Al Qeada" and "War on Hamas" and "War on Islamic Jihad" and "War on terrorist organization du jour"?

I'd be better with it. "War on Terror" is a war against a method. You can't defeat a method. And the most dangerous thing to a liberal democracy is a perpetual open-ended state of war.

The government rightly gains power at the expense of civil liberties in a time of war. It is therefore in the best interests of the unscrupulous to maintain a state of war. When you fight a specific thing there becomes a point at which war is a charade not easily supported (if we're fighting a nation and they stop fighting or officially surrender for example). Fighting a concept offers no such easy resolution.

The United States has spent most of the last 60 years at war with concepts. From 1945-1990 we were in a Cold War with communism. The civil liberty ups and downs of that conceptual war waxed and waned but generally suffered from us not having excuses to kill people (except for two sub periods in Korea and Vietnam). Fortunately for us, over time communism came to equal Russia. If it hadn't we could still easily be in a war with Communism.

The war on terror similarly is a conceptual war. Even if we killed every person who cast a pondering eye towards Al Qaeda, interested parties will always be able to find other groups on whom to continue a war. Because the method of terrorism will always exist. It has always existed. It isn't like "terrorism" is something that popped into existence on September 11, 2001, and can be put back in its box. It wasn't even invented in the 20th century or in the last two millenniums.

So yes, I'd be more happy with individual wars labelled as you describe. At least rational discussion can be made about whether we should be at war with Hamas but not Islamic Jihad or whatever. War powers are a very big hammer, and for those who make a profit selling hammers it is a huge incentive to define everything as a nail. And fighting a concept or method makes that way too easy.

I think that's a distinction without a difference, though. Will every terrorist organization go away? No. When one dies, another will rise in its place. Because as you rightly point out, terror is a method. There will always be organizations that employ that method.

So I see it as open ended no matter how it is named. Calling it a "war on terror" by default means that we do not accept terror as a method from anyone and will act to defeat organizations and/or countries that employ such methods.

OH NO! The NSA will know that Ubergeek and I talke every day!

I want to apologize for my outburst yesterday. It was a combination of a very frustrating day at work and the fact that the immigration issue gets me very emotional (why, I don’t know). I’m better now, but I’m going to avoid that particular debate from now on.

That being said:

I agree completely!

millenniums?

That's cool. We all have bad days. No big deal from my standpoint, JW. But for some reason I have this evil urge to poke at you and say we were discussing illegal immigration, not immigration.:evil: :) But I would never do that!

But obviously that is not true. We have taken no action against most of the terrorist organizations in the world. This has not been a "war on terror." It has been a war against specific entities but by labelling it a war on terror we avoid the appropriate discussion.

There is a huge distance between "we oppose the use of terrorism as a tactic and will not support any organization that does (but know that we define terrorism as a case by case basis as defined by our personal interests)" and "we are at war with terrorism."

As I said, "war" gives the government powers it wouldn't otherwise have. And a war without end gives them those powers permanently. If the IRA gets back into business tomorrow, are we going to invade Ireland to battle the foe of "terrorism?" No. Because we're not at war with terrorism. That is just a label used as a tool. Are we going to invade Spain to snuff out the Basque separatists? East Timor? Chechnya? No, because we're not really at war with terrorism.

If somehow we go to war with Iran, will it be a war against terrorism? No. But it will be labelled that way because it gives the government the most power with the least effort. I supported (and still do) the war in Iraq, but it wasn't a war on terror.


It is a distinction with a huge difference. Because it is using vagueness as a tool to prevent examination.

???????

I was listening to Stephanie Miller on the way to work today. She had a caller who suggested that we all throw words like “al-qaeda” and “terrorist” randomly in to our everyday phone calls in order to bog down their phone tapping system. (supposedly, there is a computer that scans phone calls for certain words and phrases.)

Well. I thought it was funny……

Yes, millenniums.

It is surprising to me, but having just looked, Merriam-Websters lists millenniums as a valid plural form. So I'm going to now claim that I knew this all along.

Yeah, I can agree with that.

Personally, I don't think you need to apologize. Frustration is frustration. Vent it.
:)

I might add... If the administration is so gung-ho on fighting terrorism, why is Bin Lauden still at large? Why is he not priority #1?

I see your REAL point of view by your typo, JW. You see Bin Laden as someone to be Lauded, and thus you have called him "Bin Lauden".

I'm just kidding. I'm bored at work and goofy.

I think it has to do with his relevance on the scene at present. I don't think he's calling the shots anymore. Would we love to have him? Oh yeah. Is it worth spending all of our resources on if we don't believe he is doing anything at present that can cause us more harm? No.

So, everyone call me so I can say the magic words.

Somehow fu<king with this whole ridiculous things sounds fun to me.

I read that as Bin Lauder. "Osama by Este Bin Lauder - The fragrance for your special cave moments."

You Rock!

If the data mining operation is just a bit of harmless fun then the Bush administration should have no problem allowing those of us who don't want our phone records turned over (sold?) to the self-appointed morals police to opt out of their little program. Call it the no-spy list.

I deserved that. :blush:

I don't understand why they wouldn't get a pen register for this info. Did they? I haven't actually been following this story. Pen registers are super easy to get. At least according to what we studied, which is but a narrow part of the whole topic, the reason they're easy to get is that it's considered "public" info - but the gov't is still supposed to get judicial approval.

When did fvck and the n-word become acceptible to say at work?

As in my co-worker is on the phone with his wife saying something about this guy always pulling the f-in n-word sugardaddy bullshyt.

I have found that those who use profanity in the course of the average daily conversation lack the vocabulary to express themselves and must add it for emphasis.

What the f*@# are you talking about!?! ;)

Around the same time that the rest of our society's manners and sense of appropriateness went flying out the window. I won't deny cussing like a sailor at certain times, but I know when to filter myself. I recently attended a graduation ceremony and was completely appalled by the behaviour exhibited my 80% of those in attendance.

I cuss up a storm when Deadwood is on the air.





Yes, I know it's on a cable channel and is never "aired," but it sounds better that way.


Um, oh, politics? Well, I don't so much mind when civilians curse. But, since I, too, generally think of it as a lack of vocabulary skillz and a bit rude ... I deplore public figures (*cough*Cheney*cough*) who deploy vulgar speech in public situations.

Blame it on Scaeagles- works for me!;):D

No shyt!

I compare swearing to tobasco sauce. A little bit in some types of dishes improves flavor. If you dump it on everything you lose the ability to taste food without it.

I'm French. We have to swear, or we go all postal and stuff.

Here is why Fox "News" is the worst news channel on the planet. This is from MediaMatters.org regarding 'The Big Story' with John Gibson:
Source

"We" need to make more babies. "We" means white people. Some people can claim that this immigration thing isn't about race, but for some people it most definitely is.
:rolleyes:

The only person on TV worse than John Gibson is Rita Crosby. And the problem with her is more that I'm always said thinking about how her parents must have had her vocal cords scraped when she was a child to prevent barking.

HA!

I read the article too and found it much more an indictment of the whole "zero poplulation" theories of the 60s and 70s and, if anything, a compliment to hispanics in that he wishes that All Americans emmulate what they are doing(having babies).

I don't much care if Latinos or the Chinese or whatever freaking ignorant people popping out too many babies become the majority population. Adding children to the 6-Billion-Plus planet population just for the sake of numbers is for retards only.

Can't go with you on that one sleepyjeff. The reason given for why whites need to have more babies is to keep browner people from gaining the demographic edge.

For this to be a valid reason presupposes that there is something bad about that outcome. I can't go along with that.

Also, he uses hispanic as a racial identifier which is a pet peeve and only reinforces his awfulness in my mind. I'm guessing John Gibson doesn't care if Caucasian Hispanics grow in numbers.

I must have missed where he said that....I watched the attached video twice and he never mentioned, in any way, that we must keep browner people from gaining any demographic edge. Maybe everyone is reading into what he said something I am not seeing:confused:

He ends his "word" saying So far, we are doing our part here in America but Hispanics can't carry the whole load.

Sounds to me like he is including Hispanics in our quest for more babies here not competing with them. ie; if you are on a baseball team you don't say "so far we are playing good here but their bull pen can't carry the whole load"...that's just plain nonsense babble. It would make more sense if the bull pen was on the same team.

To be honest I had just gone from the quoted material above. Having now read the whole thing I can only say it is stupider than I thought. At least the racist angle is a point of view that makes sense.

The one he is actually putting forward is just stupid.

'You must spread some mojo around instead of giving it to Alex, because he doesn't want mojo and prefers a person take their time and post an appreciative response, even if you are in a hurry and just popped in to check out the boards real quick.'


:D

We live in a society in which more and more it really doesn't make economic sense to have children. Before the Great Depression when one got too old to take care of oneself one relied on their children....but with social security and other programs one relies on children thru the intermediary of the Federal Government....if one has no children then one is relying on, in essense, other peoples children to take care of them.

This is why we need more babies and why it is anything but "retarded" to campaign for such.

The cynic in me thinks they're really talking about cannon fodder.

But we don't need more babies. John Gibson admits as much. Though he then says that the Hispanics can't keep providing enough of them. He doesn't offer any support for this idea.

Also, the reason Europe needs more babies is because they have exactly the huge government entitlement programs against which John Gibson is thoroughly opposed. So, the need for more babies to perpetuate next-generation-funded entitlements is only a sensible conclusion if you support the next-generation-funded entitlements. The lack of babies will bring about the end of the entitlements that Gibson already opposes.

Further, the true demographic change that is stressing American next-generation entitlement programs is not a falling birth rate (for we are still popping them out at more than replacement levels, even among the gringos) but an extending lifespan. If John Gibson really wants to save the entitlement programs that he so strongly opposes then rather than unprotected sex he should be advocting a Logan's Run policy (though perhaps at an age that would allow his continued existence).

All true..............and once again I have debated myself into a corner defending John Gibson;)

I will not be watching or listening the Presidential address this late afternoon/early evening. I have no reason to believe that Bush has any desire to control the border, and listening will simply make me.....ill. Temporary national gaurd troops on the border? Not going to do anything, unless they are stringing hunderds of miles and layers of razor wire.

Hey Leo, c'mon over and we'll not watch it together.

I am reasonably tan, as are my children. Do we not count?

No.

I wish to puke.

The Senate voted to allow illegal aliens to get social security benefits even if the benefits were earned using forged or stolen documents. :confused: Why? They committed a felony to get those benefits. I just don't get it. I stole a million and invested it. Years later I am caught. DO I get to keep the investment earnings?

Then, with all the shouts of "Energy independence! Energy independence!", the off shore drilling ban off the coast of Florida was extended.

That does remind me of a humorous story to make me less ill.....a few years ago, there was a photo of Ted Kennedy on his Yacht off of Cape Cod surrounded by a couple of scantily clad young ladies. Senator Ernest Hollings, upon seeing the photo, commented (and you have to know what he sounds like, because it's much better coming from his voice) "I thought Kennedy was against off shore drillin'."

So I'm guessing this is not the place to discuss my potential procreative-ness? Moving along...

Do you have something to tell us, missy?:eek:

To be fair; that ban has strong support from the President(but it does make sense to me a little; That area of Florida has about 3* million forms of life to every form found on the North Slope)



*number made up by me.

I don't care if the ban has strong support of the President.

To my understanding, and i have not done much research on it, off shore oil rigs become like artifical reefs and the natural sea life flourishes around it in a similar way, not unlike sinking a large ship which then becomes a pseudo-reef.

"Energy Independence" does NOT mean getting more oil. It means finding a better/cleaner long-term way to power all our toys. Hydrogen, Solar, Fusion, whatever.

The "oil rigs are good for nature" argument is ludacris. The way those platforms leak and sink can you really argue they are good for the environment?

A better long term solution is part of it, yes. The reality of the situation, though, is those things don't do what oil does yet. Therefore, we must do something to increase out own oil production.

I would also suspect that the new solutions will have their own setbacks. Take hydrogen, for example. What is the exhaust for hydrogen fuel cells? It's water vapor. In a community such as Phoenix, what does the daily commute do when water vapor is being put out by several hundred thoughsand cars? It would completely alter the desert ecology.

There is no panacea. I'm all for something better than oil. But there isn't anything yet. And it's not looking like there will be for quite a while.

Of course oil rigs can leak and sink. Oil tankers crash, too. The best one can do is to try to utilize sources in the best and cleanest way possible. However, not all oil rigs leak and not all oil rigs sink. They do take on properties of reefs.

I'm pretty sure that even if every home in Phoenix decided to boil water all day long, it couldn't possibly alter the desert ecology.
"Quick honey, run inside and dry off, your sweat is going to kill the box turtles!"

I kid because I love.

Do you have box turtles?

I love to fu cking swear. It's fun.

It's also an art- like with the Father in A Christmas Story.:D

I'm nowhere near as proficient as him, but I work on it daily.

Yet. Let gas get to $10/gallon and we'll see how fast "Yet" changes to "Now". It's not the government that will provide energy independence and it's not the rabid eco freaks either. It's the free market. The longer gas is held to artificially low levels (yes $3/gal is low) it will retard development of alternatives. So I say NO NEW WELLS, no new sources of oil, and let George fulfill his wet dreams by invading another oil producing country or two. Then let the market sort itself out and we'll be energy independent in no time.

I go back and forth on whether I'm okay with that path. On the one hand, I totally agree. Nothing will drive innovation like truly high gas prices.

On the other hand, because the price of oil/gasoline does NOT just affect how much we pay at the pump, I worry about the wide reaching effect on the overall economy being too much to bear. Increased fuel and engery costs will affect the price of every single good bought and sold in this country. Costs will go up in every single link of the supply chain, from manufacturing, to transportation, to warehousing, to the cost of running a storefront.

The increase in oil price has thus far been modest, all things considered, and suppliers have done fairly well to not pass off their increased costs to the consumer. But that won't last much longer. I guarantee that by the time we start seeing $5+/gallon at the pump, the cost of living in this country will start to take a serious hit. And I shudder to think what that will mean for the level of poverty.

What is too much to bear? We made it through the depression, WWII, 1987 stock market crash, .com bust, etc...

Hell perhaps if people had something REAL to worry about like how to get to work or how to put food on the table perhaps we'd stop pissing away billions on worthless programs like the Department of Homeland Security.

Well, I'm glad you're willing to sacrifice the bottom 30% of our country's wage-earners...I'd personally rather find a solution that doesn't involve mass poverty and starvation.

Free market....are you suggesting there is no monetary incentive to inventors and innovators at present to come up with the practical hydrogen fuel cell? They would get rich regardless of the current oil price. $10/gallon doesn't change that.

Considering that right now oil can be (and is being) excvtracted from the nearly limitless supply of shale in the rocky mountains at a cost of about $90/barrell, it is not practical to think that oil will ever get much above that. As the price of oil increases and the processes to extract that oil becaome more efficient and economical, more and more of our domestic supply will come from that source (until radical enviromentalists stop it :) ).

I suppose a tie-in to the illegal immigrant issue would be a bit much...

Not particularly. Look at hybrids. It seems like the companies should be making a fortune off of them, but they're not? Why not? Because the volume isn't there. And because the volume isn't there, the cost of manufacture, parts, and repair is high. And because those are high, the consumer doesn't save money by making the switch. So consumer adoption has been slow. It won't accelerate until it gets past that balance point (it's been about a wash to own a hybrid vs. a similar class traditional compustion engine vehicle for a few years now).

The same will be true for any alternate fuel solution. The cost of manufacturing, of implementing the infrastructure to support the technology (fuel stations, e.g.), and the cost of maintaining a vehicle with a new technology will be expensive compared to the ridiculously cheap production of tradictional vehicles. Therefore, owning one will remain expensive compared to traditional vehicles. So, adoption will remain slow until there's enough of a demand and infrastructure for those costs to drop below the costs of owning traditional vehicles. And one way that could be accelerated is with a significant increase in fuel cost.

Or to put it more succinctly, if gas were double what it is now, everyone would be buying hybrids.

I guess I don't see owning a hybrid as a form of energy independence. Still needs gas, though significantly less. I haven't run any numbers (nor would I really know how to in the instance), but while I'm sure if everyone owned a hybrid our need for oil would go down, it wouldn't make that huge of a dent in what we import. Energy independence means we don't import energy.

I'm suggesting there would be a MUCH larger market for fuel cell's and thus much more development if economic conditions changed to favor it.

So if we have ~$3.00/Gallon with oil at ~$70 per barrel then is it safe to assume we would see something like just over $4.00/Gallon if the price went to $90? Humm, you're right. That's not enough. Of course I doubt we have the production capacity to turn enough shale into gas for every car,truck,van,ship,plane,etc.. in the country.. It would take years to build that. By then we should have some real solutions.

(Edited to add: Damn you GD and your fast typing fingers too for getting this same basic argument out faster... )


Oh, and on a techie side note, the part of the equation that is missing is not efficient/affordable fuel cells, it's separating massive amounts of hydrogen from water cheaply/cleanly.

I didn't say that hybrids are a solution. But they are a good case study that shows that altruistic value is not enough to make a product sell. Economic incentive on the demand side is what will drive this country to a long term energy solution.

Agreed there. However, I wish politicians would see (and they most likely do, but they fail to address it) the immense risk to national security by importing so much of our energy (which is oil at this point). What happens if Iran decides to detonate a nuke in the Persian Gulf? Or Chevez of Venezuela pulls out of OPEC and decides to only sell oil to China?

The safest thing is to increase what we can produce domestically of the current market choice of fuel, which is oil. Barring off shore drilling, ANWR (and the estimates vary immensely on how much is there), and other such projects is just remarkably short sighted and risky.

The goverment should not, will not and most of all cannot effect this type of change. At least not in this country. Just look at what the Bush administration is doing with their "Freedom Car" initiative announced in the state of the union speech. All of the research dollars are going to major oil companies to research ways to create hydrogen using fossil fuels. Doh! Zippy is being spent to further development of clean alternatives such as solar and wind.

A congressman is under investigation by the FBI. He was on tape accepting 100K in bribes. He had 90K in his office in the fridge. There was a search warrant for the office signed by the judge.

The house leadership is upset about separation of powers.

What????????

Yeah, good one eh? Here's the Republicans' chance to get out from under the corruption label. A Dem pulling shady parkinglot briefcase handoffs. But all they're worried about is, "Oh sh*t, the Feds can search my office?!" (not saying the 'pubs are worse than the 'crats, just finding it ammusing to see where all congress's priorities lie)

That discussion needs to be had.

I am gratified to see Democratic leadership calling for his resignation.

I think the republicans don't want him to be punished at all so he can be the poster boy for them when hammered on corruption, and the dems do so that they can continue on their "culture of corruption", regardless of the fact that both parties have members that are corrupt.

It's a valid complaint, I think, even if the congressman is dirty as all hell. With a president using, in my opinion, too strong a definition of executive power the penetration of the executive into the legislative area should be strongly scrutinized.

I'm not saying that a Congressman should be able to avoid discovery by simply keeping all of the evidence in his office. But there should be a process by which the Department of Justice works with the Congressional leadership (with appropriate exceptions and ways allowing investigation of corrupt leadership) to ensure that such investigations are appropriately targetted and giving Congress the chance to seek judicial remedy if they feel there is a valid separation of powers issue (much like the White House first goes to court when arguing a documents subpoena from Congress.

I disagree. Having such a process would violate equal protection laws. Just because someone is a congressman does not mean that special consideration should be made in terms of consulting with the leadership. A judicial warrant is good enough to search my office. Should be good enough to search the office of a congressman. I see no separation of powers issue. I see bruised egos of the house leadership as the issue.

Then in that case Congress already violates equal protection laws. They are granted official immunity from legal responsibility for the results of their official actions. Similarly, as was highlighted recently, they can break many laws in the persuit of performing their official duties (they can speed -- or drive drunk -- so long as they are on their way to cast an official vote, for example).

It is not the person who is being treated differently, it is the institution. Similarly, a subpoena from Congress is sufficient to compel quite a lot of behaviors from you and yet the president would be immune from most of them.

I don't have time to look, but isn't that immunity from prosecution or civil action in the Constitution? I seem to recall that it is for the express purpose of not allowing endless lawsuits or criminal prosecution to paralyze that branch of office.

I think this country needs better looking politicians. A lot of them are bloody goofy.
:D

The Speech and Debate Clause (Section 1) is the only consitutional source of immunity and narrowly only protects congressman from arrest or harrassment while engaged "speech and debate" in a session of congress. This has been expanded a bit by the courts in the last 30 years. Other sources of immunity are all legislative, I believe.

But it appears that for this search (which was to seize documents that had been requested with no response) standard procedure was not followed. From the Department of Justice Criminal Resource Manual:

The big issue as I see it is that in such a search the Executive Branch would, almost by definition, have to search through reams of explicitly privileged materials to find the documents they are justified in possessing. I'm not saying that the congressman should have immunity from disclosure but that the executive branch should work with the congressional leaders, sergeants-at-arms, and Capitol Police to procure the items in question without otherwise violating the privelage of the Legislative Branch from intrusion by the Executive Branch.

A point of clarification.... The $90K was found in a freezer in his home, not in his office.

I'm sure that Hastert righteous indignation at this event is purely due to a love and respect for the constitution and is in no way motivated by the fact that he is also under investigation.

I'll bet if was to listen real hard I could hear the sound of the paper shredders on overdrive from here...

Why, Moon, I'm astonished at you for suggesting such a thing.

We must have drinks sometime ;)

Depends on the papers I guess. They served William Jefferson with subpoenas for the documents they were after several times before deciding to go in and get it themselves. Apparently he still hadn't destroyed them even.

If the Speaker of the House is part of the investigation then I think that would be an obvious exception situation. Though in this case I'm pretty sure it is a different investigation.

Just to be clear, I am not at all suggesting this search was inappropriatein scope or motive but it is a tool that could be easily misused by the executive to exert leverage over the legislature and it should, I think, go through cooperative channels in almost every situation (as the DOJ rules themselves say).

Apparently Hastert is not under investigation.

DOJ says Hastert not under investigation

In fact, Hastert wrote a letter to ABC warning of libel, because ABC ran with the story after the DOJ said he was not under investigation.

By the way, I hold no love in my heart for Hastert. He is a spineless leader picked because he was as non-controversial (at the time at least) as they had.

Based on the details I've read over the years I'm a bit surprised that the DOJ was so successful. But jury certainly got a better look at everything than I did so I'll assume they know better.

But it is a case where the most overtly criminal action (Andy Fastow's illegal side deals to enrich himself, which also triggered the cascade effect that brought Enron down) gets the least jail time because he rolled first.

For some reason, I was prepared to hear that they were going to get off on some technicality or something.

reeWHeeneeee eeeeeeIe eeeeeeeeeeheeeeeaereeeeedeeee eeeteheeiesee eneeeeeewe eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeteheeiese eemeeoeereneiee

^ That was Charlie's take on it.

For me, when I heard the new this morning I was driving and making a left hand turn. I "saw" the judge in Toad saying GUILTY!

Okay, now I understand. For a moment I was thinking it was in some sort of code. Too much DaVinci on the brain, I guess.
:D

I thought she was making another typo. An extreme typo, but a typo nonetheless.

The Mac is super flat and the cats think they can sit on it.

I think that it isn't a good idea to allow the DOJ to have the power to raid the offices of members of Congress. It gives the executive too much power over the legislative. IMO, the legislative branch should only be answerable to the people. Giving the executive that kind of power could lead to an intimidated and controled congress, and a president who is a dictator.

Without judicial warrant, yeah. With judicial warrant, no problem.

ETA: I would argue that the current two party system leads to intimidated and controlled legislators.....by their own parties. Withholding of campaign funds, support of a challange, etc, all largely beholden to voting the party line.

Of course, no President would everappoint judges who would do whatever they were asked to do by said President. Nope. Never. ;)

Very true.

Funniest thing I've read all day:D

:snap: :snap: :snap:

Capitol and House Office building shut down by air hammer?

I know I shouldn't laugh at this.

Bad Scrooge!

/resolve to try harder

Scrooge! I'm shocked!

(says scaeagles while snickering to himself as well)

Gotta love Harry Reid. He takes free ring side seats from the Nevada Athletic Commission while he is considering federal legislation on boxing.

If he comes out and says "It was poor judgement", I'd give the guy a break. But this is remarkable - and pretty stupid - spin.

(link to article quoted from)

So to understand the affect he has have $1500 ring side seats?

I could also see people complaining if he was involved with making decisions on boxing without doing some first hand investigations.

What I did have a question about was this comment

The states No. 1 Business? Boxing? I'll give you 10-2 odds that there is another (albeit somewhat related) business that would lay claim to the #1 spot in Nevada.

Red or Blue... they're all corrupt.
 

And we sit around twiddling our thumbs while we complain about corruption from those we send to Washington.


Bob Knight sez, "If rape is inevitable, you might as well lie back and enjoy it". Words to live by as far as the American electorate is concerned.

So you need $1500 ring side sets for first hand investigation? And more than once? I would suggest there might be differing ways to do such investigations.

I also will note that McCain was there. I am no McCain fan (in fact if it is Hillary vs. McCain in 2008 I have no idea what the hell I will do). At least he had the sense to pay for the tickets himself. While just having the opportunity to acquire such seats is a perk, it at least isn't as bad.

I didn't vote for him. I didn't vote for him twice.

Do you mean to suggest that it is even remotely possible that you would vote for Hillary as opposed to McCain?

What am I misreading here?

I'm not even thinking about the next presidential campaign, I am looking towards the interim elections where hopefully the Dems will take back congress.

I firmly believe in the old adage: "The government that governs best governs least" and a divided white house/congress is a very good step in that direction.

I don't think voting for someone means that you lose justification to complain about them.

I voted for Bush. Twice, though not in the 2000 primary (he ran unopposed in 04). I complain about things he does.

I voted for McCain. I have more than once, though never in a primary.

Often times voting is about the lesser of two (or more) evils. That was certainly the case with McCain. Often times people promise certain things during a campaign and reneg on those promises. I will complain about those things.